Similar posts

Tim Tony Stark Rifat #crackpot #conspiracy #magick #mammon rvscience.com

SEXUAL ORGASM PHALLIC PSYCRYSTAL
The SOPP is a crystal wand which has a biophysical matrix that is designed to combine the sex energies from sex PCs to release the energy of orgasm. The combination of opposites, the dialectic produces energy on a new level. In nature this orgasmic energy is used to produce the soul of humans, this soul force is the basic core of human beings. In the SOPP this soul force is used to clean, repair and invigorate the soul, the awareness that travels into the astral, lives after death and is the biophysical body’s substance. Use of the SOPP makes astral sex totally real as you solidify your astral as well as charging, exciting the sexual organs it is applied to. The SOPP can be charged in various ways:

1. Male and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
2. Male and male sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
3. Female and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs

To do this hold the point of the male or female PC against the round base of the crystal wand to discharge sex energy it has collected during the day from people, larvae, and archons. Keeping Sex PCs in your pocket while in a big city supercharges them from the people around you. If you live in the country visit the inner city.

1. Gives you a heterosexual orgasm
2. The gay orgasm
3. The lesbian orgasm

If you are into SM then the following protocols are needed for charging the SOPP with SM orgasmic energy.

1. Place the male Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a female Sex PC through the male Sex PC into the SOPP to flavour the female sex energy with masculine dominance to give the dominatrix energy place the female Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a male Sex PC through the female PC into the SOPP to flavour the male sex energy with female submission to give the male sex slave energy. Combine in one SOPP to produce the dominatrix orgasm in female and male sex slave orgasm in males. This gives us the normal heterosexual SM orgasms.

2. Repeat 1. but with the male against male Sex PC to give dominant master type of male; female against female Sex PC to give submissive sex slave female, combined to give male dominant heterosexual SM orgasm.

3. Repeat the above with the female male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give dominant lesbian dominatrix; female female Sex PC downloading into SOPP to generate lesbian sex slave; combine in SOPP to give lesbian type SM orgasm.

4. Repeat the above with male male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give gay sex slave; combined in SOPP to give gay typeSM orgasm.

1. Gives dominatrix/slave orgasms
2. Gives master/femslave orgasms
3. Gives dominatrix/fem slave orgasms
4. Gives master/male slave orgasms

This gives us the seven types of orgasm from which the 7 dark energy/matter inorganic being realms are derived and which the 7 BTRI psycrystals feed upon. To produce threesome, ménage a trios orgasms the following protocols are needed:

1. Male Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by female Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by male Sex PC downloading, to give two male and a female type orgasms of three in a bed.

2. Female Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by male Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by female Sex PC downloading, to give two female and one male type orgasms of three in a bed.

3. Three male PC downloading gives gay three in a bed orgasms

4. Three female PC downloading gives lesbian three in a bed orgasms

1-4 can be combined as threesomes simply by downloading an extra dominatrix (female male PC’s), master (male male PC’s), male slave (male female PC’s), fem slave (female female PC’s) to give all kinds of SM threesomes.

For four in a bed just repeat the above but add one more sexual partner’s energy, to reproduce all types of four in a bed orgasms. One need only have two supercharged Sex PCs if heterosexual, gays, lesbians and masters need more. Dominatrix heterosexual orgasms need only one male one female Sex PCs and balance the sex energies – this is my favourite type of orgasmic energy as one can fill oneself with it without going crazy, the other types is excess because they are imbalanced, can be destabilising in huge amounts. Normal heterosexual orgasms should be perfect but male energy is too female in the west, and female energy too male, the resultant mix therefore weak – poor orgasms. Making females more dominant and males to female submissiveness goes with the flow of consciousness in the west and as in Aikido not resisting by pushing the force in the direction tips the balance over producing the super explosive orgasms missing in the archon possessed humans. To experience the 22 types of sex simultaneously download all four Sex PCs into SOPP for all flavour orgasm. For those interested in orgies you can spend your time downloading five, six, . one hundred partners into the SOPP, just make sure you can handle one hundred simultaneous orgasms, gay, lesbian, SM or heterosexual or all types.

<only 600 dollars>

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.

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

asianwhiteworship #fundie asianwhiteworship.tumblr.com

(Remember cantfightnature? This shit is similar.)

The New Asian Sexuality

Preface

Asian males do not own Asian females or their sexuality. This toxic attitude has unfortunately led to the resentment and hatred of Asian women for simply expressing their desires and living their lives. This is about the development of Asian sexuality in the 21st century. By accepting and evolving to this new arrangement, Asian males can live more fulfilling lives in the process.

The New Asian Sexuality

Over the past decades there has been an evolution in Asian sexuality which has been bravely led by Asian women. The old pairing of AMAF has diverged, as many Asian women are now solely having sexual relations with White men. The WMAF pairing has become a sexual revolution for Asian women. More are choosing this as their sole sexual identity, and Asian women are more empowered than ever to express and own their sexuality in the way they prefer.
This development has led to enormous increases in promiscuity and sexual freedom. Many Asian females now have numerous white sexual partners throughout their lives, some having sex with tens or dozens of men. Asian females also feel empowered to regularly share White men with other Asian females. The new Asian sexuality has dramatically increased both the amount of sex and pleasure Asian women have on a regular basis.
This hyper-promiscuity is one of the biggest positive outcomes of the new sexuality. Asian women have been liberated from antiquated feelings of shame due to having large numbers of White sexual partners. They have more fulfilling and active sex lives than ever before. In addition Asian women in the 21st century have also become very confident and powerful in society. Attending top universities, filling many high corporate positions, and becoming wealthy and influential.
However some Asian men are resentful about this new arrangement for reasons that might seem justifiable on the surface, but are actually quite indefensible.

Asian Heterosexualism

Due to the success of Asian women the Asian male must now converge his own sexuality with the new reality. The disunity of preferences is what causes feelings of resentment. It cannot remain the case that only Asian women have a sexual preference for White men. This must become the preference of Asian males as well. Their sexuality must also now be based on the expectation of WMAF sex by default, like their women, and it must be supported and respected with care and understanding.
The new Asian male heterosexuality is still traditional in the sense that they are men attracted to women. This aspect has not changed at all, and requires no perceptible alteration of identity. The difference is the focus: The heterosexual Asian male must consider WMAF sex to be the new default arrangement. The heterosexual Asian male must derive sexual pleasure from Asian women having sex with White men. He must come to terms with the fact that he is the passive portion of this sexual triad, with the White male and Asian female being the active participants.

Sexual Preference Transition

One powerful and easy way for Asian males to defeat their toxic masculinity and develop into a supporting ally of Asian women is through extensive consumption of WMAF pornography.
Asian men already watch WMAF porn of course, but it is not done through the correct lense. Some see it simply as sex and entertainment, and do not consider the political and philosophical implications. They ignore a large part of the meaning of WMAF porn through a lack of comprehension: WMAF pornography is the purest depiction of the new Asian female sexuality.
Asian males must transform their preferences to match the evolution of Asian female sexuality. They must be one in the same or else conflict will arise. The Asian female will have sex with White men, that must be accepted. This act is where pleasure and satisfaction must be derived from. It is not acceptable or reasonable for the Asian male to expect any other arrangement.
When their sexuality is aligned with their women, then the toxic attitudes will cease. If both the Asian male and female can derive pleasure from the same act: WMAF sex, then they will find that it is easier to have harmonious relationships. The men will be accepting of a partner who wishes to maintain her sexual identity, and who will continue to have sex with White men.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Svarog123 #fundie reddit.com

There is nothing inherently harmful or immoral about having sex with children CMV

There are a number of arguments used by proponents of the prevailing cultural mythology on the subject:

1. Children are psychologically damaged by sexual activity

Sex is an inherently pleasurable activity- the claim that children are inherently "harmed" or "traumatized" by sex is demonstrably false, supported by no scientific research, and is essentially absurd, as children are not asexual (a point I will address later).

"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."

Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 34, 237-255.

The Rind meta-analysis is peer-reviewed, and its conclusion has not been discredited to date.

Often, when psychological damage does occur, it is not the result of the act itself, but rather the result of society's reaction to it:

Nelson's relationship marked "the happiest period of [her] life." "When I was a child I experienced an ongoing incestuous relationship that seemed to me to be caring and beneficial in nature. There were love and healthy self-actualization in what I perceived to be a safe environment. Suddenly one day I discerned from playground talk at school that what I was doing might be "bad". Fearing that I might, indeed, be a "bad" person, I went to my mother for reassurance. The ensuing traumatic incidents of that day inaugurated a 30-year period of psychological and emotional dysfunction that reduced family communication to mere utilitarian process and established severe limits on my subsequent developmental journey."

Sexologist Joan A. Nelson in Children and Sex, on her relationship with an adult cousin at 8 years of age December, 1981

In other words, if the prevailing belief was not that having sex as a child is the worst thing that could possibly happen, psychological issues stemming from childhood sexual experience would lessen drastically.

2. Children are essentially asexual

This is false. The orgasmic reflex develops in the womb:

"We recently observed a female fetus at 32 weeks' gestation touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested.

We observed this behavior for about 20 minutes. The mother was an active and interested witness, conversing with observers about her child's experience.

Evidence of male fetuses' excitement reflex in utero, such as erection or ?masturbation” movements, has been previously reported.

The current observation seems to show not only that the excitement reflex can be evoked in female fetuses at the third trimester of gestation but also that the orgasmic reflex can be elicited during intrauterine life. This would agree with the physiologic features of female sexuality: The female sexual response is separate from reproductive functions and doesn't need a full sexual maturity to be explicit."

Giorgi, Giorgio, and Siccardi, Marco (1996). "Ultrasonographic observation of a female fetus' sexual behavior in utero," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 3(1, part 1), 753.

"In a 1999 study of undergraduate students, 5.2% of females and 12.8% of males reported having engaged in sex play with their peers involving genital contact before elementary school, and that 1.3% of girls and 4.0% of boys had engaged in sex play involving anal/genital insertion (with objects or fingers) or oral-genital intercourse before elementary school. By the end of elementary school, the numbers increased to 29.2% for females and 32.9% for males for genital contact and 12.3 for girls and 10.1% for boys for insertion or oral sex. Very little pressure and almost no coercion were reported."

Reynolds, M.A., Herbenick, D. L., & Bancroft, J. (2003). The nature of childhood sexual experiences: Two studies 50 years apart. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual Development in Childhood (pp. 134-155). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

If children masturbate, orgasm, and have sex with each other, it is absurd to claim they are asexual.

3. Children cannot consent, and therefore having sex with children is rape, and we all know rape is harmful and immoral

Consent refers to the provision of agreement- if children are capable of initiating sexual activity, it is nonsensical to claim they cannot consent to it.

For example, in the animal kingdom, which has no taboo on childhood sexuality, sex between adult and children is common:

"Both adult males and females interact sexually with adolescents and juveniles (three-to-nine-year-olds). In fact, young females go through a five-to-six-year period sometimes referred to as ADOLESCENT STERILITY (although no pathology is involved) during which they actively participate in heterosexual mating (often with adults) but never get pregnant. Sexual behavior between adults and infants of both sexes is common - about a third of the time it is initiated by the infant and may involve genital rubbing and full copulatory postures (including penetration of an adult female by a male infant). (Biological Exuberance - 274)

Who is raping whom when the infant initiate sexual activity? Does the infant rape itself or does the adult rape the infant by not denying it sexual gratification?

3a. Children lack the ability to make informed consent

Sex is not some kind of complex and incomprehensible activity that requires a lot of knowledge to preform correctly- it is one of the simplest things in existence. Animals surely don't "understand" what sex is, yet it would be absurd to say all sex between animals is harmful or immoral.

5. This thread is disgusting and so are you.

This is not an argument.

Note that even though there is nothing inherently harmful about having sex with children, in our sex-negative culture, it very often is- see Joan A Nelson's quote above for an example. The harm did not come about from the sex itself, but from society's reaction to it- but regardless, it is still grossly immoral to risk ruining a child's life for the sake of an orgasm, even if the damage comes from iatrogenic sources.

So I'm not saying it's OK to have sex with children in this day and age- it most certainly is not. But the only reason it isn't is because of society's hysterical, unscientific, and maladaptive attitude towards this subject- if this were different, I see no reason why engaging in a harmless and mutually pleasurable activity with a child would be either harmful or immoral.

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

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.

AetherApologist #fundie reddit.com

It doesn't matter how many medical professionals claim sex with children to be harmful. No matter how many people say something is true, if evidence and reason prove them to be wrong, then they are wrong. There is no evidence and reason to back up the claim that sexual activity with children causes emotional distress irrespective of cultural conditioning.You show me such evidence, and I'll change my beliefs. Can you even say what evidence would change your beliefs? If it were proven that the violence you are a supporter of is the reason why children experience trauma from harmless sexual activity and that sex acts themselves do not inherently cause any degree of emotional distress whatsoever by way of showing that when punishments are not present there is no psychological harm but that when punishments are present there is psychological harm, would you change your beliefs? If it were really true that you cared that children were harmed, you would not support punishments for having sex with children if it were proven that punishments were the only thing causing them harm.

Are you aware that many religions believe choosing the wrong faith can have permanently negative consequences lasting all of eternity? Can a child make an informed decision about that? In order to justify the claim that engaging in sexual activity requires informed consent and that children can't engage in sexual activity because of their inability to provide informed consent, it would need to be true that there is some feature to sexual activity that makes it importantly different from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in such that informed consent is a relevant requirement. There is no scientific investigation that can be performed to confirm or falsify the claim that sexual activity requires informed consent because the belief is a moral one; it's not a fact about the world that can be checked to see if it is true. Moral beliefs require consistency to be able to justify their application. You cannot apply a moral belief in one case and not in another for no reason. If children shouldn't be allowed to engage in sexual activity because they can't give informed consent, then explain what makes it different from all the other things they do for which you believe informed consent isn't needed. Don't just say it's different; explain yourself.


Are you aware there is a power imbalance in literally every conceivable way between children and adults, and yet that doesn't make all the other things adults do with children wrong? In order to argue that a power imbalance makes sexual activity with children wrong, it would need to be explained what makes sexual activity different from all the other things children are brought to be involved in.


Because all people, without exception, can recall being forced into doing various things as children against their will and not being traumatized from it, it is impossible to make the argument that I am wrong to claim that unless a child is forced into something to the point of unbearable anguish, they aren't traumatized for it. You don't need to be a psychologist in order to explain human psychology, and you especially don't need to be a psychologist in order to make this claim.
Approaching someone while armed with the intent to forcibly confine that person into a prison cell and shoot and kill them if they fight back absolutely is violence. You are a supporter of that for pedophile sexual activity. Sexual activity with minors is not violent. In fact it's undeniably beneficial to them. You are a supporter of violence for non-violent activities.
Don't unjustifiably punish kids and pedophiles, dude.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

IBuildUFOs #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Hi to those of you here on godlikeproductions,


SELF ENERGY CONTAINED TURBINES

THE NEW ENERGY THAT COULD IMPROVE HUMAN LIFE


We are proud to announce that we are revealing a new type of energy source that we are calling "Self Energy Contained Turbines™ that are based on being the closest source to the energy known as the fusion energy technology. Understanding the fusion technology is very simple because it is based on an a scientific technology that is able to produces more energy then what it is capable of intake. In other word, we are dealing with the discovery of an energy source that produces more energy then what it is require to function. With the use of this energy it is going to be possible to produce massive amounts of inexpensive electricity to all of the humans in need around the world.

With the self energy contained turbines it is going to be possible to produce electricity any where in the world much more less expensive than any other source that is available today. With this new energy discovery it is going to be possible to provide electricity in any type of location where electricity might be needed.

Before we continue with more explanations of some of the great potential that this newly discovery energy is capable of providing, we would like for you to take a moment and view the video that we are providing so you are able to see the self energy contained turbine technology in action form.

To better understand how this new type of turbine system could help the human race throughout the world, let us point out the three main sources of electrical power that we have in the world today. One of the three main sources towards the production of electricity is the damming of a river and to use the accumulated water in the reservoir to make it flow downwards so the flowing water could in return spin the turbines that produce electricity, another system is electrical companies of which they burn either trash or coal, or other materials to heat water that is then turned into steam so the steam could spin the turbines that produce electricity, another source is nuclear power plants that use highly charged uranium rods that also heat water to produce the necessary steam that spin the turbines that produce electricity.

These types of electrical producing sources that were mentioned are by far very expensive in the sense of not just the cost of building them, but they are also expensive to maintain their production and in some cases these types of other electricity produces sources are also known to be very dangerous to the human race through environmental pollution capabilities.

The "self energy contained turbines™ " are not only going to be a very economical electricity producing source over any other system that is available because they are not going to require a single drop of water in the electricity production as other sources do, but the turbines are not going to need the massive and expensive grit that is involved with the other electricity producer sources and this in return will allow the production of electricity to be very affordable and could be placed anywhere in the world.

The "self energy contained turbines™ " are going to benefit humanity over any other source because it does not require a single drop of water towards its electrical production, nor the very expensive grit and this would mean that the turbines could be set up anywhere in the planet including the smallest of rural towns. For example: small towns that may be located in deserts, jungles and even in small towns located in mountain forests, and so forth and that could have a very small human population.

We envision how our self energy contained turbines are going to be able to benefit small towns of Africa and other pore third world countries where they are going to be able to have a turbine producing their electrical needs. We envision how all of the pore people of the world that live in small far away towns are going to be able to have an electrical source and how this could improve their living conditions.

We this newly discovered method it should be possible to build and spin turbines that are going to be equal in size or bigger than the ones that are used to day by other facilities. We also envision how our turbines could be used to produce electricity on other planets when and if the time were to come where humans are able to produce long term other planet explorations.
There is no doubt in our minds that these types of self energy contained turbines are going to be beneficial to the human race on many other forms that we have not yet though of.


HOW WE DISCOVERED THE SELF ENERGY

CONTAINED TURBINE TECHNOLOGY

The main reason of how we made the turbine discovery was do to the interest that we had towards researching the invisible energy that we know of as gravity. Our extensive gravity research opened the doors towards the discovery of the self energy contained turbines because we were able to reach the point where it allowed us to be able to simulate or duplicate the energy produced by gravity. Once we were able to make this amazing discovery on how to simulated the mechanical working of gravity it did not take long before we were then able to use this gravity mechanics towards the use on how to spin turbines that could be used as an energy source.

In other words, our discovery on how it could be possible to spine any type of turbine technology is based on the ability to simulate of duplicate the very same invisible gravity energy that not only makes this planet spin, but also the very same invisible energy that spins solar systems, galaxies, the universe and beyond. So technically, we are in essence spinning our turbines with the same invisible energy that is also spinning this planet.

We would also like to mention that we are in need of financial assistance to be able to make the dream of helping pore people throughout the world with an electrical source of an investor(s) or angel(s). At this point we have an electrical engineer ready to take on the challenge towards the creation of a much larger self energy contained turbine that will finally reveal what the racial of energy intake and the production of electricity the turbines are going to be capable of producing.

With the creation of a much larger turbine, and the racial of electricity production we will then be able to calculate the amount of electricity that would be needed according to the project that we might have in hand. We are curtain that the cost of much larger turbines are going to cost a very minimum amount of capital and the return should be of great profit. With your help we would be able to provide an electricity source to all of the small town within the world that might have such small populations as just a few hundred people through this economical system that they would be able to offered and maintain.

For those of you that might be interested in our offer or if you were to need more information, please contact us at:

[e-mail address removed]

WELCOME TO THE FUTURE OF AVIATION


When it comes to the simulated or the duplication of the energy of gravity, it is not only beneficial when it comes to making a turbine spin, but we quickly also notice that the simulated gravity energy source could also be applied in the science of aviation towards the creation of several different types of flying machine discoveries that are still unknown within the aviation science of man kind that should, in return, open the doors towards an aviation revolution that could potentially benefit the lives of all people within the planet.

We are revealing a brief video of some of what we have to offer so you could see the future of aviation.

Our aviation mission has reached the point where we are able to reveal nothing less then an affordable and practical flying craft that should allow people to fly to their destination instead of driving on the time consuming ground roads. We are claiming the discovery of an aviation concept that should finally be able to bring flying cars to humanity and that they should even be less expensive than some of the new cars that are produce today.

Our flying car design is so different and unique and with such scientific aviation breakthroughs that it carries new technologies that could allow it to be used as a car type transportation machine that could be driven on the ground and it could also be used as a helicopter type system and also as an airplane type of device.

The creation of a flying car could be of great significant towards the improvement of human life because it could open the doors on how people could be more productive if they were to fly in the air instead of driving on the roads when reaching their destinations. If people were to fly they would be able to take a strait rout towards their location instead of taking the long ground routs with the so many delays of lights and traffic and this flying possibility will also be able to save time, energy and money. The amazing anti-gravity breakthrough that will allow for this to happen was based on how I was able to stabilize the use of your basic airplane gas motor propeller system so it could then be able to use with this type of aviation concept.

The gas motor system that we referring to is basically the use of the front end that are used on basic propeller driven air planes. If any one were to try to experiment with this type of basic gas motor airplane propeller system it would be very apparent that it is very difficult to find control once it is in working action because it tens to go to any one and all directions without any type of stability or control.

In fact, the ability to control this out of control actions when using the basic gas motor propeller system in running action is the main reason of why we able to produce the so many different types of anti-gravity spaceships that are still unknown to the aviation science of man kind because no one in the history of aviation has ever done this type of work either in the past or in the present.

The ability to control the gas motor propeller system by the use of a simulated gravity energy source is going to allow us to manufacture the production of more practical and affordable flying machines over not just other type of flying crafts, but it should also provide competition to even car manufactures because, at the end, it is going to be cheaper to buy our flying machines over the price of some types of new cars that are produced today.

At this point, the best transportation method in the planet that is capable of quickly taking you from point A to point B is the helicopter and it actually is the only aviation technology that is capable of providing any type of competition to the vehicle and the only reason it is not being used as much as a car is because they are expensive and complicated enough where not just anyone person is able to pilot them.

On the other hand, my flying machines are going to be serious competition to not just the helicopter market, but also to car manufactures because the flying car is going to be able to be piloted by almost any one person in the sense where if they are able to drive a car on the ground, then chances are they too would be able to pilot the flying car because the flying car is going to have the easy ability to hover, go forward, and to go up and down without any effort of talent to make it do so.
In fact, based on the GPS systems of today, it would be possible to set in place on a computer your destination and the flying car machine should be able to take you to your destination without the need to do any or no flying at all.

When it comes to the flying car technology it is also going to be a very economical to produce in mass quantities because they would not only be simple to assemble, but also because they are going to require basic and inexpensive materials and this is, in return, should also produce a high ownership demand.

If you were to think of the idea of a flying machine that would be able to perform equal or better than a helicopter with the need of lesser talent to pilot the craft and taking in consideration of how less expensive it would be than some vehicles that are out in the market of today, we think that it would be possible to get the attention from that of any military agency.

Think of the idea of which anyone soldier would be able to have the potential talent to learn how to pilot a flying machine while doing their work. A machine such as this would allow the triumphant of any military in action. So any type of military contract would not only be of great profit, but it would also be a great support to this nation. I could envision how my flying cars could not only make the work of anyone soldier easier, but also safer than any other type of ground transportation system within todays market.

We would also like to mention that we seek either an investor(s) or an angel(s) to make the flying car dream come true and this is why we are pointing out that we would be able to produce this type of amazing flying car concept with the use of left over aviation parts from that of an airplane junk yard and this would also show how very inexpensive and easy to make. Based on this information, it would mean that your investment will be to a minimum and the results could be of great financial benefit.

[...]

We are revealing these next two videos so you are able to see that we have a great potential knowledge in the science of aviation.This next video consist of our very first aviation spaceship experiments but they did not performed as planed. In other word, they are our bloopers of aviation and we want you to also see that we have nothing to hid and that we do not mind releasing a video like this.

Please keep in mind that all of our anti-gravity flying spaceships are all hand made. We designed them, bought the material to build them, and they were also tested by us and we did not buy any types of kits towards the creation of anyone spaceship. We are also revealing these videos to show that our work was not easy to produce and that there were a plenty of mistakes that took place before we were able to reach our anti-gravity aviation potential. Enjoy.

This next video is also based on our very first anti-gravity experiments but they performed a little better than the one from the above video. Again, enjoy.

Our financial needs has also given us the idea of making a reality show based on our anti-gravity aviation technology and then use the profits to make much larger man size spaceships so our work could continue in a much larger format. The idea is to seek a network that might want to produce a reality show where the concept of the show would be for their cameras to be right there filming the crew as we design, build and test several different types of flying spaceships that would be unknown in the aviation history of man kind and at the end of the first series the recently built spaceships would be revealed in a large stadium size event where they would be flow in front of thousands of spectators.

We have the believe that our aviation science is so one of a kind where there should be plenty of people with the interest potential towards wanting to know more about our flying spaceship work that we have to offer and this should, in return allow us to produce large stadium size events through out the world in every country where the stadiums should be filled to capacity.

vexic929 #fundie vexic929.deviantart.com

Disclaimer: These are all my own, personal thoughts. I do believe that they were given to me by God but I acknowledge that I may be wrong in some areas and will gracefully accept that IF IT IS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN A RESPECTFUL WAY. I do not claim to be a prophet or a preacher or some fancy, famous, decorated scholar—I’m just a 21-year-old Christian with a passing interest in sociology, psychology, and apologetics. I do not think I am holier-than-thou and I do not think any sin is greater than another. All sin is equal; I do not think I am better than you. I don’t know how else I can put that so, please, you have already begun seeing my side; if you find it offensive there is a back button, most likely in the top left corner of your screen—please use it because I will not be changing my opinion no matter how many curse words and insults you throw at me. I acknowledge that I stink at arguing my points so, if you find anything unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification as long as you do so respectfully.

WHY HOMOSEXUALITY BOTH IS AND IS NOT A SIN

“Attraction is not a sin!”
You’re absolutely right. Attraction, in and of itself, is not a sin. Wait—what? Yep, you’re right. Why? Because we, as humans, have the ability to be attracted to either gender to some degree. Think about it; you have friends, right? People you talk to, people you get along with—you find them attractive in some way; perhaps not physically but mentally/emotionally/etcetera, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be friends. Chances are you have at least one friend—or someone you just get along with—from both genders. We are designed to be attracted to people; we are very social creatures but if we weren’t attracted, we probably wouldn’t give them the time of day (just think of that resident annoyance in your life). Attraction is not just physical—but, of course, you know this I’m sure. Now, we’ve established attraction is not a sin. It is what you do about that attraction that determines whether or not it is a sin.

“What you do? What does that mean?”
Let’s look at that a little further, shall we? “It is what you do about that attraction that determines whether or not it is a sin.” This means that it does not become a sin until you decide to act on it. The moment you decide to pursue that relationship that becomes a sin. Why? Because typically that relationship is pursued with the intent of becoming physical at some point. In cases of heterosexuality, it only becomes a sin if the intent to become physical comes before marriage (yes, this includes during the engagement but that is a whole other animal we are not going to get into today). In the case of homosexuality, it does not matter whether or not this intent is before or after marriage, it is still a sin.

“That’s not fair! Why is it still a sin even if I’m doing it ‘right’?!”
This is a question that comes up a lot and Christians need to be able to answer if they’re going to argue it. I could say “because the Bible says so” and give a list of verses; I could say “because God says so” and leave it at that, but do these explain why? No, not really. So, why? Because it is outside of God’s intent. God has a plan for each of us, most of whom he has included and set apart a specific person for the intent of us to be in a strong, loving, Godly relationship with. Anything outside of that plan is sinful because it is not of God, no matter how good it seems.

“Well, why should I care about God’s intent?”
You may or may not be a Christian, I don’t know, that’s between you and God. There is one thing I do know for sure; anything God has planned for us is 100 times better than we could ever even imagine. Being a Christian is not about blindly agreeing with everything God says and following like good little sheep. We can say “alright, God, I don’t get this, I don’t like this,” as long as we add after, “but I’m going to trust You because I know that what You have for me is better.” That’s what faith is, that’s what being a Christian is. So before you yell and scream at us Christians for being stupid, blindly following, being bigoted, being intolerant; remember that not all of us totally agree with everything God says. I, personally, would be perfectly fine with homosexual relationships if I were not a Christian and didn’t know that God has something better planned for everyone. I just want everyone to live their life to the fullest extent in the happiest way possible; that’s why I want people to find God and turn from their sinful ways—whatever they may be—and follow the better path God has in store for them, because I know it will be so amazing. So, no, I don’t see a reason for it to be a sin; but, yes, it is a sin, and there’s nothing I can do about that but say, “I’m going to trust You, God, because I know You have something so much better and it’s just going to be totally awesome.”

But it's also true that you cannot control attraction, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were participating in homosexual activities. Note that the verse you quoted states "men who practice homosexuality". Lust is wrong no matter who you are lusting after so that is irrelevant. I don't think you understood what I said, I know that homosexual activities are wrong and fantasizing about performing said activities is also wrong just as it would be wrong to kill someone or fantasize about killing someone. There are two definitions of homosexuality--simply being attracted to the same gender which you cannot do anything about and participating in homosexual activities which you can do something about. One is entirely subconscious and the other is a conscious action. You cannot stop yourself from being attracted to someone, it is not possible. I'm really not sure how I can make this any clearer but if you're still confused, please let me know.

Yeah, the thing that hacks me off the most is the radical "you must agree or you're a terrible person" mentality they seem to have nowadays. It's so frustrating because it goes exactly against the freedom of beliefs/religion and speech we have in America--even more so because we're basically letting them act that way. It's pretty dang ridiculous, if you ask me. People are so touchy and easily offended.

In conclusion
Homosexuality—the act of being attracted to someone of the same gender—is not, in and of itself, a sin. Homosexuality—the act of having relations with someone of the same gender—is a sin.

[ ai! ^.^ I have no idea how I found this, but I've read it and the first comments page; frankly, I couldn't help posting my opinions on this. :3 Please don't take it offensively - I just want to make sure it's out there.

Firstly, I totally agree with your first point - homosexuality isn't a sin. However, I serious disagree of your second point.

I understand that you believe practicing Homosexuality is a sin because God said so, but
WHY does he say so?

I cannot actually think of any decent anti-homosexuality reasons myself. In any case, I am a firm believer in freedom of sexuality, within reason. If you're female and fall in love with another female, then what's wrong with that? Is the world going to end? Probably not. Are you going to drop dead? It's unlikely. Will a random person develop, say, cancer simply because you're dating someone of the same sex? I highly doubt it. Besides, the planet's population is rising rapidly and whilst we have no serious problem right now, we will when it doubles. With deforestation, loss of farmland to housing estates and desertification, among other things, then frankly we will run out of resources at some point. Soon. If, say, 5% of the population is gay/lesbian, then that's 5% less kids every year. That's a few years left on the timer. More time to solve the dilemma. Oh, and it means that more of the poor kids in foster homes can have a family. I know how that feels, I was there once.
Besides, if the government was to make homosexuality illegal, then that is a direct breach of the Human Rights.

UN Human Rights;
Article 2 -- Freedom From Discrimination
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex or sexuality, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Putting someone in prison because they love and want to be with someone of the sex? That's just sick. And we're supposed to do this becuase of what it says in a book? There are many opinions from Christians that certain aspects of the bible are outdated. Aren't women supposed to be evil or something? Nowadays, if ANYONE said that in a commonwealth country they'd be called sexist.

Anyway - 'God is omnipotent' to quote practically every Christians I've ever brought this subject up with (I grew up in a religious family/area/school, so there's quite a few). Therefore, if he has an intent for us, then maybe it's for us to be gay?
I am actually an atheist, so the 'God's intent' thing, for me, isn't a valid reason. A good number of my friends are lesbian/gay and are currently dating a person of the same sex. What harm has it done to me? None. What harm is it doing you? None.

(Looking back at this, it looks like a full-out attack. Lol. Sorry about that. >.<)
]

You make some very interesting points and bring up some good questions but I believe I touched on most of them either in the comments or in the actual article (it's not really an article I guess but you know what I mean) but I will respond to a few of them.

Why does He say so? The truth is I don't know, no one does--if they claim to they're probably lying. I just know that He does and that's enough for me and should be enough for any Christian.

Putting someone in prison for homosexuality is ridiculous, the government should not interfere in religious matters and vice-versa. As far as the Bible being outdated, anyone who has told you that is not a Christian even if they claim to be. You cannot be a Christian and not believe the Bible is the Truth, it doesn't work that way. There is no passage that says women are evil or anything like that, I suggest reading the book for yourself even if you have no intention of becoming a Christian. It's quite interesting to see the parallels from the Old and New Testaments and the perfect preservation and lack of contradictions without taking anything out of context, even from a purely historical and analytical standpoint.

His intent would not be for anyone to be gay considering He says homosexual relations are a sin although he may use someone identifying as gay as a challenge or a way for them to have a better witness to other people.

I don't expect anyone who is not a Christian to agree with or follow my beliefs but that doesn't mean that I won't call someone out on something I know is wrong because I don't want them to make a mistake. It's purely about caring about people. I am currently dealing with my younger sister's recent coming out as pansexual and she knows I am on her side even though she also knows I believe she is doing the wrong thing. We have had many discussions on the issue but I still love her and would not wish anything bad on her.

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.

AdamanteusAtrox #sexist reddit.com

If you actually believe this, then you're not paying attention. The current party line of trans activists is that transwomen are biologically female and were indeed born biologically female, and transmen are biologically male and were born biologically male. They have not only erased the definition of "woman," but they have now erased the definition of "female." This has multiple immediate consequences: We can't talk about female genital mutilation because any genitals can be female. MRAs love this because they can swoop in to any article about FGM so much easier to cry about circumcision and do their "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN???"

We can't talk about female reproductive health because that can refer to any reproductive organs. Prostate cancer can be a female reproductive health issue. We can't talk about female infanticide or female-selective abortion because we don't know how those babies or fetuses would have identified -- maybe they were really male? We can't talk about girls being denied education because some of those girls might be boys.

We can't talk about shared female experiences like menstruation because there are none -- males menstruate and females don't menstruate. We can't talk about the poisonous way that females are socialized into the inferior sex caste because some of those females are really males and some of what people think are males are actually females, so there is actually no such thing as female socialization. By extension, there is also no such thing as male socialization, because some of those males are actually females and some of what people think are females are actually males. There can be no female-specific spaces, sports teams, colleges, scholarships, clubs, music groups, work places, jails, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, or rape crisis shelters, because people who appear to be female may identify as male and so be actually biologically male, and those who appear to be male may identify as female and so be actually biologically female.

This fantasy land of magical thinking has made it fully impossible for women to discuss anything related to female oppression. It has made it impossible for women to have anything for ourselves. Your activists come in and trounce on every. fucking. conversation. we try to have and language police, tone police, demand to be centered, and demand that we change actual reality to fit their desires. This is pure male entitlement and it's utter bullshit. We are saying no, and people socialized as male can't handle it when women tell them no. That's why /r/terfisaslur is filled with transwomen threatening women with death, rape, mutilation, assault, and even cannibalism.

And it's not "bad experiences with certain people." It's pretty much all trans activists who behave this way. Trans people outside the activist community are often normal, nice people and many of us call them friends, myself included. But your activists are toxic, poisonous narcissists. They are violent misogynists who are going to eventually tank your whole movement with their increasingly unreasonable, unstable, and ridiculous behavior.

RadFHarva #sexist reddit.com

I wonder why we call it Mother Earth and Mother Nature instead of Father Earth and Father Nature? Oops, men forgot to erase and cover that up with their lies.
This is a female planet. It is females who produce all of life. Males are irrelevant and redundant in the scheme of life. So redundant that 99% of males could be eliminated and life wouldn't skip a beat. Only a man could pretend that his one second contribution to life meant something. LOL, talk about an over-inflated ego!

In the natural world, the ratio of females to males is 70/30, not 50/50 - if males are allowed to exist at all. Common sense should tell you that if would be unnatural for males to dominate and lead and rule in the natural world - and they DON'T. It's just a lie men made up.

Bee and ant colonies, for example, are totally female. They only allow males to exist for a few weeks in the life span of a colony. Many species keep males out in the margins. Elephants are an example. Elephants are matriarchal. Most species are. Female elephants circle around the offspring and keep males out in the margins. Any male who approaches is driven back off into the margins.

The idea that the lion is the king of beasts is also laughable. Talk about a reversal! Men look at a pride tho and see a king and his harem - which gives us a clue how warped men's interpretations are. The fact is, lionesses bond for life. The lionesses pick their mate (as is done in most species), not the other way around. It doesn't matter how big, strong, or victorious over other males a lion may be, if the lionesses don't like him, they will reject him. Females decide, not males. Males are nothing more than stud puppets. Which is why lionesses only allow one adult male in a pride. To insure female control over reproduction and to protect the offspring, of course.

Our closest cousin tho is the bonobo. Bonobos share 98.4% of the same DNA as humans. Bonobos are matriarchal. If a male tries to get aggressive or crosses boundaries, the female bonobos band together and gang up on the male and put him in his place. Funny how men forget to mention that. Men would instead like you to believe that females subdue the males by having sex with them, lol, lol, lol. Wishful thinking, I guess. Men are prone to a lot of fantasy and wishful thinking.

The problem isn't learning. It's unlearning what patriarchal society has taught you in their efforts to shore up male superiority and female subjugation. Learn to see the world with new eyes.

P.S. As any scientist will tell you, human males have genetically more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with women. I saw a documentary by Jane Goodall on chimps. Chimps are patriarchal. It was astounding how alike in behavior men and male chimps are. I couldn't tell them apart. But if bonobos are our closest cousin, how can that be? Well if genetics are a clue and men have more genetically in common with male chimps, what does that tell us? Could it be that men and women aren't the same species?

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.

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)

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.

...

If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.

...

If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.

...

Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.

...

Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

Daniel Moody #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

This seem a bit disjointed because it's not the whole article. For the full undenieable proof that contraception causes transgender, follow the link.

John is snuggled up on his sofa watching television. In front of him he can see moving pictures accompanied by matching sound. The presence of the pictures and sound explains why the TV is made of the materials it is, why it is the size it is, why there is a volume button, and so on. Everything about the TV makes sense. Now, let us suppose John places a layer of insulating material between plug and socket. With the flow of electricity thwarted, no pictures can be seen and no sound can be heard.

If John curls up on his sofa again and regards this picture-less version of watching TV to be valid, then we can confront him with some questions: why is the TV constructed from those materials rather than, say, sugar? why is the TV that size rather than the size of a sugar cube? and why is there a volume button?

Will John be able to supply credible answers to our questions? No. Having accepted that the flow of electricity is irrelevant to the television’s nature, he will be powerless to defend the TV’s substance, size, and so on. In short, absent the flow of electricity, nothing about the TV makes sense. John may as well snuggle up in front of a cushion from the sofa.

To transfer the analogy to contraception, we first need to recognize that the human body points in two directions. Firstly, at the level of the individual, each of us as male or female points toward another sex. (That is: independent of what we are thinking or doing, the body itself is being heterosexual.)

But what happens when a layer of insulating material is placed between John and his wife, Joan? Well, if John regards this baby-less version of sexual union to be valid, then we have a couple of questions for him. Why does his wife need to be female? And why does he need to be male? Through a combination of time and the sheer weight of logic, John’s understanding of himself starts to disintegrate. If he thinks his body has nothing to do with the future, he will eventually need to accept that it has nothing to do with the other sex either.
This acceptance comes at an extortionate price. If John believes that his own sex is irrelevant to the sexual act he is performing, then he must embrace a second belief: namely, that his sex is irrelevant in all contexts. If a thing is deemed meaningless within the very context that defines its purpose, then that thing cannot be said to have any purpose at all. We are made of sex, so if the maleness of John has no meaning, then John has no meaning. This is the only logical conclusion available to him. Absent the flow of life, nothing about the body makes sense.

Upon losing sight of the fact that our embodiedness is inextricably tied both to relational identity and generations past and future, we must proceed to lose sight of two more things. Firstly, John needs to turn his back on the idea that there exists any objective reference point for sexual morality. Why? Because, in truth, marriage is the sexual right by which sexual wrongs can be known. If the use of contraception is not wrong, then an openness to new life is not right, and if marriage is not the right context for sex, then there is no right context—and, therefore, no wrong one. (Hence today’s insistence that the presence of consent is the only criterion for making a sexual act morally valid. The desire to do X justifies doing X.)

Secondly, John must abandon all possibility of locating meaningfulness in anything that flows out of the nature of the body. Meaninglessness cannot give birth to meaningfulness any more than starvation can give birth to a full stomach. If we have inwardly hidden the truth about our body, we must then destroy all external evidence of that truth. Our embrace of contraception compels us to hide the consequences of being made male and female. We must hide our babies.

Rice explains the link between contraception and tyranny in terms of the government filling a moral vacuum created by the acceptance of contraception. While I agree with his assessment, a second explanation is available to us if we add a fifth and final component to the mix, which is identity.

As is the case with law, the concept of human identity is a natural monopoly. It cannot have more than one owner, or else we human persons would have nothing in common with one another. If we suppose God no longer owns the patent for law, then—as Rice notes—ownership must have transferred fully to the state. The same must be true of the patent for human identity. Laws govern persons, and persons are subject to laws, so whoever owns either of the patents must in fact own both.

In requiring sex to vanish from law, abortion represents a paradigm shift in human identity: out with the old, given sexual identities of male and female, and in with the new, chosen “gender identities” of “male,” “female,” both, neither, and other. The problem with this claimed state takeover, of course, is that when we close our eyes, the world does not disappear. It just disappears from our view. The state cannot own human identity, since sexual difference is prior to the state—not to mention a precondition for the state’s existence. Yes, law can close its eyes to our embodiedness, but it cannot make our body disappear. The most the state can manage is to order us to mentally uninvent ourselves.

Without doubt, “transgender rights” are the manifestation of the tyranny produced by a claimed transfer of ownership of identity from God to the state; a deal, I submit, silently brokered by the legalization of abortion. The National Director of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, famously stated that America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion. What I am trying to illuminate is that we are indeed seeing abortion but are doing so without realizing abortion is what is being seen. Within a legal atmosphere that denies the link between identity and givenness, we see the lawlessness of abortion at work whenever a girl is forced to shower alongside a male, whenever somebody is fined for using the right third-person pronoun, and whenever somebody is permitted to have his or her body mutilated to make it “fit” his or her mind.

Gender identity is a barrier placed between our natural identity and our legal identity. More accurately, it is a filter that prevents the truth of our body from entering law, allowing only our mind to pass through. What is that, if not the legal outworking of contraception?

ItheIthe #sexist incels.co

As a male, your evolutionary and biological impulse is to impregnate females and spread your seed. Each and every one of you is responsible for advancing our species. That is what you are here for. If you fail to do so, you are a failure. You have done nothing to pass on your genes and keep your bloodline in tact. You are among lowest form of life there is.

However, because the purpose of existing is to pass on our genes and advance your species, the true alpha male is the male who has the most children. He did the most to advance our species. Morals are real, because we need them to function as a unit. However, morals do not apply to females, as they are evil and cold-hearted, as well as good for nothing. They are biologically inferior to us, and we, as morally, emotionally, and physically superior, are free to do what we please with them, as we would with any other species we dominate, such as cattle or oxen. Since females are only good for reproduction, there is morally nothing wrong with raping a female - as long as you don't pull out - to ensure you do your biological responsibility and pass on your genes. This is not only okay to do, it is your biological responsibility. The only exceptions are: 1. A female in a "relationship" because societies function better without adultery, and 2. Virgin females because they are extra valuable for a "relationship". All other females are in bounds.

Once again, females are biologically inferior to males. Males are good at all the physical labor that is required to uphold infrastructure and housing. Women are not. Men have made virtually all the advances in science and technology. Women have not. Men have many productive hobbies and interests. The only thing women do is try to seduce males. That is proof that being used for reproduction is their only purpose. In third world countries, especially African ones entrenched in wars, rape happens all the time and no one gives a fuck. Society here only pretends to give a fuck because we pretend to be romantically monogamous. But we're not, the average female has like 30+ partners lifetime and therefore has romantic value. The only thing it is good for is passing on genes. There's nothing wrong with the rape of these females.

I'm not saying I'm going to rape a female, I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with it, since females are unworthy of us. I would not only say that rape is acceptable, I'd actually encourage it as your biological and primitive responsibility to rape a female and advance our species, as long as that female fits those brief conditions.

Cornfed #fundie coalpha.org

Many of us were conned into thinking that modern liberalism is about giving females the right to choose when they have sex. If they want to be sluts, that is their choice. If they want to be chaste until they are married and then remain faithful to their husbands, that is fine too. If at any given time they make bad choices, they can learn from their mistakes so in the end everyone is happy.

In fact, in practice nothing could be further from the truth. Liberalism in the context of modern society effectively imposes a wartime mass-rape situation on females, albeit by relatively subtle means.

Here is how the process works. Females derive virtually all their social status by virtue of their perceived sexual desirability. It follows that they will gain status by being associated with males of high sexual status and lose status by being associated with males of low sexual status. Therefore, over time, all females will gravitate to wanting to be sexually associated with a small percentage of males of high sexual status. As an aside, the males of high sexual status will largely be stupid assholes, given that they have high reproductive fitness in the context of modern society, as I explain in this thread.

It follows that every high status male will have several females pursuing him in order to derive social status by the interaction. Over time this means the males will feel inclined to demand immediate sex, since they will know that if one female doesn't give it up, another will. They will then be inclined to up the ante even further, demanding the most degrading sex acts that the Internet can cause them to come up with. In order to have any sexual status at all, which is to say in order to have any status at all, the females will have to play along.

Now, it is not within the female psyche to willingly forgo status and become a social outcast. This is not an option to the overwhelming majority of them. Therefore, once this process is in motion, they are simply along for the ride. They might have planned to be a virgin bride. They might hate every minute of every sex act they consent to. But if they need to do it to fit in, they will.

Hence Western females find themselves in a similar position to German females in 1945, when dim-witted Russian peasants were going around raping everyone in sight (or perhaps they have it a bit worse, given the suggestibility of Internet porn and their complicity in the process). What heavy artillery achieved then, liberalism backed by the resources of the state has achieved now. Effectively the females are being raped, not so much by the dirtbags sticking their dicks and what have you into their various orifices, but by the system and the sadistic animals behind it.

Well done libtards. This is the future you have bequeathed your daughters. If they do not currently have NO CHOICE but to submit to sex acts the likes of which you have never even dreamed of being performed on them by shitbags with retard-level IQs, then that soon will be their situation. Your values in action.

Aetherapologist #fundie reddit.com

Consent means to express a willingness to be involved in whatever one is brought to be involved in. There is no stage during human development when a child cannot express willingness or unwillingness to be involved in whatever they are brought to be involved in. It's practically a young child's job to let you know if they don't like something. If you believe that sexual activity requires some "true" form if consent that children cannot give, well you're just wrong. In order to justify treating sexual activity as something that needs a special kind of consent, it would have to be true that it is importantly different from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in. And it would have to be importantly different in some way that makes a special form of consent a relevant concern.
Children are brought to be involved in a very lot of things against their will and they are rarely traumatized for it. Sexual activity possesses no feature that makes it importantly different from all the other things they do. I'm opposed to anyone of any age or level of mental fitness being forced against their will into doing anything, but apparently, doing so doesn't result in trauma in children. But as opposed as I am to making kids do anything they don't want, I'm infinitely more opposed to causing them life destroying psychological trauma. Cultural conditioning is the only reason why something inherently pleasurable would become traumatizing. Decriminalization of pedophile sexual activities is supremely important to combating that fear conditioning. If I believed decriminalizing sexual activity with minors wouldn't result in many parents and caretakers treating sexual activity the same as they treat all the other activities they do with their children and involve them in it even if they are unwilling, then I would be delusional. Hopefully, laws which punish non-consenting sex would still be enforced in those cases, but I wouldn't count on it. But since it's true that there is nothing inherently harmful about sex and that it is instead inherently pleasurable, then that means public hate and disgust for treating it as just another activity parents do with their kids is based in moral beliefs about sexual purity. If the laws aren't about concerns of children's well-being, then they have to be about the hate and disgust people feel for pedophiles and nothing else.
In order to justify treating sexual activity with children as uniquely different from all the other things parents and caretakers do with their children, there needs to be an argument for what that difference is and why it is relevant. Everything depends on being able to argue what that important difference is. If you can't say what they difference is, then you can't win the argument.

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Allan Cronshaw #fundie ebionite.com

Our True Identity is defined by our Eternal Soul -- and those who lack Soul-Memory or Soul-Knowledge, which includes the memory of the previous lives our Soul has lived, must be understood as being the victims of Arrested Mental Development which results in the affliction of Spiritual-Amnesia. In the same way that the Natural Laws develop the physical body and evolve our physical form into adulthood -- the same Natural Laws will evolve the mind to the absolute zenith of Enlightened Consciousness.

But because choice and freewill is necessary in the development of the mind, our beliefs have the power to totally derail the process of evolutionary-development -- delaying each level of development unto those beliefs have been corrected. Erroneous beliefs cannot serve as a building platform to achieve higher growth and development. As an integral part of the development of the mind, beliefs that are defective or untrue, must be overcome before the developing mind can move beyond that level of understanding.

When rightly used for their intended purpose which their authors composed them, the scriptures are designed to be used to restore Soul-Memory and the prodigal son's connection with his Spiritual Source of Being. But when these same scriptures are used as if they were a history book -- thereby throwing away the Key of Knowledge in the manner of the scribes and Pharisees -- the scriptures not only render the person spiritually impotent, but actually inhibit the necessary development of mind and inner spiritual connection to that person's Higher Source of Mind and Being.

"This is what the LORD says: 'Cursed are those who put their trust in mere humans, who rely on human strength and turn their hearts away from the LORD'" (Jeremiah 17:5). The scriptures are not historical accounts -- but rather, accounts of the body, mind and spirit that must be experienced by the faithful and sincere seeker. To use the scriptures in accord with the thinking of men who read the sacred writings as if they were a history book -- instead of seeking the meaning of the allegorical writings directly from the Lord -- is the folly of carnal men whose rejection of the Lord as their Teacher, is the self-imposed curse of the Word of God.

As it is written: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment" (James 3:1). Those who teach without first restoring Soul-Memory, teach and lead blindly, and have yet to first remove the beam from their own eyes! And when a person follows the blind leaders, they are led in the wrong direction. Ultimately, all of mankind has the innate potential to evolve through the necessary levels of mental-development to achieve the absolute Celestial Level of an Enlightened Mind and Being -- but because of bad choices and self-defeating actions, the vast majority of people inhibit their own potential and birth-right, and embrace the choices and paths that derail their development.

No one can be a teacher or authority -- whether religious, academic, or cultural -- while failing to have achieved the necessary level of self-knowledge that has enabled them to have acquired Soul-Memory -- thereby overcoming their own affliction of Spiritual-Amnesia, and restoring their mind and consciousness to their True Source of Being. From a Wholistic Perspective -- or what can be portrayed as the Higher Enlightened Vision of Self from the perspective of the Whole of our Being -- in contradistinction to the very limited human vision and understanding of self -- our ego-driven self-destructive nature causes us to be people who must rightly be portrayed as spiritual-imbeciles -- who by virtue of their thinking, mindset and lifestyle, have permitted themselves to be disenfranchised from their True-Self -- i.e., their unknown pre-existent Eternal Soul-Self.

An imbecile can be defined as "a mentally deficient person" -- and those who lack Soul-Memory, are themselves the victims of arrested mental development. Therefore, when it is understood that Soul-Memory is an integral part of the developmental process of mind that IS NECESSARY to evolve each of us to a condition of true higher mental and spiritual maturity, then what we have is conformation of the statement: "For those who guide this people are leading them astray; And those who are guided by them are brought to confusion" (Isaiah 9:16 NASB).

How would you like to portray people who have what would constitute a mental affliction that causes them to utilize only a fraction of their own resources of mind? Whatever you choose to call such people, they are presently your leaders. And it is because the people are being led by mentally undeveloped spiritual-imbeciles whose thinking, mindset and lifestyle present an obstacle to mental and spiritual development, they have caused the people they lead to dwell in a state of abject confusion and self-ignorance.

(..)

One of the essential elements and aspects of the Original Gospel Teachings, was to initiate Soul-Memory in the sincere seeker of Truth and the Kingdom. In the same way that physical maturity can only come and manifest in stages, this is also true of mental-development -- and is even more crucial in the individual person's spiritual-development. When we came into being at conception, we evolved to a certain point in the darkness of our mother's womb -- and this enclosed dark environment was necessary in our development of a fetus.

When rightly understood from a Wholistic Perspective, when we were born into this world we entered what can best be portrayed as the Womb of Mother-Earth -- and because the development of mind requires choice and freewill to attain the proper mental-growth and development, it can be said that our present womb-environment presents a different type of darkness that is necessary for the maturation process to be efective.

The problem is that choice requires freewill -- and improper beliefs, thought-patterns and lifestyle have the ability to derail our mental development. And while each of us has a physical body that has the potential to achieve the next stage of birth that enables us to arrive at a completed level of mankind's potential (see Entering The Kingdom Of Man ), it is because mental development MUST result from the choices and the exercise of freewill that is conducive to the mental-developmental process -- and the fact that our leaders lack the necessary Soul-Memory because of their own arrested development, where we find ourselves being guided down the path of self-ignorance and derailed mental development.

(..)

Therefore it can be stated that virtually all of mankind is presently dwelling in what the Gospels portray as the "outer darkness" of mind and being -- i.e., and in the same way that for the educational process to be effective in our system of education -- requiring a certain mindset and behavior -- this is also true in the School of Life that we were physically born into when we emerged out of our mother's womb. And the Original Gospel teachings presented to us the necessary path to achieve mental and spiritual development in pursuit of achieving the next stage of birth.

(..)

Among the important teachings that were suppressed by the Church, is the teaching that was preserved in Gospel of Thomas saying twenty-two which sets forth the requirement for our return to Spiritual Eden as demonstrated when the Disciples asked Jesus how the Inner Kingdom is entered, and "Jesus said to them, When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; ...then will you enter the kingdom." In the process of restoring the oneness of Self that is allegorically portrayed as the restoral of the divided Adam and Eve through the process of eating the Divine Manna/Fruit of the Tree of Life -- and therefore making "...male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female", we are then able to achieve the next stage of birth that restores us to Spiritual Eden and a condition of At-Oneness with God.

The necessary thinking, mindset and lifestyle was portrayed as putting on the required "wedding garment" is what enables us to achieve the next stage of birth -- wherefore mankind who chooses not to put on the "wedding garment" is portrayed as dwelling is what is portrayed as the "outer darkness" of mind and being as personified in the words: "Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there is where the weeping and grinding of teeth will be.' For many are called, but few chosen". Those who dwell in the undeveloped levels of the "outer darkness" do not possess Soul-Memory. They are ignorant of their own Higher Eternal Soul -- and in their present separated condition, they are the epitome of self-ignorance -- i.e., "Jesus said, ...But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty". And mankind dwells in this condition of self-ignorance that has been portrayed as a type of death.

The Outer Darkness has also been portrayed as the Far Country in the parable of the prodigal son -- wherein mankind is portrayed as dwelling in a state of mental-suppression -- incapable of comprehending anything of a true higher reality. Mental Suppression can in many ways be likened to being the victim of retardation -- organic physical limitations that can almost be portrayed as a spiritual form of Down Syndrome. And while organic (physical) man possesses the innate ability to overcome and prevail over these limitations, few are willing to even make the effort. For thousands of years faux-clergy have been peddling "get-in-the-kingdom free tickets" that complacent people have been spiritually defrauded when they bought into the great hoax. The Gospel portrays these faux-clergy as wolves in sheep's attire who live off the various forms of the collection plate.

And in truth, what this means is that you have yourself been learning from religious clergy and authorities, teachers and professors in academia, and political and philosophical leaders, who by virtue of their own arrested-development, are themselves the victims of this same organic mental retardation. And this condition is so all-pervading, that Paul openly stated that he could not convey to the people who he, himself, taught what he portrayed as the "traditions" of the Gospel, the true spiritual meaning of the Gospel, because they would reject this spiritual meaning as "foolishness".

emasculasian #racist sexstories608.tumblr.com

[Source NSFW. Also "vaginal suction" what the shit]

Biological reason why Asian women are exclusively mating with White men.

For centuries, East Asian cultures procreated with no emphasis on female sexual gratification. As a collective culture, assertiveness, individuality, and aggression are frowned upon. Testosterone levels are generally low among the males as a way to facilitate harmony and cooperation, and thus, their primary mating strategy revolved around avoiding mating competitions and mate-guarding.
As a result, the women were kept sexually repressed, powerless, and submissive through imposed social norms. Women had little rights and often went through their entire lives with only one sexual partner. Without the need to compete with other males, these men were able to reproduce with relatively tiny penises and testes compared to the men of other races. Sex generally lasted only a few minutes and rarely pleasurable for the women since only the male orgasm is required for conception. Men thus, worried little about their physical sex appeal and only focused on advancing their social standing and financial success to secure mates. Over time, their bodies and faces evolved to be bare and devoid of most of its masculinity.
This mating strategy that involved collective self-emasculation and suppressing female sexuality worked for a long period of time, up until the day Western men were introduced to their society. Forged in a culture that celebrates individuality and aggression, Caucasian men have retained most of their virile qualities while also advancing further as a civilization. While the Asian man was being taught to avoid confrontation at all costs, the Caucasian man had already been practicing the mating game with other sexually aggressive males since his early teens. Along with the privilege and status the comes with being White male, the White man already put the Asian man at a severe disadvantage. Not only is the East Asian woman already conditioned to seek after higher status males, the White man also has an assortment of mating tools in his arsenal that Asian men do not possess.

For generations, sexually repressed Asian women rarely got to experience sexual arousal or climax as it wasn’t required to procreate in an Asian society. To the Asian female, sex is just a chore and often a painful one due to there being no lubrication from her lack of arousal. Generations of feeling sexually apathetic towards her men leave her helpless in the face of unfamiliar erotic desire The White man’s high status already coincides with her social value of seeking after successful men, but it’s his testosterone filled physique and attitude that makes her forsake all social stigmas imposed by the feeble Asian male and mate with the White man.
For once, her genitals become supple and wet, ready for penetration. Her vagina, which has only ever accommodated small Asian members, is extremely tight and virginal to the foreign man. Though she experiences tremendous pain as her White lover enters her, his larger phallus is able to stretch her out and reach orifices Asian men typically can’t, stimulating an array of unexplored nerve endings. He, in turn, introduces a multitude of erotic sensations completely foreign to her, making her experience immense pleasure from sex for the very first time.
The White man’s more sexually experienced background empowers him to delay his climax. His muscular physique from maintaining his sex appeal enables him to continue thrusting vigorously without tire. As he is doing this, his cock is acting as a suction piston, emptying the contents her vagina of any previous insemination. The longer and more rapid he thrusts, the more her vagina is sucked clean. His larger cock also makes him more effective at removal, leaving not a spec of the Asian man’s sperm behind. Her sexual repression and inexperience leave her easily overwhelmed by all the erotic sensations his cock is giving her, and before long she will have already achieved orgasm; an experience the majority of East Asian men are unable to give her.

Since the experienced White man is only competing with sexually incompetent men, it was incredibly easy for the White man to bring his sexually repressed Asian partner to climax. He, in turn, still has a lot of endurance leftover. While she has already reached her sexual peak, he still isn’t done relentlessly thrusting his cock inside her, pushing her to a brink of continuous, multiple orgasms. Liquid starts gushing out of her, something she did not know is possible. Her body begins to convulse uncontrollably, her already tight snatch spasms on his cock, finally making the White stallion ejaculate. His large cock is then able to ejaculate his semen directly to the top of her vagina, making them first in line to enter the cervix. His large gonads allow him to generate and deploy a large enough load to both impregnate her and still leave a large sum behind to block rivaling sperm from entering. His ability to make his partner climax also means her cervix will dip uncontrollably into his seminal pool, proactively drawing his sperm inside her.
Once she has mated with the White man, she will no longer desire to mate with an Asian male. This is unfortunately due to the fact that there is no biological purpose for her to do so. The Asian man’s mating strategy has been rendered obsolete in the face of foreign competition; his genitals simply aren’t equipped for competing with other men, much less foreign men. His tiny phallus won’t be able to reach deep enough to scoop out the White man’s deeply-planted sperms. His sexual inexperience prohibits him from thrusting for very long before ejaculating, making him unable to generate enough suction to displace the White man’s seminal pool. His gonads, which is two-fold smaller, only produces half the number of spermatozoa as White men. His small penis won’t be able to deploy his sperm directly to the top of her vagina either, leaving his small army of swimmers to be blocked from entering the cervix by the large remnants of the Caucasian man’s load that he was unable to displace. Due to the absence of his partner’s orgasm, her cervix won’t dip into his seminal pool. Instead, her lack of arousal makes her vagina dry and inhospitable, giving his already smaller army of sperms even less of a chance to fight through to the cervix. This essentially renders the whole act of mating with the Asian male pointless. Even in the event where the Asian male mated first, her sexual frustration from his inadequate performance will lead her to seek out a Caucasian male, who will in turn empty the contents of her vagina of his inferior sperm.
Though procreation isn’t on the mind of any of these individuals, the White man’s superior mating abilities are what causes the Asian woman to start longing for sexually competent males. He, in turn, compromises the East Asian male’s primary mating strategy, which involves collectively emasculating themselves and keeping their women sexually repressed to avoid sexual competition with one another. This essentially completely backfires, handicapping themselves against the sexually competent White men who also tower over them in social standing. Even if they wanted to change, their bodies and faces have already evolved to be devoid of most of its masculinity, making them the least sexually desirable among women of all races including their own. Unable to escape their genetics, they will forever be resigned to the fate of watching over half of their women mate exclusively with White men.

Julian Vigo #sexist feministcurrent.com

In an effort to move to a greener existence, I recently switched to an ecological toothbrush. As I have been living uniquely from solar panels for almost two years, I was forced to ditch my electric toothbrush. In choosing an ecological toothbrush, I studied materials, as well as the advantages of recycled plastic brushes versus those with replaceable heads. In the end, I had to eliminate every single option aside from the single one I chose. Yes, I had to exclude that which did not meet my personal standards and convenience.

I think a lot about exclusion these days. The #MeToo campaign which emerged in reaction to the sexually aggressive acts of Harvey Weinstein is clearly a female-centered campaign. But recently I’ve seen arguments that #MeToo should be extended to include males. While being “inclusive” of everyone might seem like a nice idea, the reality is that there are perfectly rational reasons for exclusivity in many situations. Our shared experiences with certain humans help us form bonds where and when we need them. These bonds can often make life bearable for those experiencing particularly painful moments in their lives. Commonalities help to create community. The truth is that all communities are exclusive, in one way or another, of individuals who don’t share certain experiences or requisites. While some might be tempted to argue exclusion equates to segregation, such arguments are very much apples and oranges, particularly in the context of women’s rights.

There are several key differences which should be underscored, when discussing “exclusion” in the women’s liberation movement, beginning with the myth that feminism must focus on males. Thanks to liberal feminists like Emma Watson, among others, many women have been made to believe that arguing for the inclusion of males in the women’s movement is a worthwhile cause. But any group in protest of its oppression by another group is within its rights to demand that the oppressor not be included in its organizing. For instance, when labour unions secured the legal right to represent employees in 1935, employers were excluded from the class of employees because it was understood that employers (as well as managers and supervisors) held power over workers. In terms of economic class, it seems that most people are on the same page when understanding which group holds power over another.

Similarly, civil rights advocacy began with the premise that there is social inequality between people of colour and white people, making a necessary distinction between who is being oppressed under white supremacy. Robbing a person of the right to distinguish the oppressor class means that she is barred from speaking about and identifying her oppression.

Nobody expected the Black Panthers to consider the marginalization of KKK members from their organization for good reason. Similarly, no such claim of exclusion was made about the Million Man March in Washington D.C. in 1995, when approximately 400,000 African American men converged en masse in the nation’s capital to engage in teach-ins, worship services, and community organizing. While there was a discussion over the fact that women were excluded, there was also recognition that black men had the right to gather without women to discuss their issues, and this action was largely supported by African American women. Two years later, the Million Woman March was held in D.C. to focus on issues specific to women.

This sort of exclusion is not based in hatred or a desire to do harm. Exclusion is how we decide, like me and my ecological toothbrush choices, what meets our needs. Exclusion is not necessarily about owning a card to an elite club — it is about setting a particular direction for an individual, group, activity, community, and so forth. All social groups exclude in some way. While I am a big believer in reaching over the aisle to dialogue with those responsible for our subordination, I also recognize the need of any group to make decisions within its group before reaching across that aisle.

(..)

Does the fact of breast cancer support groups for women mean that males cannot get breast cancer? Of course not. And there are breast cancer support groups for males. Why? Because males and females experience breast cancer differently. Commonalities between same-sexed bodies are part of the social intimacy that both males and females alike cherish across cultures. Be it in the hammam or the steam room, the hospital ward, or the changing room at the gym, there is intimacy between people of the same sex that provides a space of security and dignity. Females especially value these spaces because the public sphere is not safe for women. Being in a female-only changing room can offer women a needed reprieve from the daily sexualization of their bodies, and from unwanted male attention and judgment.

The issue of “exclusion” has become a touchpoint for the left in recent years. Most notably, we have seen exclusion being derided as bigotry in trans activist circles where women who say they would not feel comfortable with a male in their change rooms, their women’s shelters, or in a women’s prison are labelled transphobic. Yet both these examples come from real life paradigms. In 2007, Vancouver Rape Relief Society won a case against Kimberly Nixon, a trans-identified male who had attempted to join the training group for peer counsellors at the women’s shelter.

Nixon was asked to leave the group account of having been born male, and because the shelter operated on the basis that women could best counsel other women, having had the specific experience of growing up female under patriarchy. The B.C. Court of Appeals’ decided that Vancouver Rape Relief had the right to determine its own membership, as any oppressed group of people has the right to “discriminate” when organizing in their own interests, as a class. Currently pending in Texas is the case of three female inmates who are suing Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, claiming that, “They are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates.” The truth is that, for most women, sex does matter. What is more remarkable is that males who claim to have an internal “female identity” have zero compassion for or comprehension of the reality women face in a male supremacist world, and would prefer women put aside their own material reality, comfort, and safety in order to validate men’s feelings.

Choosing a female gynecologist or desiring a female-only space for changing is not meant to incriminate all males as, to paraphrase George W. Bush, “evil doers.” Rather, a woman might choose a female gynecologist both because she feels a woman would better understand her body, but also because she feels safer in that vulnerable state with someone statistically unlikely to assault them. Women’s desire to change in a locker room without male-bodied persons would likely be based on something similar, as well as a desire to maintain healthy boundaries that too often go unrespected. In excluding males from female spaces, women are demanding that society accept the healthy boundaries of women, even if, in certain scenarios, males might wish to be on the other side of the line.

Last week, Bustle ran a story arguing that “some members of LGBTQ community feel that the [#MeToo] campaign focuses too strongly on the gender binary and seems to erase nonbinary or genderqueer people from the conversation.” But what this statement really conveys is that males feel excluded from a conversation lead by women speaking out about male violence. While I would not deny that males experience violence, it is overwhelmingly violence inflicted by other males. What makes #MeToo important is that violence against women and girls is coded into the structural social hierarchy. When women contribute their #MeToo stories, they are doing so as females who have, from childhood, been groomed as objects that exist for male use.

It cannot be overstated that females suffer disproportionate levels of sex-based discrimination and violence, including sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and trafficking. Women are quite aware that they are discriminated against and physically abused because of their sex, regardless of how they may feel, internally, about the gender roles imposed on them. It is entirely insignificant, for example, how the over 200 women who James Toback sexually harassed identified. To demand that #MeToo include non-binary people is to miss the point of the feminist movement: feminism has from its inception been explicitly about breaking the hierarchy and stereotypes reinforced through gender which demanded women not leave the house, not vote, and not work. It is not the “binary” that is the problem so much as it is gender itself, under patriarchy. Men who rape women don’t care whether their victims feel “binary” or not.

What Bustle would like is for women to use a language that is seemingly more neutral, less politically objectionable, and more inclusive… of males. Otherwise there would be no uproar with focusing specifically on women’s voices and experiences in this campaign. Males insisting on being “included” in women’s social protest against sexism is just more of the same sexism — women are being instructed to shut up about their oppression by males unless they include males. Beyond that, under patriarchy, women are always under pressure to be sexually available to men. This new language of “inclusion” that frames “exclusion” as inherently harmful has led to males who identify as transgender to insist that women include them not only in their groups and politics, but in their beds. That this is explicitly sexist is made clear through the fact that I have yet to see any male who identifies as trans pressure heterosexual men into sleeping with him.

A narrative that insists on coercing or goading women into including their oppressor is anything but progressive. Likewise, insisting that the language of gender neutrality is what matters in a conversation about sexual violence is far from revolutionary. Taking up the five-cent terms like “non-binary” and “queer” will have no impact on the facts of sex-based oppression for females. The challenge we face as a society is not to carpet bomb women’s movements with accusations of “exclusivity” and “bigotry” when women recognize that males and females are different and have different needs. Creating linguistic games might seem avant-garde to undergraduates, but the reality is that gender is what prescribes the behavioral cues engrained in females throughout their lives. Gender is what is hammered into females as a class, rendering them subjects of a discourse they have no power to respond to. The notion that gender can ever be neutral is patently absurd since gender is not the solution. It is the problem.

Changing language to be “be more inclusive” is counter-revolutionary and pretending that such language does anything other prevent women from effectively organizing towards their own liberation is delusory. The language of gender inclusivity does nothing to dismantle the social and political inequalities that females face. It does, however, create a lovely illusion (especially for men who want to seem progressive in their attempts to thwart our movement): that saying “genderqueer” makes one a “feminist.”

Tanith Lloyd #sexist medium.com

An open letter to my friend who thinks transwomen are women

I recently sent you an article by a lesbian who has been documenting homophobia within trans activism. You, my otherwise compassionate, patient and warm friend, replied with “sorry, not interested”. You told me that you didn’t want to read an article which referred to transwomen as ‘male’. You said that transwomen suffer from an “accident at birth” — transwomen are women born in the wrong body.

Seeing my principled friend (with a first-class undergraduate and a masters degree) actively adopt such a bizarre, anti-materialist and anti-scientific position really worries me. How can ‘you’ be ‘born into’ a body? You are a body. The ‘born in the wrong body’ idea goes beyond poststructuralist ideas about gender onto quasi-religious terrain. How can anyone have an innate, pre-experience knowledge of what it means to be the other sex? What does that even entail? Being male or female refers to your reproductive sex. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing for gendered souls.

Still, you talk about ‘gender identity’ —an innate sense of whether someone is male or female. Where is the evidence for this? How do we measure it? What does it mean? Even if we were to accept that a part of your brain could get ‘mixed up’ into an ‘incorrectly’ sexed body, why would ‘gender identity’ override all other physical indicators of whether you are male or female? Why would your subjective sense of self ever be privileged over objective physicality in this way? Transgender is not a medical diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, characterised by dissatisfaction with your sexed body and/or assigned gender role. The science behind what causes gender dysphoria is inconclusive, but it is likely caused by different biopsychosocial factors which are unique to each trans person. Gender dysphoria has not been proven to have one ‘cause’ (an ‘accident at birth’ leading to being ‘born in the wrong body’) — there is no normative standard of ‘feeling like a woman’ or ‘feeling like a man’.

Despite this, children who ‘identify’ as the other sex are being given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. The systematic medicalisation of gender non-conforming children should be an unthinkable practice. Little girls are too young to understand that wanting short hair, having crushes on other girls and enjoying football doesn’t make you a boy trapped in a girls body. Studies suggest that 80% of gender dysphoric children desist and grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. One reason why older lesbians are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they recognise that they could easily have been ‘transed’ had they been children today. One reason why mothers are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they know children and their fickleness well.

We are meant to simultaneously believe that gender identity is fixed at around four years old (thus justifying medical intervention in children) but also that trans people don’t all struggle with a lifelong dissatisfaction with their ‘gender’ (thus widening the ‘trans umbrella’ for ‘inclusivity’). How are we to explain ‘genderfluid’, ‘non-binary’ or ‘agender’ identities? If gender has the potential to be fluid, or to change over time, or to not exist, what justification do we have in making permanent changes to a child’s body? Feminists see this practice as being based in gender essentialism?—?a concept you otherwise recognise and reject. What do you make of Jazz Jennings’ book, ‘I am Jazz’, which opens with “for as long as I can remember, my favourite colour has been pink”? She goes on to argue that “I have a girl brain, but a boy body. This is called transgender”. This book is being read in schools in an effort to educate children about what being trans means.

Jazz’ case is interesting, and certainly complexifies issues around sex and gender?—?to what extent can Jazz be considered ‘a man’ if she has never been allowed to go through male puberty? How could it be reasonable to expect Jazz to use male spaces? These are conversations we need to have. But Jazz is a very rare case. ‘Transgender’ is an umbrella term coined in the 1990s to unite a variety of gender non-conforming experiences. What was once ‘transsexual’ is now ‘transgender’. What was once ‘transvestite’ is also ‘transgender’. Both Jazz Jennings and Eddie Izzard have the same claim to the term ‘woman’, because ‘woman’ has been extended to mean ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ (which I guess excludes me, then). Where do you draw the line? Being ‘trans’ is no longer characterised by the material state of having surgically changed your body, but is now characterised by an immaterial, subjective sense of self. Is Danielle Muscato a woman? How about Stonewall activist, Alex Drummond? Again, where do you draw the line? Is it based on ‘passing’? Do women have to look a certain way? What about Jess Bradley, NUS trans spokesperson, who has been suspended from their position for allegedly flashing ‘her’ erect penis in public? Is this a female crime? Are we as a society prepared to accept that it is now possible for a woman to flash her erect penis in public? To extend this further: are we to now accept the possibility of a woman raping another woman with her penis? If nothing else, this is a huge assault on female solidarity and trust. This may be a crude comparison, and I apologise, but consider other animals: would surgically transplanting the feathers of a male peacock onto a female peacock make the latter male? Of course not. Would castrating and shaving the mane of a male lion make him female? Of course not. So why do we accept that surgery has the power to change sex in human beings?

Having said this, we are told by organisations like Stonewall that trans people who do not undergo surgical interventions are still, in all senses, the other sex. This is absurd. What definition of ‘female’ includes the only sex she is not? The female mammal is characterised by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa). No female mammal can fertilize female gametes. No father is a woman. No man is a woman. A woman is an adult human female. Definitions are, necessarily, exclusionary.

Still, in efforts to be more ‘inclusive’, organisations like Bloody Good Period and Cancer Research are reducing women to their biological functions with terms like “menstruators” and “everyone with a cervix”, respectively. Using such passive terms is explicit dehumanisation: other female animals have cervixes and can menstruate. Perhaps the most Orwellian act of ‘inclusivity’ comes from Healthline, who refer to vaginas as “front holes” in sex-education material. This is clearly offensive and ridiculous. You know this. Yet any woman who protests the erasure of ‘woman’ as a meaningful category is smeared as a ‘TERF’. Women who claim ‘women don’t have penises’ are being investigated by the police for hate crime. This is a laughably grotesque form of sexist injustice. As a leftist, surely you can’t defend this.

These new ideas about gender disproportionately affect women who have their own specific spaces, shortlists and movements. These were created not only to promote solidarity and to address historical disadvantages, but also to safeguard against male violence. The absurd climax of gender activism is that male sex offenders are now being housed in female prisons because they ‘identify’ as women. It seems obvious to me not to lock sex offenders in a space with powerless women, but, again, arguing this position gets you smeared with the slur ‘TERF’ (a term I wish you’d stop using). This may be an uncomfortable truth, but around half of UK trans prisoners are incarcerated for sexual crimes (including rape and paedophilia). This is not to argue that all transwomen are sexually violent, merely to point out that this is over double the 19% figure for sexual violence across the prison population as a whole. Why is this? These are questions we need to be free to ask, alongside many other questions: why are gender identity clinics seeing such dramatic increases in teenage girls with mental health issues and autism? Yet events organised by women to discuss these issues are being systematically shut down. Do you defend this assault on women’s democratic right to free speech and assembly?

I know you have many trans friends, some I know and am also very fond of. I understand that you have seen them struggle and that you naturally want to defend them. As with any feminist position, I am not attacking any individual male or denying their struggles. I am trying to objectively point to facts. Someone told me that in taking a gender-critical position, I am viewing trans people as “either mentally ill or immoral” and that this is cruel and unfair. I sympathise with their point, but this isn’t my position. This reminded me of CS Lewis’ argument that Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. Like CS Lewis, this activist excluded another possibility: simply being mistaken, which is where I sit. I worry that a lot of young trans people have misread their gender dysphoria as signalling that they are literally the other sex. But “Trans Women Are Women” was meant to be compassion, not truth.

denki #homophobia stormfront.org

Many White Nationalists are Pagans or Atheists and believe gays should have rights. You don't have to be a Christian or anti-gay to be against multiculturalism.

The number of gay people is too small to affect the birth rate. Whites are declining because heterosexuals are not having enough children. Don't blame this on the gay minority.

The gay lifestyle is that of sexual indulgence and impulsive, animalistic behavior. A being that acts primarily in accordance with its insatiable lust and desire is akin to an animal; not a human being, which is imbued with the ability to discern and control oneself. Their entire lifestyle and LGBTQWXYZ+ movement is centered around a perverse fetish and nothing more. "Love is love" cannot and must not be applied to these creatures. The defamation of objective Love has been popularized by morally decaying liberal insects; lust has gained the upper hand. Lust and fetishism are the guiding ideologies of the LGBT community, which aims to unite the degenerated masses around its rainbow flag. LGBT apologists pretend not to notice the obvious: they defend a culture that has developed around parties, bars, clubs, and other venues that emanate promiscuity. The movement requires hypersexuality to exist, as that is its defining feature. They parade the streets sporting sex toys, dressed in revealing clothes, fishnet stockings, pink tutus, heavy makeup, wigs, high heels, flashy colors, etc. etc. Men cease to be men. They no longer talk, walk, act, or dress like men. Lesbians tend to remain more-or-less feminine. Unless they're butch, they tend to keep their hair long, they typically continue to dress like women, and they do not alter their voices to sound deep. Gays, on the other hand, adopt an entirely different persona and actually try to resemble male-female hybrid prostitutes. They adopt the worst traits that generally only manifest in women.

We have all seen them and to deny the sexualized nature of this subculture is idiotic and insincere. They appear on stations like NPR for "Pride month" and introduce themselves as former male prostitutes advertising their "trailblazing" new TV show appropriately titled "Hoes." They refer to themselves as hoes; black slang for whores. They are male whores, they actively advertise themselves as such, and yet naive whites try to present gays in a "positive light," explaining how family-oriented they are and how they "just want to marry and love." Whores are the last people for whom marriage remains a sacrament. Whores have sex for money or pleasure and indulge in it incessantly; to consider whores fit for fidelity and loyalty is laughable and ridiculous. There is a reason gays tend to be associated with HIV; in 2010, they were a whopping 200x more likely to have it than anyone else. Furthermore, they account for over 60% of syphilis cases in America while they only make up 1.6% of the US population. And it makes sense, as they have sex with literally hundreds of men, nearly 80% of whom are strangers. I can't think of anything worse for gays than marriage, as it would only limit their extraordinary desire for anal rupture.

Male sexuality, whether oriented toward females or other males, craves variety. But whereas almost all heterosexual men, perhaps after “sowing wild oats,” settle down with one woman, homosexual men do not settle down. Ever. A classic, large-scale study by Bell and Weinberg conducted during the 1970s and published by the Kinsey Institute found that forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers. In 1985, Pollack found that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.”[ii] In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[iii]

Taken from:
The myth of male homosexual monogamy — ADvindicate

If you are unhappy with the religious overtones of the site, the materials that the author draws information from are books, articles, and academic sources you can find in the citations.

Gays are not associated with classical music, they are not associated with religion, nor a structured, traditional lifestyle. They are associated with disorder, drugs, and loud, flashy, repetitive electronic beeps and boops with abrupt, meaningless lyrics and convulsive movements that obstruct one's mental state, dull one's aching conscience, and force one's mind into a trance-like state in a futile attempt to escape the thought of future consequences. They are mentally ill escapists seeking to alleviate their troubled consciences through parties, sex, and mind-altering substances. Their hedonism ends prematurely with HIV, suicide, or overdose. It's not surprising that they're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (meth 12x, heroin 10x, alcohol 2-3x more likely than straight men).

They have a high suicide rate because they are mentally ill and experience childhood trauma. I do not think that a sexual orientation that typically results from rape or molestation is worthy of being mainstreamed and normalized. If it is a "fad," then it is a very dangerous one that begins with a broken childhood, continues into adolescence accompanied by sex and drugs, and finally ends at young adulthood with a stupid, tragic death. Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in the 1930's. It has been the norm for almost 90 years, and these weak, drug-addled individuals still uphold a suicide rate three times higher than that of the general populace.

Their subculture is nothing but a tragedy.

Jim #sexist #wingnut blog.jim.com

[From "The Logos has risen"]

On Easter Sunday we recollect the victory of Christ.

Most times, people at Easter reflect on resurrection as as the promise of the next world, but this is the Dark Enlightenment. Let us reflect on the victory of Logos. A man can be killed, even an idea can be killed, but the truth will not stay dead.

Our officially unofficial State Religion of progressivism is hostile to truth and at war with telos, logos, and reality itself. Gnon is the personification of order, telos, and logos, while Satan is the personification of disorder, perversion, and lies. No one can be relied on to speak truthfully and candidly if under his true name connected to job that can be destroyed and face that can be beaten in. Statistics always lie. Anonymous anecdote is the most reliable source, and it is not all that reliable.

[...]

If you take the red pill, while adhering to blue pilled moral values and political beliefs, you are apt to wind up black pilled, behaving self destructively (“Men going their own way”, “Men’s rights activists”), or committing suicide.

To internalize the red pill and yet remain mentally healthy, you have to believe that Gnon commanded that female sexuality should be under male authority, that female consent to sex is morally irrelevant. The red pill implies that female consent it is a mere fitness test, not something women genuinely want, hence their seemingly strange behavior with regard to rape and sexual harassment laws. To notice that, and yet remain sane and psychologically healthy, you have to believe that Gnon ordained female sexuality to be under the control of husbands and fathers, that rampant sexual immorality is not men looking a women with lust in their hearts, but women making their own sexual choices.

When men complain about rape, they complain about Rotherham and Cologne. When women complain about rape, they complain about handsome white high status wealthy famous college athletes raping poor innocent coeds, revealing that the real cause of their complaint is not the horrible horrible rape, but the horrible horrible lack of rape.

Hence a system where the complainant is the woman, and the criterion is the woman’s consent, fails, in part because female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself, in part because they fail to complain about the events we expect and want them to complain about, while actually complaining about failed fitness tests. All rape and sexual harassment complaints are fake, as near to all of them as makes no difference, not because rape and sexual harassment does not happen, it happens a lot, but because rape and sexual harassment is not what provokes complaints of rape and sexual harassment. For laws against rape and sexual harassment to have the intended effect the complainant has to be the husband or father, and the criterion has to be his consent, not her consent. Rape and sexual harassment laws fail to stop the behavior we actually want stopped, while endangering good men.

If you accept blue pilled ethical values, while observing red pill reality, then you are assenting to evil, to evil that hurts you, and this assent will tend to black pill you, and drive you crazy.

Bryan Crawford #homophobia #conspiracy #fundie #dunning-kruger finalcall.com

Using research conducted in his latest book, “Understanding the Assault on the Black Man, Black Manhood and Black Masculinity,” as the foundation for his lecture, Dr. Muhammad masterfully detailed the various ways in which the Black man has been chemically castrated and feminized—which involves much more than sexual identity or sexual desire.

Citing a scholarly article, “Neurohormonal Functioning and Sexual Orientation: A Theory of Homosexuality-Heterosexuality,” co-authored by Dr. Lee Ellis and Dr. M. Ashley Ames, and published by the American Psychological Association in 1987, Dr. Muhammad revealed how scientists have been researching “gender inversions”—switching male orientation to female and vice versa.
“The whole phenomenon of Black homosexuality today is a spawn of the White man’s science,” Dr. Muhammad argued.

He went on to explain that over a span of 30 years, culminating in 1987, scientists had mastered creating both neurological and behavioral sexual inversions in lab animals, using five different strategies designed to produce the same outcome: a form of castration that essentially caused males of the species to behave and act like females, particularly after the onset of puberty.

“Evidence has accumulated that many of the experiments conducted with laboratory animals have close parallels in humans,” the article stated. “We show that at least four of the five methods used in laboratory animals to induce inversions of sexual orientation appear to have similar effects in humans.”

For his lecture, Dr. Muhammad focused on two of those five methods. One was the weaponizing of a pregnant woman’s womb by tricking her immune system into producing antibodies that attack testosterone produced by her male fetus. The other was chemically inducing gender through introduction of “antiandrogens,” or drugs that can block or reduce the amount testosterone present in men.

“Testosterone does way more than control the male libido,” Dr. Muhammad explained. “Testosterone produces the male brain and controls masculine behavior. Testosterone masculinizes the brain of men. … It masculinizes behavior. What testosterone does, it encourages the behavior intended to acquire dominance. Scientists have said that an example of testosterone as a dominance hormone is that people who revolt against oppressors, their testosterone level is high. So, high testosterone is a biochemical attribute of those who revolt against oppressors.”

In the section of the article titled, “Pharmacological Causes of Human Sexual Inversions,” it reads, “As already discussed for laboratory animals, the evidence that drugs can cause sexual inversions, including inverted sexual orientation, is strong.”

The article goes on to say, “One set of drugs, the progestins (or progestogens), have been repeatedly implicated as having sexually inverting effects.”

Depo-Provera is an example of these drugs. It is commonly administered to women as a form of birth control, either through injection or a pill. Because it is an antiandrogen, Depo-Provera can block or significantly reduce the amount of testosterone produced in males, effectively feminizing them. This is usually accomplished by introducing Depo-Provera to women who are already pregnant, or after they give birth and are breastfeeding their babies.

Dr. Muhammad said in hospitals, doctors and nurses are “hawks,” immediately trying to get women to go on birth control after having babies. Female estrogen hormones can be passed along to encourage feminization in male children, he said. In addition, excess estrogen can cause masculinization in both female children and their mothers.

“The Black lesbian phenomenon, is scientifically produced,” he said.

IDW #fundie godlikeproductions.com

THIS IS THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT "GAYS", the politically incorrect truth

For several decades now we have all been inundated with social engineering concerning tolerance of homosexuals. Most of us were willing to go that far, to look the other way as long as they were discrete and did not influence our children. I don't know how many times I've heard (and said) "I don't care what two consenting people do in the privacy of their own home", and I don't.

Before that, gays were beaten and ostracized, and if you were a homosexual in a public school you were seen as a pariah, and rightly so I believe. Kids knew it was wrong, and were allowed to have that opinion. And this is how it all got started. People felt sorry for kids that were picked on. Most people myself included don't like to see a weaker person bullied by a stronger one, even if he is a fag. Two wrongs doesn't add up to a right.

The first step to getting where we are now is TOLERANCE. We were forced by extreme pressures and threats of prosecutions, expulsion of our children from public schools, and lawsuits to TOLERATE AND ACCEPT something that we see morally unconscionable. It isn't limited to just leaving hem alone, it is now having to tolerate their intentional systematic grooming of children, and the messages are barraging them from all fronts, from the television programs they watch, to the lessons that they are learning in school to the music they listen to. Nowhere is anyone telling them the other side, because we are constrianed by our own disgust and decency not to tell our children what it means to be a "fag".

WELL, IT"S TIME TO TAKE THE GLOVES OFF< POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BE DAMN, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH OUR KIDS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM THE TRUTH!

here are a few of those truths you won't see being taught about homosexuals

1)The average lifespan of a homosexual male is more than 20 years less than a heterosexual male. The average lifespan of a male in the united states is 78 years. The average lifespan of a homosexual male is somewhere between 49-53 years, depending on whose statistics you use.

Statistically, homosexuality is much worst health-wise than smoking or even heroin addiction.

2)The incidence of deadly diseases like hepatitis and aids are much much higher in the homosexual population. Sexually transmitted diseases are common

3)Even when in a "monogamous" relationship, almost all gays have multiple sex partners. Homosexuals are promiscuous and tend to have multiple partners that they have no emotional attachment to.

4)Almost all "gay" men claimed to have engaged in sexual relations with adult men while still children. The logical conclusion is that the grooming and seduction of males at a specific age right around puberty probably results in a boy becoming a homosexual, it is not a genetic trait, it is a learned behavior!

5) If one believes the statistics, around 2% of males in the United States are homosexual or 3% are homosexual+bisexual. 4 out of 10 reports of sexual assaults and molestation of children in the United states are male on male, and 99% or more of pedophiles show an exclusive preference for one sex or another. Most psychologists studying the problem agree that most boys do not report their molestation or assault, which means that 4 out of 10 is probablymore like 7 out of 10. I don't know about you, but I absolutely refuse to label a man who prefers sex with male children as anything other than a homosexual. If he has had sex with women, he is still a homosexual > heterosexual is not an aberration of nature, but homosexual is, so you can call him a "bisexual" if you want, he is a homosexual pervert engaging in homosexual acts. By the nature of their preference, these homosexuals do not admit they are homosexuals, but they are by definition.
So what could logically conclude from this is that homosexuals are many more times likely to be a molester of children. It could be 25 times a likely, but it is no less.

5) Children who are groomed and seduced by homosexuals typically do not report the abuse. Placing children by adoption in a homosexual environments greatly endangers their health ,both mental and physical. there is no way to know for sure if a homosexual "couple" are really pedophiles molesting their charges. The possibilities are endless, but the consensus among the sensible with common sense seems to be that homosexuals who want children will influence them to become homosexuals.

6)Children learn by example, and they adopt the mores and morals of their parents. The influence of homosexual parents on children has been proved in advanced studies to result in poor performance in all social aspects , from education to their ability to care for themselves. Children raised in homosexual environments do worst in school, are more likely to end up on drugs, and are much more likely to be jailed. They are also not surprisingly many times more likely to be sexual deviants themselves.

7)The main agenda behind the normalization of homosexual marriage is to allow homosexuals to adopt and raise children without the possibility of any legal resistance. I cannot understand how the people behind it could not possibly see that pedophile homosexuals are going to adopt children and molest them in great numbers because of this decision. It has doomed tens of thousands of children to be sexually abused and demoralized.
one studies carefully the statistics involved with state mandated adoptions and fostering of children, it becomes obvious the children in this country would be far and away safer and better off if the state did not intervene in family affairs by removing children form their parents care. While some cases do warrant it, the vast majority result in the children being much worst off that they were with their natural parents, and the people behind this are aware of these statistics. What this seems to indicate logically is that the intent is to harm children and destoy families.

8) If a person is truly concerned about the health and happiness of a child, he would teach that child that homosexuality is one of the most dangerous and filthy perversions there is.He would tell them No one is telling children about bleeding anuses, fecal matter leaking from their anuses, and prolapsed rectums. No one is telling them about the disease and the longevity studies, no one is telling them the truth because most of us are too modest to discuss things like this with kids. I feel we have no choice, because the fags are teaching them it's all about rainbows and ponies and having a gay ole time. They are counting on us to be too disgusted to teach our children the truth!

If you have anything to add to what I have said, question what I have said , or disagree with any part of it, feel free to voice your opinion, but be aware I intend to expose either your stupidity or your dishonesty. There is not a single word I have written here that cannot be proved empirically, scientifically.

Dean Bailey #fundie lifesitenews.com

Dean Bailey, 50, is not afraid to tell anyone he is living proof that ‘sexual orientation’ can in fact be changed. But he prefers to use the word ‘restored’ rather than ‘changed.’

Bailey remembers how from an early age he felt different from other boys. He felt he did not fit in and thought of himself as awkward, out of place. He remembers never feeling treasured or affirmed by his dad who was an alcoholic and who consumed pornography. Bailey believes this began a pattern of turning to other males to find the affirmation he never received from his dad.

When a new outgoing boy began to attend school when Bailey was in grade three, he remembers trying hard to become the boy’s friend. It was during a sleepover at the boy’s house that Bailey was introduced to sexual play, including streaking and oral copulation. The experience not only robbed him of his childhood innocence, but awakened in him a sense of sexual curiosity.

From here, Bailey became preoccupied with images of male nudity and with taking more daring sexual risks with different boys. As he grew older, the sexual acts Bailey performed with other boys became as a source of comfort to him, making him believe he was being loved and accepted.

But while such acts would make him feel good for a while, he says they were never able to help him overcome the constant theme of emptiness and brokenness he felt inside. The sexual activities quickly became addictive.

When a schoolgirl refused to go on a date with him that seemed to signal to the now-teenage Bailey that he was not a normal guy. Then, a few years later, a sexually awkward one-night stand with a woman seemed to confirm to him that he did not have what it took to be a man.

Bailey was now a young man in the military. Although in the meantime he had gotten married, he continued to crave male intimacy and experience gripping same-sex attractions. An intimate but non-sexual encounter with a military male friend whom he greatly admired eventually led to explicit homosexual behaviors.

The encounter severely damaged the relationship Bailey had previously enjoyed with his wife as she felt she could no longer trust the man she had married.

Having experienced homosexual acts, Bailey now struggled inwardly with intense homosexual desires that could only be allayed through carnal gratification, or so it seemed to him. Feelings of insecurity only intensified these inclinations.

His previous homosexual experiences drove him to seek answers to his insecurities through further homosexual encounters. A downwards spiral ensued as Bailey attempted to satisfy his desires, but only saw them grow in intensity the more he indulged them. Looking back, Bailey now realizes how homosexual acts had become an addiction for him.

Bailey credits God for acting powerfully in his life to save him from himself, change his life for the good, and ultimately bring about his deliverance from homosexual attractions. God led him on a journey of trust that ultimately led to the heart of Jesus Christ. Here Bailey experienced the love, acceptance, and affirmation he had always craved.

To put it simply, says Bailey, he fell in love with the person of Jesus. He experienced Him through prayer and through reading the Bible. All Bailey wanted now was to become more like Jesus, more Christ-like. As he began acting more and more on this desire, Bailey noticed a transformation begin to take place in his sexual desires. The homosexual desires began to decrease. For the first time in his life, Bailey began to see himself differently, this time through the eyes of a Savior who — he now realized — loved him unconditionally.

Looking back on his past, Bailey says he now sees that he has been brought out of what he calls the “sexual confusion of homosexual behaviors” to a sexual clarity in mind and heart. He has left behind what he calls the “self-defeating environment of my own, very negative self-image” and moved into an unshakable understanding of his value and self worth as a beloved child of God.

Bailey wrote about his entire journey in his 2011 book titled “Beyond the Shades of Gray.” Most of the book is available online at his website. He speaks publicly about his struggle with homosexuality, telling audiences that homosexuality is a “sexual addiction and dependency,” not a condition to be socially accepted and celebrated. “It is merely one of the many evidences of the broken, spiritual condition of our human race,” he tells people.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews from Texas where he lives with his wife Della and his two college-aged daughters, Amber and Amanda, Bailey spoke about what he has gained by leaving behind the homosexual identity, the role of God in bringing about sexual healing, about his views on the Christian understanding of homosexuality, and about why stories like his are shunned by the mainstream.

SaintElliot #fundie reddit.com

[Commenting under "About the rise of bisexual women....."]

It is because no female is bisexual or hetero sexual their sexuality changes depending on what fits them best. Bi sexual females are females that go for other females because it suits them atm. Females that couldn't find their optimal chad are going for each other because their ridiculous standards don't apply to other females.

Vaspar #fundie forums.worldofwarcraft.com

A nervous system is electrical activity in the brain. Where do you think everything is controlled at? Consciousness = / = electrical activity. You can have electrical activity in the brain without being conscious. And yes, brain activity (electrical impulses) are found in the first trimester, as well as a heartbeat and DMT, which is the hormone most agreed on by scientists to be responsible for the human soul / spirit.

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.

Incel Paradox Award

"Females are whores because they won't fuck just anybody"

SaintElliot #fundie reddit.com

Even if we escape inceldom we will be cucks unless we become uber chads

This post aims at answering all the questions there is like:

Why is female nature evil on default?

Why are all females whores?

Why are all normies cucks and delusional?

Why self-improvement isn't worth it if we can't become uber chad?

What is the best endgame for incels?

16-year-old fat girls have had over 10 sex partners. Females in this day and age are now starting to have sex at ages as early as 12. There can never be any female incels. You can't compare male and female sexuality. Females will most of the time lie about their sex partners or find a beta cuck that will accept this bullshit. No matter what they say to you. Your future wife or LTR will have had 20-50 cocks inside her. Every female can get chad in this day and age while we incels can't get shit. This is an injustice and a travesty. You could spend your entire life doing the self-improvement normie meme getting legit surgeries or even be born an 8/10. It won't matter anyway unless you are uber chad she will have had more partners than you. Unless you are uber chad like the top 0.01% you will get cucked either way. We have to do all that self-improvement stuff to get a chance at a long term GF or wife and to be cucked. Why is it like that? Why do men don't have that many partners but females do? Simple because the 80/20 rule is true. 80% of females share 20% of chads and give the pathetic normie beta cucks a bit of sex so the system and their monopoly keeps working.

Females hit the wall from age 30-40 they then will come to you to beta provide for them and marry them. It's gonna happen all you have to do is stay alive for the next 12-20 years and you will see. The worst part is she will be less attractive, and fertile and expire at light speed right each year till about age 50 when she hits menopause.

Females divorce out of anger because the chad they fucked in high school or in college never married them. So they will look for a bluepilled beta cuck and beta provider. The bluepilled moron is a guy she was friends with in her prime in highschool or college or she grew up with but never dated or fucked because she never liked him sexually. She will say why we never dated back then and all that female manipulation stuff that comes so easily to them due to their evil nature. Then she will give out low-quality blowjobs and sex. They will marry and have kids, she will take out her frustration out on him for not being chad, starting arguments, with-holding sex, making more demands. Even cheating on him adding to the cucking. They will divorce and she will get the kids the house and part of the pension, maybe even alimony. Evil female nature at work again. Society has been manipulated in their favor they can get away with all of it and they will be rewarded for it. You guys can thank feminism for that.

The best part is you will hate yourself, for only being able to fuck females and have options when they are past their prime. That time in highschool or college when she was in class smiling or giggling it was chad she was texting. The reason females don't make these demands is because chad is in demand. If she starts asking for commitment. Chad might decide to, choose another girl who will join his harem. So these girls, don't wanna lose out on the good sex, along with a short-term exciting relationship. Notice in their peak years of 11-16 girls aren't demanding chads give them commitment. If you do end up with post-wall female just fuck and leave them. Just don't marry them or have LTR's with them. If you do you are a cuck and they win.

That's, why post wall females biggest complaint, is men not wanting to marry and cheating. The true reason for this is that chads know the truth deep down and aren't as moronic as the bluepilled hordes of normie idots. Ex-chads know the truth deep down.

What do you guys think prime whores do at this very moment? Most likely they are:

Texting different Chads.

Sucking the cock of some Chad.

Getting pounded by some Chad.

Being in the gym doing fitness-work drooling at Chad's.

Being drunk flirting with Chad.

Getting gangbanged by Chads.

Checking her Tinder for new Chads.

Other online dating searching for more Chads.

Eating meatballs and potatoes and phoning with Chad.

And this has gone on since she was 12 every single fucking day over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, at any point during the day you are:

LDAR'ing

Thinking of ways to kill yourself

Even if you come to terms with being a cuck. She won't even love you or enjoy sleeping with you. You can't compare female and male sex. Females only want Chad, so yeah the 5/10 female had sex with 50 guys. but only 5 times she enjoyed it. Which makes it pretty even to a regular 5/10 guy, because he probably has a 100% enjoyment quote when getting laid. This is why finding a wife or LTR is pointless. She won't even enjoy having sex with you not that it matters. She will always think of chad.

All females are such big whores that the regular normie would most likely kill himself if he learned the truth. This is where their coping delusional explanation comes from: Only a few girls are whores like that. These are mental mechanisms that protect their already lackluster sanity. This is why normies and females feel so threatened by incel ideology. Normies feel threatened by anything that goes against their worldview/ideology to protect themselves and females are threatened by it because they are afraid they will be exposed. Only a moron would get married in this day and age since all females are whores. Rape is better than becoming a cuck like all the normie men are destined to.

Now guys listen to me closely. Never marry any female ever. Don't get them pregnant don't have an LTR with them. It is not worth jumping all the hoops and self-improving just to be cucked. Just get a virginal wife abroad. This is the best option for incels. /u/fschmidt was right. He was right all along. About modern society and that even if we succeed at it that we will be just as bad as the normies. Even if we succeed we will be cucks.

Doing anything else like settling with a post prime female while she is in decline beauty, youth and fertility wise is beyond moronic. Something she gave away at almost no cost to men she really liked. The only reason she wants marriage from you is because she is getting less attractive and the quality of men courting her gets less in quality and quantity. If she wanted marriage she would have gotten it. If she tried hard enough she could have found a chad to commit during her prime. Not when she is post wall. Normies invest into a declining prospect, when other men got her during her prime years. Females never asked those men for much resources or commitment. But here we have a post wall females making more demands when she has less value. During those peak years she never made those demands to the chads she truly wanted.

I hate every human with a vagina with the very core of my being.

Scott Lively #fundie scottlively.net

The next time you’re at a “gay ’ wedding with political, media or other important pro-gay-marriage celebrities, and one of them gets up with a glass of wedding punch to toast Partner A and Partner B for their courage to “be themselves,” here’s a question to shout out (in a feigned drunken slur) from the back: “Hey, Dude, why don’t you support bi-sexual marriage too? Are you some kind of bigot?“

Chances are if you’re reading this article, you’re not the sort of person likely to be found at such an event, but the point is that bi-sexual marriage is the very last thing that any of our opponents want to discuss, and we pro-family conservatives should really be forcing them to do it at every opportunity.

Think about it. A bi-sexual marriage would require an absolute minimum of four people. You’d have same sex partners A and B just like in the “gay marriage,” but you’d also need to have a heterosexual partner for both A and B.

You couldn’t get by with the same heterosexual partner for both A and B since that would mean Partner C wasn’t really a bi-sexual, but a polygamous heterosexual. (And we all know from “gay” activist rhetoric that polygamy can’t be a true sexual orientation. There’s never been a P in LGBT!)

So, for example. Male Bisexual Partner A would be partners with both Male Bisexual Partner B and Female Bisexual Partner C, While Male Bi-Sexual Partner B would be partners with Male Bi-sexual Partner A and Female Bi-Sexual Partner D.

I know it’s confusing but bear with me because this is important stuff. We’re talking essential human and civil rights for one of the four key groups in the LGBT community! In fact, one could argue that bisexuals are the most important sexual minority because they are the most neglected, even more than T’s (transvestites and transsexuals). No-one ever seems to talk about the rights of the Bs, not even their fellow Ls, Gs, and Ts.

[...]

Is “bi-sexual marriage” really relevant? Of course it is! Bisexuals are a core constituency of the LGBT movement. The other side CAN’T disavow them! They are the 800-lb gorilla in the room. Or, if you will, the “turd” in the punchbowl.

I debated whether to use that phrase, it being so crude, but in the end that’s the main reason I finally adopted it. “’Turd in the punchbowl” is a long-standing working-class metaphor for something dirty that completely ruins something clean. Once the crowd realizes there is a turd in the punchbowl, nobody is going to drink the punch. Ever. No matter what you do to it.

Marriage as God designed it is a clean and holy institution that sanctifies the sexual union of a man and a woman united as “one flesh.” It produces blessing for them and for society.

Marriages based on various forms of sodomy are unclean counterfeits that destroy true marriage by invalidating its central purpose, which is to enclose the procreative natural family in a socially unique protective cocoon. Once marriage stops being unique to the “one flesh” male/female procreative union, the concept of marriage loses all meaning.

Bruce Atkinson #fundie patheos.com

The whole issue of homosexuality is deliberately rigged in God's favor. Just check out the scriptures:: Matthew 19:4-6 (defining marriage), Genesis 1-2 (defining the image of God as male and female), Genesis 18-19 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
Deuteronomy 23:18, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Jude 1:7 refers to Genesis 19:1-11, the Sodom and Gomorrah incident. These scriptures condemn homosexual behavior as sin, even calling it an abomination that of course, without repentance and amendment of life, will keep you out of heaven. Additionally, there are many more scriptures that condemn sexual sin in general, which is defined as any sexual behavior outside of male-female marriage (this then must logically include homosexual behavior).

Chastity, sexual purity and sexual faithfulness in marriage are virtues valued highly all through the Bible. Their opposite is always condemned. I challenge dissenters to show me the scriptures which say that homosexuality is a good thing or even to be tolerated. They never can meet this challenge because such scriptures don’t exist. In order to maintain the heresy that committed homosexual relationships (and the sexual acts which accompany them) are not sin, a person must of necessity disbelieve and denigrate scripture. This means ignoring it, demeaning it, minimizing its authority, revising it, or re-interpreting it to fit one’s own point of view. This is because the scriptures are quite clear about sex being only right and holy within heterosexual marriage.

SchrodingersDick #sexist incels.co

The collapse of civilization is happening in your lifetime. Feminism caused it. There is no coming back from this. Long post.

Expanded upon another post of mine in another thread.. been meaning to post this for you all. I kinda suck at writing so it might be all over the place. There’s a TL;DR down below but I put a lot of effort into this so I’d appreciate if you took the time to read.

For the cucktears lurkers, before you shit on this, Take a step back and look at the world in the context of just another sexually dimorphic mammal species to understand the following.

Civilization is inherently a patriarchy. They are the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. In order for a civlization to exist, female sexual nature (hypergamous genetics-based mate selection) must be kept in check, for men to be treated equally and fairly, to allow for all members to have hope that if they contribute, they can be rewarded with guanrateed breeding right over a female of their choosing. In this sense, it is necessary for the success of a civilization that women be sexually oppressed.. this developed world is a man’s thing and will only ever cater to men. It is our creation for the benefit of all, but mostly genetically subpar, men. It’s all built at the expense of women’s vaginas. Any society in which women have free mate selection can not function. In tribal times, there was 1 sexually successful man for every 17 sexually successful women.. assuming a 100% female sexual success rate, that leaves 94% of men sexless. This is important. If it weren’t for this fact, we wouldn’t have a problem and this site wouldn’t exist. We need to replace genetic currency with something else in order to appease all men and make it possible for everyone to contribute and build something great.. Money was invented. Money must represent survival in order to be worth anything. It must replace the baseline definition of survival meaning a big strong male able to kill other males in a fight. Well we have a police force for that now so no need to worry. But most importantly, it must be able to be used as leverage to purchase pussy under the guise of survival. That’s the only way to keep the male population happy. Without it, women have to reason to mate with subpar men.. This system is inherently oppressive to women. Unfortunately for them, this system favors survival over reproductive success. Everyone survives and procreates but at the expense of females carrying and birthing inferior DNA. Survival is not enough for them. The idea of 1:1 male to female mate pairings guarantees that all the females not paired with a high SMV male with be with a low SMV male and produce genetically poor kids (which is why they are repulsed by low SMV men, which is why rape only exists with low SMV men, but you knew this already, no need to expand), something that disgusts them on a primitive level. It’s a system they need to get rid of.. hence the sexual liberation, fighting for rights, fighting for a right to work, etc. no matter how hard men try to keep a society strong and prosperous, women will actively try and tear it all down.

This snowball formed when women were given rights.. it started a snowball effect. Now there are several things that compounded with each other make for a nightmare scenario for the world.

1: women in the work place. Women earn their own money now. A Man’s resources cannot be used as leverage to purchase reproductive rights with a female. Thus his contributions to the tribe are meaningless as his reward holds no value.

2: genetic misrepresentation and contraception. Estrogen frauding Makeup, plastic surgeries, gym to build a high estrogen ass.. all these things are being used to falsely elevate women’s sexual dimorphism, perceived serum estrogen concentration, age, fertility, etc. notice how every foid does makeup the same way. Thin narrow nose bridge, shadows under the zygos to show zygo projection, rounded chin makeup, eyeliner to fraud thick eyelashes (health indicator).. women are walking around looking like top tier specimens the likes of which would make your caveman ancestors balls explode. Tbh they should bow down to partiarchy that they’re able to walk around like this alone and not immediately be gangraped when they step out of the house looking like they sweat pure estrogen and fertility. And lastly contraception.. things like birth control, condoms and abortion make casual sex and being a whore consequence-free. It’s the reason the cock carousel exists.

3: easy access to a global sexual market. The tribe is no longer a handful of guys and girls with the top guy doing all the fucking. Smartphones, Tinder, Instagram, cars, planes, buses, etc all help make the sexual marketplace a global thing.. in essence it’s an 8 billion member tribe, with easy access to all types of chad dick. Far more competition among males and a far lower sexual success rate among the male population.

4: destruction of religion. Religion isn’t really a thing anymore. It was once a powerful tool to convince women that 1:1 mate pairings are what’s to be expected, no sex before marriage, shit like that (had other reasons too. Keeps men’s testosterone at bay, thou shall not kill, steal, etc. keeps things civil) .. They had a reason to abide and ignore their primal instincts. It did a pretty good job.. now that’s gone, and there’s virtually no way of enforcing monogamy and chastity. Which funny enough, is also the only prerequisite for a woman to get married.. just be a virgin. They can’t even manage that yet a bunch of captain save a hoes are quick to wife em up, and these hoes will wear white on their wedding day symbolizing their purity.. jfl

Compound these 4 new phenomenon together, and you can quickly see that the sexual market is fucked, and a society with a SMP like this cannot sustain itself.. This is a world that belongs to women now. This world automatically excludes all men unfit for reproduction. In this case, it’s likely over 99% of men. What will these men do once they realize money doesn’t buy pussy? Once they realize that if there’s truly no hope for them, they can rely on government assistance, or work a menial bottom tier job just to make enough to survive. If these men even have the drive to go to work, they will have no drive to innovate, get promotions, invent something, become millionaires, etc. you’ll have a lot of complacent men with no motivation to contribute anything. Best hope automation can replace the entire workforce, and if not, then you got a work force made up of 99% women and just lmao if you think that’s gonna take us anywhere. Women have no incentive to make money other than to rid men of their only leverage and open up their prospective mating options. Same deal with them.. they’ll just aim to make the minimum amount to survive and genefraud enough to land 6’4” chad.

This results is a catalysmic shift of the world as we know it.. there will be a total collapse once the number of men who drop out of society reaches critical mass. But until then, you will see a shitload of people dependent on government assistance, the rich being taxed out the ass, who now have even less incentive to keep perusing high paying careers, more people coping with drugs/alcohol, a spike in suicides and mass shootings, high SMV men forming harems, etc.. basically 2018 x10.

For this to happen, It’s not even necessary for the masses to swallow the blackpill.. it’s only necessary for them to realize money doesn’t mean anything anymore. That’s all it takes. Put simply, one’s contributions to society are no longer worth the effort. It’s basically slave labor at that point.

So there you have it. All the causes are there and cannot be reversed.. things have already been set in motion. just wait till the effects of them become painfully obvious. This cannot be fixed since nobody is gonna accept that women’s vaginas are the reason for this. Maybe next time around men don’t fuck up and start the civilization off strong with commoditized pussy. This will all go down in documented history so a mistake like this likely won’t repeat itself. That’s the good news.

This should be lifefuel for you all. You are witnessing the collapse of the most successful civilization on earth in YOUR lifetime. Pretty cool. So ditch your ER plans, untie your ropes, and Sit back and watch the world burn.

TL;DR; a couple rights here and there and a few apps destroyed the world. Patriarchy, religion, and commoditization and sexual oppression of women are paramount to the existence and survival of any civilization. We lack all 4. It’s over. Bunker up and stockpile food and ammo. We’re going back to the jungle.

HARVARDCRIMSON12 #conspiracy constantsupervision.wordpress.com

The vagina produces a thick fluid known as copulin that has actual mind control effects on a male’s brain. If a man is exposed to a woman’s copulins, over time she will be able to:

1) Change, remove, or insert memories.

2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes.

3) ?Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as “his own ideas” or behavior later.

4) ?Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months).

”Karl Grammer and Elizabeth Oberzaucher, researchers who study how the human scent influences sexual attraction, found that when women are ovulating, they produce pheromones called copulins. Copulins have a distinct smell, which Elizabeth describes as “butter that has gone bad.”

When a man gets a whiff of copulins, his testosterone levels rise. As a result, he secretes androstenone, an odor that repels women who aren’t ovulating.”
Through the process of coupling a female and male will lay relatively still without having sex with the penis inside of the vagina. The process may take up to 15 minutes and works faster and more efficiently when the female is on top of the male. During this period the vagina injects up to 1/2 cup (100 ml) of the copulin fluid into the urethral opening at the tip of the penis, which is chemically attracted to semen, and will follow the semen down the shaft directly into the testicles. After 15 minutes of coupling the copulins will have entered the blood stream and traveled from his testicles up into the hypothalamus (a section of the brain that controls hormones) causing the male to become completely influenced by the needs and suggestions of the female.

Once a hypothalamus is flooded with copulins, the male brain is just sitting on idle, with only the bare minimum of thought process. In this state, the male is probably not thinking of anything at all, but any input from the female will become the male’s singular focus.

After multiple couplings:

the male hypothalamus completely ignores his own polypeptides while her copulins are present, even if the female gives no input. Although the male is not forming many original thoughts, the brain is still communicating ideas back and forth; however, these ideas are completely regulated by what the male already knows the female expects.

Some women report having conflicting issues of morality concerning coupling and the effects of copulins producing a false sense of happiness in the male, and others more boldly state they see no problem with coupling and have ”coupled” their husbands while he was asleep. This is usually done in the morning when the male is naturally erect from a relaxing night of sleep. Women have given testimonies about the influence of coupling has on their husbands. For example, they routinely do all the housework and are more eager to spend time with the children.

Playing the field

”Over time, the presence of a womans distinctive copulins and hormonal scent becomes addictive to the male, which is why a young emperor or prince was often given a large number of females that he could rotate between, never allowing himself to become addicted or under the spell of one womans copulins.”

Warning

Copulins are often sold over the counter and online in 100% concentrated form that comes in a perfume spray. This perfume spray will have the same effects on the male as the coupling process and will enhance her ability to control a male.
Copulin sprays create the highest state of sexual euphoria known to man. So intense they can become mind controlling and last for days. Copulins will excite and entice any man or any woman individually, or both genders at the same time. Beware!

Synopsis

You see, the chemistry of a women is to attract humans [in dangerous ways], specifically males and more specifically the sperm, but the scent of their copulins will mentally weaken a person and systematically works to relax them (regardless of gender), artificially making them seem safe. Whether it be to tell them their secrets (instinctively they gather and pass along information this way) or to distract and sexually arouse someone. That’s just how those chemicals effect the polypeptides in the hypothalamus gland of your brain. The colliding forces of copulins will also cause collective thinking in group of women, especially if they are ovulating at or near the same cycle. Fifteen minutes is all it takes for copulins to take over a majority of the hypothalamus gland. Even less time if you are having sex with them . If you are within 3 feet of an ovulating woman or group of them YOUR polypeptides are being replaced at a rate of 5% a minute with THEIR copulins. Yes, you are being chemically drugged by women, even if you are a woman. Over time the brain becomes addicted to a particular scent of copulins, which is why a young emperor or prince was often given a large number of concubines (female sex workers) that he could rotate between, never allowing himself to become addicted or under the spell of one womans copulins. Lastly, when around 80% of your polypeptides have been replaced they will they are able to:

1) Change, remove, or insert memories.
2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes.
3) Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as “his own ideas” or behavior later.
4) Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months).

Good luck! It’s a jungle out there!

Atavisionary #fundie atavisionary.com

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.

Nathan Rinne #fundie patheos.com

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the….

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on… we getting there right now….

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses… the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not… And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable…

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying… “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game… the truth is that we cannot not really know truth… what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am…

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: On how the only aspects of "womanhood" that are valued are the ones males can buy into

image

(lacubana)
Yesssss thissssss

Wanna know when I felt most “like a woman”? I can tell you I sure wasn’t wearing makeup or heels or having a pillow fight. I wasn’t delicate in the slightest.

It was when I was pushing another human I had made out of my body. Oh yeah that.

(earthgarden)
and if you're not pushing a human out, or in the process of growing a human, you get a monthly reminder by your body (for at least 4 f!cking decades of your life!) that it had to tear down the nest it built just in case you set one to growing. I swear to god!! If men could experience a period ONCE they would leave us TF alone! That would be an end to the oppression because their pity would know no bounds, they'd experience massive shame at the treatment men have inflicted upon female humanity these long millennia. because then they'd realize nature already oppresses us just fine, thank you very much

(LadyCeer)
My dad used to be really sweet about it and let me sleep a lot and he fed me eggs and ibuprofen and was just very kind when I was being shot down by my period. He also used to talk to women in the form of long, friendly, non-sexual conversations....But then, he never tried to become a woman. Maybe that's a connection.

(shortstroll)
I don't know about your theory but I think it's one of two options.

The first is that some of them are just gay men who in their formative years internalised gender roles. So since they like clothes, have a crush on a dude and their penis isnt a major erogenous zones they think they are girls. It's also sub conscious sexual strategy. There's a greater selection of partners for them if they can fake being a woman. In fact you now see them pushing the idea that genuine heterosexual males would knowingly copulate with a tim.

The second is that some of them are straight men who just have a weird fetishism of womanhood. They don't just want to have sex with women, they want to be them. This isn't dissimilar from the cannibals who get sexual gratification from eating their sexual partners. Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of this. He slowly turned himself into a male version of his wife and the closer he got to his goal the greater his resentment of her grew. Once he had completed his transition, he didn't just discard her, he tried to destroy her in the media. I'm convinced that in a different world, he would have murdered her. That would have been his version of a perfect conclusion.

(TerribleConfusion)
I saw Graham Linehan retweeted a man suggesting something similar. It’s hard to empathise with this, as a woman, but it seemed to make sense to him and the other guy. And I suppose when you think about it, a lot of men do get INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when discussing ways in which men oppress women. Even decent guys don’t want to think about it. So I can kind of imagine how that discomfort might feed in to autogynephilia. Maybe when you feel like your desire is oppressive you want to be the object of desire instead of the subject.

It’s very hard to reconcile this with how misogynistic many TIMs are, though. But I suppose maybe they feel like they’re allowed to hate and bully women because they’re “women” too, and they’re more special and oppressed than any other kind of woman blah blah etc. And maybe it’s the most misogynistic and shitty of men who are most uncomfortable with themselves deep down so they transition to escape their own shittiness. Spoiler: they don’t escape it, they just found a different method than other misogynists to project their shittiness on to (actual) women.

(witchy_xx)
actually this is the exact reason given when my ex came out as trans. he wanted to escape the role of oppressor. what a load of shit.

it's also an easy power grab. for example that asshat Hailey Heartless was a no one politically before and now everyone knows his name.

(griffxx)
We have seen TIMs along with their Handmaidens, trying to dislocate all things female, from the definition of of woman, womanhood and female. I'm truly fascinated, in a psychologically clinical way, the TIMs asserting that they have Bloodless Periods. This a whole other level of Delusion.

Why on Earth did these Feminized White Men, think they could dictate WOMEN diminished our Womanhood, for their OBSESSIVE NARCISSISTIC NEED FOR THE VALIDATION OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITIES!!!!!

The minute these Prostate Havers and their Handmaidens said point blank that, "FEMALE BIOLOGY AND THE EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN THE BODY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMANHOOD" this Misogynistic, Homophobic and Racist Movement should have been REELED/REALED in to what it was supposed to be:

Lobbying and advocating for laws that reassert Civil Rights protections against various forms of discrimination.

They have framed as "A FIGHT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE" this is categorically A LIE.

And to make the claim there are plenty of Lesbians that will date and fuck them; Bisexual leaning women more like. If this were true the Cotton Ceiling War Against Lesbian Sexuality would have ended 5 years ago. Instead it's still continues, and we are at 7.5 year mark.

We need to build on the momentum, we currently have. We need to explain to the Civilian class of women--> not part of the Feminist or LGBTQ Communities, how White TIMs are engaged in the process of erasing their sex-based protections, in the name of attaining their Civil Rights

(scienceisarealthing)

I have no way of knowing whether most pass or not. I’ve never seen a study. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

I've seen a lot of trans-identified males in real life as well as in photo & it's very rare for them to pass. The few who do pass visually are clockable as male as soon as you hear their voice, see their body shape, or see how large their bone structure is when they are next to a female person. This is not meant as an "insult" btw, bc there's nothing wrong with being a feminine male (as long as they arent sexist, etc...)

Transmisogyny is intrinsically illogical bc either the trans-ID'd male passes as female (and experiences some forms of misogyny) or he is clocked as male & faces homophobia/ transphobia/ whatever you wanna call hatred/ disgust against gnc males. It's the reason why drunk guys will sometimes hit on a trans-ID'd male, then the moment they find out he's actually male will scream things like "Fggot! Trnny!!" and sometimes resort to physical violence. That is NOT an example of misogyny bc it wouldn't happen to a female.

How would you know you saw a trans person if they did pass though?

I've never seen a trans-ID'd male who passes in real life, only in photos. There's just no getting around the differences in bone structure, voice, and movements between males and females when you observe people in real life. As someone who is involved in the natural sciences & figure drawing, it is easy to determine someone's natal sex & tell if they are trans or not.

edit: I mean, even when you look at the transpassing sub, few pass even in photo. It does a disservice to trans people to lie to them by telling them they pass when they don't. I see women and other trans people do this all the time & it makes me cringe, because it's so obviously.. not true. In fact, it comes across as cruel to lie to someone like that. It should be ok for people to look/ dress however they want without striving for the unattainable goal of passing completely as the opposite sex.

If a trans woman passes as female, what forms of misogyny would they not face? Honest question. Is it just from medical professionals who would know about someone’s private health details? If they pass, then why would it come up in conversation?

Side question, why does it matter if someone is facing violence due to misogyny or transphobia? Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences under the same system?

It is impossible to say definitively whether or not most trans women can pass based on one person’s interaction with the public. You can definitely say that you’ve seen some trans people not passing. Why would anyone reveal their medical history to a stranger?

Jesus christ, seriously? They wouldn't face:

-limited birth control access, abortion access, reproductive rights battles

-the pain of pregnancy/ discrimination against pregnant women

-dying in childbirth

-the fear of becoming pregnant

-menstrual pain/ stigma/ menstrual huts

-female genital mutilation

-femicide/ sex selective abortion

-medical stigma against female health concerns like PCOS, uterine cysts, endometriosis, severe PMS, menopause, etc... (the list goes on & on)

-sex trafficking & rape (most men want to rape females, not trans-ID'd males)

-being sold as a child bride

-limited access to education bc of being female

-breast ironing

-bride burning

-foot binding (though this only happened to females in the past, as far as i know)

I'm leaving off so much more I can't think of right now. Trans men, nonbinary females, women.. we all face these issues based on what part of the world we live in. It matters whether someone faces misogyny vs. homophobia/ transphobia because those are different forms of oppression! By your same logic, we could include men who face racism under the branch of feminism because (as you said) "Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences?"

FEMinism is the only political movement that is exclusively for FEMales. It's horrible that other people face different forms of oppression, but they can form their own movements to address their needs. Black women & black men both face racism but ONLY black women are welcome in feminism. Poor men & poor women are both economically oppressed, but ONLY the poor woman is welcome in feminism. A woman & a passing trans-ID'd male may both be catcalled, but ONLY the woman is welcome in feminism.

Trans-ID'd males are welcome to (and in fact, already have) formed their own political movements against the unique problems they face. It is narcissistic and unreasonable to demand that women dismantle the ONLY political movement that we have to ourselves. Can female people seriously have nothing to ourselves?Do we have to give in to every group who wants "in"? We can be allies with each other to overcome some similar problems we may face (if any), but we are not the same, and that distinction in lived reality matters.

Isn’t feminism for anyone who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of women? Everyone is welcome. That is a great point about not including everyone who is oppressed ever, but the type of oppression we are talking about is targeted at people who present as female. What I find disturbing by your response is that you aren’t inclusive. Why do you need to say that someone is not welcome if they are experiencing something as common as cat calling or workplace harassment? Would it be so bad if a trans woman was in your circle? Would you not feel safe? I don’t understand what benefit there is to being so specific in membership? It seems to me that it would be best to differentiate by who is suffering a type of discrimination. For example, a trans woman might be subject to being talked down to in public (there is a great TEDtalk by a trans woman who knows what it is like to walk around in society as an adult male and an adult female. She passes btw). A trans male might have not had access to birth control prior to transitioning. I would think both types of people would be welcome.

Feminism is Liberation of females from male oppression. We are already equal, stating that is redundant and offensive.

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!

Hassam #conspiracy jeffpolachek.com

HAVE you ever thought about something you never shared with anyone, and have been horror-struck at the mere thought of someone coming to know about your little secret? If you have, then you probably have all the more reason to be paranoid now thanks to new and improved security systems being developed around the world to deal with terrorism that inadvertently end up impinging on one's privacy.
Some of the countries involved in such programmes include USA, UK, Spain, Germany and France. Recently, the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US has developed a very efficient method of controlling the human brain. This technology is called Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and is expected to revolutionise crime detection and investigation.
hand-on-brain
What is it?

RNM works remotely to control the brain in order to read and detect any criminal thought taking place inside the mind of a possible perpetrator. Research studies have shown that the human brain thinks at a rate of about 5000 bits per second and does not have the capacity to compete with supercomputers performing via satellites, implants and biotelemetry. The human brain has a distinctive set of bioelectric resonance system. For the RNM system, supercomputers are being used and, thus, with its help, supercomputers can send messages through an implanted person's nervous system in order to influence their performance in a desired way.
RNM has been developed after about 50 years of neuro-electromagnetic involuntary human experimentations. According to many scientists, within a few years it is expected that DNA microchips will be implanted in the human brain which would make it inherently controllable. With RNM, it will be possible to read and control a person's emotional thought processes along with the subconscious and dreams. At present, around the world, supercomputers are monitoring millions of people simultaneously with the speed of 20 billion bits per second especially in countries like USA, Japan, Israel and many European countries.RNM has a set of certain programs functioning at different levels, like the signals intelligence system which uses electromagnetic frequencies (EMF), to stimulate the brain for RNM and the electronic brain link (EBL). The EMF Brain Stimulation system has been designed as radiation intelligence which means receiving information from inadvertently originated electromagnetic waves in the environment. However, it is not related to radioactivity or nuclear detonation. The recording machines in the signals intelligence system have electronic equipment that investigate electrical activity in humans from a distance. This computer-generated brain mapping can constantly monitor all electrical activities in the brain. The recording aid system decodes individual brain maps for security purposes.
What does it do?

For purposes of electronic evaluation, electrical activity in the speech centre of the brain can be translated in to the subject's verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the auditory cortex of the brain directly bypassing the ear. This encoding helps in detecting audio communication. It can also perform electrical mapping of the brain's activity from the visual centre of the brain, which it does by bypassing the eyes and optic nerves, thus projecting images from the subject's brain onto a video monitor. With this visual and audio memory, both can be visualised and analysed. This system can, remotely and non-invasively, detect information by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in 30-50Hz, 5 millwatt electromagnetic emissions from the brain. The nerves produce a shifting electrical pattern with a shifting magnetic flux which then puts on a constant amount of electromagnetic waves. There are spikes and patterns which are called evoked potentials in the electromagnetic emission from the brain. The interesting part about this is that the entire exercise is carried out without any physical contact with the subject.

The EMF emissions from the brain can be decoded into current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject's brain. It sends complicated codes and electromagnetic pulse signals to activate evoked potentials inside the brain, thus generating sounds and visual images in the neural circuits. With its speech, auditory and visual communication systems, RNM allows for a complete audio-visual brain to brain link or a brain-to-computer link.

Of course, the mechanism needs to decode the resonance frequency of each specific site to modulate the insertion of information in that specific location of the brain. RNM can also detect hearing via electromagnetic microwaves, and it also features the transmission of specific commands into the subconscious, producing visual disturbances, visual hallucinations and injection of words and numbers in to the brain through electromagnetic radiation waves. Also, it manipulates emotions and thoughts and reads thoughts remotely, causes pain to any nerve of the body, allows for remote manipulation of behaviour, controls sleep patterns through which control over communication is made easy. This can be used for crime investigation and security management.
Concerns

With all the given benefits of RNM for tracking the illicit and treacherous activities, there are many concerns and risks being pointed out by human rights activists and other scientists. The agencies of human rights around the world have criticised RNM as a violation of basic human rights because it violates privacy and the dignity of thoughts and activities of life. Several countries have protested against it and refer to it as an attack on their human and civil rights. The scientists protesting against the use of RNM believe that people who have been implanted involuntarily become biological robots and guinea pigs for RNM activities in the guise of security. This is an important biological concern related to microchip implantation, which is a hidden technology using microwave radiations for the control of the mind.

Scientists believe that like leukemia and the cancerous risks posed by mobile phones which also emit microwaves, RNM can also pose similar threats to a subject's overall health as the heating effect of tissues with the speed of light is a known effect of high powered microwave and electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Thus, RNM remains a controversial technology which is being used in many countries for security maintenance and surveillance.

Jason Storms #fundie facebook.com

LGBT Pride month is officially over. I did not celebrate. I grieved. To summarize the festivities; tens of thousands of homosexual men have contracted AIDS this month, hundreds of thousands more have severeely ruptured their rectal organs and will be unable to go to the bathroom in a normal manner again. Millions more have spread and contracted a host of diseases from syphilis to gonorrhea as well as the onset of anal and rectal cancer as feces, semen, and blood are mixed in the most unnatural of ways. It has been quite a month.

How can I say I care about "gay people" if I encrourage and celebrate this behavior? Two men sodomizing each is not love, it is unhealthy and destructive behavior. Many will call me a hater and a bigot for saying this (oblivious to their own hatred and bigotry) but it is love that demands I say these things. How many young men are being seduced into this self-destructive lifestyle while the media celebrates and panders to their seducers? If I love homosexuals I will seek to steer them out of that lifestyle and inform them of the work of courageous men, like Dr. Josef Nicolosi, who have developed reparative treatments rescuing men and women from same-sex attractions.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, along with a good supporting community, can liberate and set free any one of us from the deepest addictions, habits and desires.

Our bodies were designed for lifelong monogomous sexual activity between a male and female. All the scientific data confirms this. This is the standard. All the propaganda, hype, sentamentality and seductions of our modern narcissistic age will not change that standard. America will either turn back to this standard or we will go the way of the Roman Empire.

#HedonismUltimatelyFails #LGBT #ChangeIsPossible #SpeakTheTruthInLove

George B. #fundie the-spearhead.com

The Gynocentric Cycle can’t restart now, it’s way too soon! It’s half a century too early!
The Gynocentric Cycle in a nutshell is this: tough times lead to sexual morality. Sexual morality leads to prosperity. Prosperity and easy times lead to people gradually abandoning sexual morality. One aspect of this is the rise of feminism and the long string of defeats the Right has suffered in the culture wars since the mid-60's. The dismantlement of sexual morality gradually ends prosperity and leads to tough times again. And so the cycle begins again.

More concisely it can be put this way:
History repeats itself. Good times breed weak people. Weak people create tough times. Tough times breed strong people. Strong people create good times.

The Greatest Generation (strong people), who grew up in the Great Depression and WW2 (tough times), created the post-war prosperity (good times). The children of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers (weak people; and Liberal pieces of shit) grew up in the prosperity their parents created without understanding what it took to create it and what it takes to sustain it. So Baby Boomers and Liberals which belong to their generation set about dismantling what their parents had built beginning in the mid-60's. The result of their efforts lead to the increasingly (and already tough enough) tough times we now are in. To cite one example, the mass entry of women into the workforce correlates with the beginning of the trend of the Middle Class wages’ multi-decade plummet and the beginning of the trend of the growth of income inequality in America. To cite another example, the date women got the vote correlates with the start of the trend of the monumental growth of the welfare state.

Now to why I think it’s bad news that the Gynocentric Cycle is rebooting right now, if that is indeed the case. Men and women have been at this “sex war” for all of their existence. This cyclical phenomenon has covered all of human history. I want it to end in a decisive and irrevocable victory for men. But the only way this will happen is if two events coincide in time: the end of a gynocentric cycle and the start of the permanent and irreversible obsolescence of women.
At the end of a gynocentric cycle, men are so disgusted and put off by women that they want nothing to do with them and they are seriously considering doing without them and going their own way. At such a point, men see themselves as a group and not just as generic individuals.

The second event consists of two components: the technological obsolescence of women on the sexual and reproductive fronts. On the sexual front, their obsolescence consists of two major inventions: virtual reality sex and robot sex partners. On the reproductive front, their obsolescence consists of the invention of the artificial uterus.

Side note: to be completely accurate, VR sex is right around the corner but the second half, the reproductive aspect, may not be necessary after all. Men would withdraw into their individual sexual heavens and let the rest of society (especially government and women) look on in horror as the birth rate plummets to near-zero levels and productivity drops and the taxes dry out. On the other hand, the artificial uterus (just as surrogacy before it) would allow men for the first time in history to be the ones who decide what traits will be passed on to the next generation and select for men for their love of sovereignty and dignity, civilization-building, civilization-friendly men, sovereign men, instead of women selecting men for their servility and utility to women. This one development alone would allow us to break free from the old cycle that has brought countless civilizations to their knees because they couldn’t escape Homo Sapiens’ animal past as enshrined in women’s sexual instinct and enforced by women’s herdthink. We would be the first species in the known universe ever to escape their animal past.

If these inventions arrive at a time when men are thoroughly and rightfully repulsed by women, then we will have victory, and we will be fairly vindicated for all the injustices they have brought upon us. We will have a clean and clear break from them. However, if those inventions arrive at a time when women are again pretending to be nice, then at best we will have peace, but we will never be completely rid of gynocentrism. It will stick with us for life… like herpes. We may never be rid of putting the male masses in hyper-production mode (as opposed to non-self-destructive high production mode). We may never be rid of consumerism and conspicuous consumption (both highly gynocentric phenomena).

Jonathan Van Maren #fundie lifesitenews.com

Alfred Kinsey was a pervert and a sex criminal

He is known as “The Father of the Sexual Revolution,” and if you’ve ever taken a university course on 20th century history, you’ll have heard his name: Alfred Kinsey.

Kinsey was not only the “father” of the Sexual Revolution, he set the stage for the massive social and cultural upheaval of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s with his 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Maleand his 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Much less talked about were his other disturbing “findings”—an in-depth study on the “sexual behavior” of children, as well as claims that nearly 10% of men had performed sex acts with animals (as well as 3.6% of women), and that this number rose to between 40-50% based on proximity to farms

Kinsey’s research portrayed people as amoral and sex-driven, and is credited as fundamentally changing the way our culture views sex.

But was he right?

To begin with, the integrity of much of his work has long since been called into question: among his questionable practices, Kinsey encouraged those he was working with to engage in all types of sexual activity as a form of research, misrepresented single people as married, and hugely over represented incarcerated sex criminals and prostitutes in his data.

But beyond this is the simple fact that Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.

For example, where did he get all of his data on the “sexual behavior of children”? The answer is nothing short of chilling. Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her ground-breaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to get his so-called research: "Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts. For example, “Table 34” on page 180 of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” claims to be a “scientific” record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.” Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for “orgasm” by Kinsey’s “technically trained” aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 “orgasms.” Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child “data” to prove children’s need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via “safe-sex” education. These data are also regularly used to “prove” children are sexual from birth."

The man heralded with enthusiasm by mainstream publications such as Timeand Life Magazine was nothing less than a monstrous facilitator of child-rape. In fact, he even went so far as to record children shrieking and thrashing in pain, passing out and convulsing as the result of the hellish abuse he was putting them through, as evidence of “orgasm”—especially for children who could not yet speak.

Kinsey’s so-called research was simply a quest to justify the fact that he himself was a deeply disturbed man. Dr. Reisman writes, “Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ Marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous ‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.”

Got that? The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children. His goal was not just to engage in scientific research in order to see where the data took him, but rather, as one of his prominent biographers Michael Jones notes, to launch a crusade to undermine traditional sexual morality. He did so to wild success—Kinsey’s influence on sex education and law in the Western world is absolutely staggering.

Some have claimed that even though Kinsey may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. This, too, proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman:

1. [Dr. Kinsey’s team] ‘forced’ subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man ‘married,’ reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”
It is crucially important that people become aware of the truth behind the Kinsey Reports.

Today’s pornified sex educators, legal experts, academics, and more disturbingly, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA pushing “inter-generational intimacy,” all use Kinsey’s work to justify their agendas and lend their causes scientific credibility.

Most people have no idea who Alfred Kinsey really was and how his so-called research was actually performed. I myself first heard of Alfred Kinsey in the first year of my history degree at university, where my professor announced that there “was no Sexual Revolution at all”—because the Kinsey Reports proved that people had been engaging in all sorts of bizarre and criminal sexual behaviors all along.

The real story is horrifying. It is stomach-churning. But it is also crucial that we know how, exactly, we got to this place in our culture of such sexual nihilism.

itisamuh #fundie mmo-champion.com

The only reason marriage gives financial benefits is because it's working under the assumption that they're preparing to raise a family. A gay couple can't have kids, and shouldn't be allowed to adopt, so that's out. Those financial benefits are also the only reason, aside from preparing a family, to get married in the first place. So if they were doing that, that's pretty much screwing over all single people. You'd have people, who aren't gay or in a relationship at all, just friends, getting married for those legal benefits. That's not right. It's taking something that's supposed to be meaningful and abusing it for personal gain. Oh, and because homosexuality is an unnatural taboo, and taboos shouldn't be supported or encouraged legally or socially. Standards in general seem to be losing their meaning in today's society.


what?
1) that's not the only reason, if you think it is, i'd like to see some backup. you make the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
2) why shouldn't gays be allowed to adopt again?
3) straight people DO do that all the time, hell i knew people that would get married just so they could move off-base when they were in the military.
4) how is homosexuality unnatural again?
5) how is it a universal taboo? you're aware that taboos are a culturally distinctive thing, right? every culture has a different s


These threads always seem to get me in trouble, or at least annoyed, so this will probably be my last post. If you respond, I won't see it.

1. Don't spout off the burden of proof crap. I can turn that around and say prove that it's not the only reason. I can tell just by your lingo that you're probably an atheist.

2. They shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it's raising a kid in an improper environment by default. They'll be getting exposed to a lack of standards from the start. Sure, they may be nice people and mean well, but the child won't be receiving the full perspective. Granted, that often happens anyway, but that can't always be controlled. Adoption can be controlled, however. Since you like using scientific lingo, maybe you should check out the snowball effect. That's exactly what will happen if this kind of stuff gets encouraged and accepted more and more.

3. Yes, they do. It's unfortunate, but again, it's not always avoidable. That doesn't mean that we should promote something that's an exploitation literally every single time. Because, until you prove to me what other legitimate reasons there can be for a gay couple getting married, I'm standing by that statement.

4. Look around you. Whether you're religious or not, just look. Basically the entire world shows it. Males and females mate to continue their respective species. They pal around with their own gender, if they pal around at all, but when it comes to mating, they find the other. Sure, there are the occasional defects, but whether it's God's plan or nature's design, males and females were meant to mate. If everyone turned gay, there's the end of our species. That alone should be enough to prove it's wrong. Obviously not everyone will turn gay, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged as okay. Sometimes standards should be upheld, even if some people don't like them. Not everything should be okay, and the line of what is and isn't shouldn't be so blurred. This has nothing to do with religion, just general principle and common sense. If people are gay regardless of it being unnatural, that's their call. People can be attracted to kids or their own siblings if they want to as well. That doesn't mean it should be supported.

5. In my society, up until this ridiculous social liberal movement, it was a taboo. It still is, in a lot of people's minds, including mine. I really don't care if other cultures agree, the one I live in is the only one that's relevant to me. Besides, as stated above, I'm basing my views off of obvious nature and common sense, not what society tells me is okay.

This is what baffles me about the liberal mentality. Not necessarily you, cause obviously I don't know you, in fact I don't even know that you're liberal, but their general attitude as a whole. They preach that nobody should be judged negatively for their beliefs, or preferences, or values, or anything else. No matter what. And on paper that's a good ideal, but then they turn around and negatively judge anyone who believes in upholding traditional standards. I'm sorry, if you're offended by my beliefs, agree to disagree I guess, but I will never change my mind on this. The fact that, if everyone was gay, the species would die out in a generation, is enough for me to decide that it's wrong. The fact that basically every species on the planet with male and female counterparts thrives on male and female mating is enough for me to decide that that's the way it's supposed to be, whether designed by nature or by God, whatever. It's got nothing to do with religion, at all. Drugs don't hurt anyone except the person using them, and that's their choice, but it's still illegal because common sense says it's wrong. Same thing here. But no, we're too worried about offending someone to have a right and wrong, beyond discouraging murder.

Daniel Amneus #fundie fisheaters.com

[From a book titled "The Garbage Generation" hosted on the linked website]

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the "marriage gradient," means that women "marry up," men "marry down." A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to "marry up" to.

...

IBM's question implies that society's arrangements tilt in favor of males. The fact is that society's arrangements produce more male winners and more male losers. One principal reason for the success of the male winners is the knowledge that they might well be losers: they must earn their success and are motivated to earn it partly by the greater risk of failure. IBM proposes to intervene in society's arrangements to confer benefits on females which will increase the number of female winners without increasing the number of female losers. What will increase is the number of male losers, since the male engineers will be competing not only with each other but with females enjoying a conferred advantage denied to males. Another question:

WHICH ONE WILL BE PRIVILEGED TO ATTAIN STATUS BY MARRIAGE AND WHICH ONE WILL HAVE TO EARN IT FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF BY WORK AND SELF-DISCIPLINE?

With IBM interfering with "market forces" this question might have to be re-worded: "attain status by marriage or by IBM's largess." As IBM offers women more status, marriage has less to offer them-- men have less to offer them. Men's marriageability is decreased because they have relatively less to offer women; women's marriageability is decreased because they have fewer men to "marry up" to. As IBM transfers status from those more dependent on work and self-discipline to those less dependent on work and self- discipline, men will become less motivated, since the rewards for work and self-discipline are reduced. The effect, though at a higher level of income, will be what is observable in the ghetto, where women enjoying the handouts of the welfare bureaucracy and become economically and status-wise independent of men, with the consequence that large numbers of men become de-motivated and less marriageable.

Two more questions:

WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE HIS/HER SPOUSE? WHICH ONE WILL HAVE HIS/HER LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF FIVE IF HE/SHE IS EDUCATED AND ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT?

...

Let's project IBM's program into the future. Let's suppose the wearers of the blue and pink booties grow up and both become engineers. Then:

WHICH ENGINEER IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILDLESS?

IF BOTH MARRY, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM HIS/HER SUPERIOR EDUCATION?

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons' education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.) What Bernard Lentz says of professional men and women of the period l890-l940 is true of other eras:

Even for the "superperformers" [the most successful professional women]...marriage still led to diminished success, resentment, and a distracting tension in their personal lives. In contrast, men at this time found marriage had numerous advantages in their climb up the professional hierarchy....

Ergo, society has a greater interest in encouraging and furthering the education of males. Educating a boy enables him to have and to support a family, to give children an advantage in life, to transmit family values and strengthen the patriarchy, to create social stability. Educating a girl enables her to escape marriage, or if she marries, to escape childbearing or to have a smaller family. Education, which increases her independence, will enable her more easily to expel her husband and inflict upon her offspring (whose custody is virtually guaranteed her) the disadvantages accompanying fatherlessness. Feminists see these options as desirable, but why should IBM or the rest of us see them as desirable?

...

Feminist-economist Dr. Barbara Bergmann offers a little paradigm-story about Pink People and Blue People earning their living by picking berries on an island. Like women and men in our own society the Pinks and Blues have sex-segregated occupations. Dr. Bergmann thus illustrates "the crucial point":

If a group is segregated and furthermore is crowded into a relatively narrow segment of labor-market turf, its members will as a result be less productive, and their economic rewards will be lower.

(It is a sufficient refutation of this to point out that Senators are a segregated group occupying a narrow segment of the labor-market turf, but they do not suffer from low economic rewards.)

...

If men cannot outperform women they will not perform at all, and society will be lucky if male energies are merely wasted in narcissistic display rather than in disruptive violence and machismo. A man with nothing to offer a woman save a paycheck the size of her own is impossibly disadvantaged. He will know, and his wife will know that he knows, that the words "I don't need you, Mister" are always at her disposal and, thanks to the anti-male bias of the divorce court, she has an authority in the family greater than his own. Patriarchal capitalism prospers because it creates an arena of work wherein males are allowed to succeed and create wealth and where they are motivated to do so and rewarded for doing so by the satisfactions of family living.

...

Ms. Wattleton's pitch for "reproductive rights" and Dr. Bergmann's pitch for taking better jobs away from men to confer them on women come to the same thing: men are excluded from meaningful participation in reproduction. Men become superfluous members of families. The basis of civilized society is that men shall share equally in reproductive decision-making, and shall earn the right to do so by working. The program of feminism is to deny men this right by undermining the sexual constitution, the Legitimacy Principle, marriage and the family. When they talk about women's reproductive rights and about making women economically independent of men, this is what they mean.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


There's no proof that homosexuality is inborn. All of the studies often used to prove that homosexuality is inborn are fallacious. Why? Well, let’s begin with LeVay’s brain study. When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. Another problem is that out of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. Also, there’s brain plasticity which is a fact acknowledged by most scientists. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Another study often used by gay activists as a proof that homosexuals are ‘born’ that way is Bailey and Pillard’s Study. In this one there isn’t much to explain as the whole fallacy of the study can be proven with this one statement: If there was in fact a “gay gene” or “a gay combination per se” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. This observation suggests that there is no genetic component but rather social component in homosexuality. In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor in homosexuality, this result would be counter to the expected trend. The other fallacious study we will be covering here is Dr. Alan Sanders’ study of x-male chromosome. Dr. Alan Sander’s study fails for this one reason: the results exhibited on the gay men were never compared to that of heterosexual males. Another thing as to why homosexuality cannot be inborn from an evolutionary standpoint is that: Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. Besides, there's no proof that homosexuality is caused by hormonal misbalances such as low testosterone, such claims are naught but mere hypothesis and thus, invalid. In fact, low testosterone has been associated with low sex drive and infertility so, there really isn't any ground for such hypothesis. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. As you can see there's no study that even suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

Nowadays, there’s this myth that homosexuality is not harmful and an equal to heterosexual relationships; however, this couldn’t be further away from the truth. Homosexuality is a very harmful practice that results in many illnesses, it’s kind of like smoking a misbehavior that feels good but destroys your body. How can this be true? How can homosexuality be harmful when so many LGBT are such wonderful people? Well, let’s begin with how gays have shortened lifespan. Yes, homosexuals have shortens lifespan and this isn’t just my word as there are studies to back my claims. It isn't just the 1997 study that pointed to this grim truth, according to the article you attached, the 1997 study is fallacious because the lifespan of gays should have improved over time thus, so it shouldn’t be valid today. However, other recent studies have reported similar findings. Such studies include an study done by Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute and who held a poster session and presented the study at March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia. The facts of the Cameron's studies were these: the lifespan of homosexuals is 20 years lower than that of straights. They found that in the Canadian database, a decline in homosexuality was evident by the fourth decade of life. Those who identified themselves as homosexual constituted a relatively stable fraction of adults only for those aged into their mid-40s (e.g., one of every 47-48 adults). Thereafter, their proportion dropped regularly, down to one of every 234 adults in old age (65+), resulting in an overall estimate of 1.4% of adults who ‘were. In both the table and abstract done by the Cameron a precipitous decline in the homosexual population following middle age was noted. Taking a look at the statistics and studies regarding homosexuals, both old and new, it becomes evident what’s the real reason as to the reduction in homosexuals’ lifespan. Unlike what most pro-gay activist like to claims this reduced lifespans is not due to discrimination or stigmatization because these studies were conducted in countries were homosexuals are not persecuted, there's very little disapproval of homosexuality, and were homosexuals even enjoy special rights. The reason for this statistics is the nature of homosexual sex itself is harmful, and many of the harmful acts committed in such relationships are not committed by straights as often as by homosexuals. Like Diggs said the anus is not made for penetration and anal sex is extremely harmful for both homosexuals and straights. However, straights have the option to indulge in traditional sexual intercourse which is way safer than those homosexual practices. There's no such thing as safe homosexual sex for all the practices involved in their so called making 'love' ritual have been proven to be dangerous practices that often result in many illnesses. The use of a condom reduces the chances of HIV; however, it does not eliminate the risk especially during anal sex practiced mostly by homosexuals as 1 in 27 condoms will break during anogenital homosexual sex. Also, there’s no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Herpes simplex virus. The prevention of the these three STDs has not been absolutely quantified, because no one is suggesting that a person known to have one of these treatable infections have regular intercourse with an unaffected partner. Though, health professionals assume the usage of condoms reduces the risks of getting these diseases; however, as to what extent condoms prevent these diseases are unknown. Back to anal sex, this kind of sex is extremely dangerous and harmful. The use of artificial lubricants doesn’t make this practice any safer, in one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong. Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. Thus, lubricants don’t really make anal sex safer if anything it makes anal sex more dangerous. Anal sexual intercourse as Mr.Diggs noted does increase fecal incontinence as shown in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2010) done by Alayne D Markland and others which included 2,100 male participants. Anal sex is also known to increase anal cancer and it’s no surprise taking into account anal sex is done mostly by homosexuals that, gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies. Oral sex practiced amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly among homosexuals is dangerous as well. Fisting is far more dangerous than anal intercourse; results of fisting can include infections, inflammation and enhanced susceptibility to STDs. Rimming a practice done by most homosexuals which increases the risk for Hepatitis A or B, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes/genital warts, though low, the risks are still there especially when most people perform unprotected oral sex. Another illness that is very prevalent among homosexual communities is Shigella, it can be transmitted through person-to-person contact, oral-anal sex, or sucking or licking of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.Many shigellosis outbreaks among MSM have been reported in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Europe since 1999. Frottage, when done naked or simply if the infected skin of a partaker rubs against the uninfected skin of the partner, can result in STDs transmitted by skin-to-skin contact which include: Herpes, HPV, genital warts, mononucleosis, Molluscum Contagiosum, and syphilis. Also, another risk of frottage is clothing rubbing on a lesion as it can irritate it risking either a secondary infection or a disease spreading through self-inoculation. Tribadism includes the risks of frottage as well. There is almost no published research addressing the question of whether fingering is transmits STDs or not. However, common sense says it should be extremely low but still, fingering is not risk free from STDs. The usage of latex condoms does not completely eliminate the risks of STDs during mutual masturbation and other forms of sexual contacts as it is not 100% effective and there’s also the risk of developing latex allergies. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that while men with same-sex attraction make up only 2 percent of the total population, they accounted for 63% of all newly-diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases in 2010. Despite what gay activist would like to believe, HIV among msm seems to be increasing as in 2014, gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses (CDC). When into account that gays are about 1.6% or 2.3% (counting bisexuals) of the population, according to a recent survey done by the National Health Statistics Reports (2014), it can be concluded by using basic math that being gay drastically increases your chances of getting many illnesses. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 82.9% of all male syphilis cases and 61.2% of all syphilis cases in the US. In your article it was claimed that over time Homosexual’s ailments would become less common but it seems the opposite is happening as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention(2014) noted that the number of cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis is increasing among men and particularly the msm populace. A study done by Damien Stark(2007) resulted in indicating that MSM were more likely to have multiple parasites in their stool compared to non-MSM (43.5% versus 8%; P < 0.001). In a sexual health survey of MSM in Vancouver, 18% of men had been diagnosed with genital warts, 62% were infected with a strain of HPV, and screening for anal cancer detected abnormalities in 64% of HIV-positive men and 34% of HIV-negative men (suggesting anal cancer may be present). What’s more, it seems most homosexuals infected with HIV are unaware of their infection! A CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. Another study conducted by Marc Martí-Pastor,Patricia García de Olalla, and others (2015) concluded that an increase in cases of STIs was observed in 2015, most of which affected mainly msm. The Marc and Patricia’s study revealed that 66.8 % of the HIV cases were men who had sex with men (MSM), 45.5 % of the gonorrhea cases were MSM.74.2 % of the syphilis cases were MSM and 95.3 % of the LGV cases are MSM. Homosexuality increases the risk to HPV as shown by the statistics presented in the journal Cancer (2004): 60% of gay men without HIV, 90% of gay men with, have human papilloma virus infection in their anal canal. A study conducted n 2002 by Susanne L. Dibble and others concluded that lesbians are at a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. HPV (human papillomavirus) is common in WSW as HPV can be transmitted through skin to skin contact. A study published by the Gay and Lesbian Association concluded that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer. The lesbians that chose not to do the screenings do them for the same reasons straights chose not to. Since oral-genital sex is a frequent practice of women who have sex with women, genital herpes transmission with both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can occur. A National survey from 2001-2006, reported that 30% of women who reported having same-sex sexual contact in the past year, had positive blood tests for HSV-2. This finding is contrasted with women who report no same-sex sexual contact, among whom 24% had positive blood tests for HSV-2. Other diseases abundant in homosexuals include: Hepatites A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Proctitis, HSV, BV, HEP B, Giardia lamblia, Amebiasis, and mental disorders. The tendency of gay men to acquire many of these plethora of diseases, contrary to what most gay activists suggest, isn’t due to discrimination as public acceptance of gay/lesbian relations as morally acceptable grew slowly but steadily from 38% in 2002 to 56% in 2011 and is now holding at the majority level; the problems with the American LGBT community aren’t also due to lack of knowledge about ‘safe’ homosexual sex practices as since 2013 in The Real Education For Healthy Youth Act, an act that promotes homsosexual sex education by providing federal fund solely to programs that educate about ‘safe’ homosexual sex partners, has been in place. Also, there have been numerous LGBT education programs receiving federal funding before and many school districts teaching about safe homosexual sex education that date back prior the 2013. On the web there’s also a plethora of websites that cover safe gay sex available to homosexuals of any age, when you write the word ‘safe gay sex’ on Google you will get 36,100,000 results many of which cover on ‘safe’ gay sex practices with tips. So, it can be concluded that the many illnesses present on the homosexual community are more due to the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexuality per se rather than due to discrimination or lack of homosexual sex education. Homosexuality is asexual behavior, not a characteristic like a skin color, and when looking at all this statistics we can determine that homosexuality is a harmful sexual behavior such as smoking is a harmful behavior.

3# Children of gays parents do as well as those of straights

Children raised by homosexual parents don’t fare as well. Studies that indicate that children from homosexual households fare as well as those with heterosexual parents are fallacious. Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. They have also used selective recruiting instead of using random samples. And usually the reports are given by the parents instead of the kids themselves. Studies that prove kids under the care of same sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents include: Regnerus(2012), Allen(2013), and Sullins(2015). Most of these studies have random samples with numbers that are representative of the children raised in same sex households.

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

there's evidence that shows intervention to change ones' sexualities are actually pretty successful.Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).
In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).
Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:
Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:
Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004). Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation. These studies are not mere speculation as they have numbers to back up their results. These studies are more than enough proof that homosexuality can be changed.

#faggots #gay #homosexuality #homosexuals #lesbian #religion #statistics #yaoi #yuri #antigay #boyslove #homophobe #homophobia #lgbt #misconception #myths #science #study #truths #boys_love
Once again God is right and humans are wrong.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Recent Quotes from the same fundie
Quote# 117934

I often receive complaints from atheists about the God of Christianity. They accuse Him of being a monster and a moral tyrant. They just don't like Him. Apparently there isn't enough room in the world for two moral judges: God and themselves. So, they want to dismiss God and judge Him. Okay, so what gives them to right to judge God? Where is their standard from which they base their moral assertions about what is right and wrong? The problem is that they can't produce any objective standard. They only have their subjective opinions and that is a problem--a big problem.

Now, just because they have a dilemma on their hands about rationally and morally justifying any sort of standard of righteousness by which they can make moral judgments, it doesn't mean they are going to give up their moral self-righteousness (isn't that what it is?) when someone shows them the irrationality door and firmly escorts their rears through it. After all, when you get to play God and make yourself the moral standard of right and wrong, that is hard to give up. I'm sure there's some internal satisfaction that permeates the atheist's soul when declaring what is good and bad and then passing judgment on others. The problem is that no atheist I've encountered has been able to provide a rational justification for his moral judgments.

Let's just take a look at their dilemma. You see, if an atheist wants to complain about the God of the Bible, that is his privilege. I will defend his right to have an opinion--even such a stupendously wrong one. But what logical argument can an atheist provide that would justify his saying that anything God does really is wrong? Think about it. The atheist could only have three possible options for the source of a moral standard:

He can develop a moral standard out of his own opinions.
He can adopt the moral standards of society.
He can use a combination of his own opinions and the morals of society.
Other than those three, I don't see any other options. So, let's take a look at them.

Deriving morality from one's own opinions
If an atheist wants to develop his moral standard based on his own opinions, then what justifies his opinions as being the right ones? His opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on his opinions, so why should we take his moral opinions seriously? And what right does he have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't their opinion on morals as valid as his? Furthermore, if he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions? These questions expose the problem of deriving morality from one's self.

Deriving morality from society
If we go with the second option where the atheist derives his morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Furthermore, who's to say that in the future a new moral majority might condemn atheism as an ethical danger to society? Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. Many atheists respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, they are saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. Really? In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so?

Deriving morality from opinions and society
Finally, if the atheist uses his own opinions in combination with those of society, then he is subjectively deciding what he thinks is right and wrong in the society around him. He is judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where he's deriving morality from his own opinions. He's logically befuddled.

So, the atheist doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Since he doesn't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all he can say is that he doesn't like the God of Christianity. He can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because he doesn't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. He only has a subjective opinion. If he then tries to impose his opinions on others, he then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.

Atheists are stuck, but they don't care. All they have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in their subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while they condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with them. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.

theicarlyangel #fundie comments.deviantart.com

thanks to them, I call myself homophobic because of how mean and nasty they are. One of them sent me a gay porn fanfiction and I was disgusted, but I dealt with him maturely and blocked him. Now I really DO consider myself homophobic because they're terrifying. As one a cartoon animated character once said, "You think the only people, are people who think like you."
Be proud of being homophobic/hating homosexuality. I get bullied too and been told to die in Hell. :XD: Idgafudge though. :D That just shows them how immature they can be. :) I am never teaching my kids homosexuality is okay, but I will also not let them bully the LGBT. The LGBT is just hurt and confused, if they would just stop being so mean and respect others' beliefs, that'd be great. And accepting a belief is not the same thing as supporting a belief.


[ "Do you know the reasons WHY the LGBT community is often hurt and confused?" ]

Bullied, kicked out of their homes, etc. So yeah, I do know. Why should that change my viewpoint that I don't agree with homosexual rights?

[ "Have you seen the way society treats homosexuals?" ]

No, but I surely do see how homosexuals treat non-supporters of homosexuality.

[ "They are constantly being shunned simply for their sexuality. I've heard of people who can't get a job just for being gay, gay children are being disowned and kicked out of their houses by their own parents, people have even been MURDERED just for the sake of being homosexual. The treatment towards REAL homosexuals is more than just "bullying the LGBT"." ]

Yes, and guess what? People who don't support homosexuality also get shunned simply because of their own belief and viewpoint AND on what they wish to follow. People also get fired from their jobs if they disagree with homosexuality which isn't fair either. Yes, in OTHER COUNTRIES. I did nothing. Don't bash me, someone that's innocent who doesn't wish death upon homosexuals. People have also sent me death threats for not support homosexuality. I guess being on both sides sucks.

[ "Homosexuals aren't just sensitive or butthurt about people having different beliefs. They're not being "mean"; they're biting back." ]

But I did NOTHING. Why bash someone innocent when I did NOTHING? Do you think every freaking non-support of the homosexuality club wishes death upon people or wants them to die or wants them to be bullied? NO. What they're doing is sick and wrong. (I'm talking about the whole biting back issue.) They are butthurt and sensitive when someone doesn't follow their ways, so yeah. There's a HUGE problem here.

[ "Now I'm not saying that I HAVEN'T seen any rabid or immature LGBT members, but the main reasons for homosexuals attacking the homophobes back is NOT simply because of the fact that they don't support LGBT; it's because they're fighting to earn the same rights for not being judged by their sexuality, since enough homophobes have already judged gays simply by their sexuality. Telling a gay person to respect a homophobe's opinion is basically like telling a black person to respect a racist's opinion." ]

A skin color is different from a sexuality. Don't even compare the two. -_- I do not wish for gay/lesbian coupling to be as equal as straight coupling. What REALLY needs to happen here is for the LGBT to fight back the bullies and search for someone who is open-minded and kind. Religious people also get bashed as well. Now, imagine if everyone followed the bible, THEN everyone get along as well, but NO. Not going to happen, want to know why? Because not everyone believes God exists, not everyone thinks he made our world. They believe in the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it would be easier if everyone got along, but not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye and you need to learn to cope with it.

[ I am sorry, but the fact that you are ONLY looking at rabid LGBT members who have attacked YOU on the Internet makes you sound biased. NOT ALL homosexuals attack homophobes for not following their beliefs, but you treat it like they do. You probably still missed my point that LGBT is MORE than just an "opinion". I brought up race with sexuality because... as I said, they are both a matter of human rights. You can't just simply tell gays to respect homophobes' opinions and get over it because "Oh everyone thinks differently and we should all respect each other's beliefs just fine and dandy like that", no. Then can we just simply say that blacks should respect racists' opinions or that women should respect sexists' opinions just because they think differently. ]

First of all, I don't need to be 'educated' when I obviously am going to disagree with you. No, I don't. Also I know that, and I know not all homosexuals are bad and they actually accept me for me. No, a sexuality is NOT human rights. Yaoi and Yuri is wrong and it will forever BE wrong. You may think whatever you'd like, go on. You've got a choice to be gay or not, I don't think they should be as accepted as straight couples because homosexuality IS wrong. I don't know why you bring racism into something that is gay. I don't know enough about racism to debate about that so I am going to leave you be for someone else to argue with you.

[ Really? You're just going to let a serious issue slide like that? Being oppressed/disowned/killed over one little aspect means nothing to you? ]

Ummm... I'm gonna say, yes. Because hey, everyone's been through Hell and that's me included, but you gotta stay boss and move onwards and don't let people drive you down in the dirt. You gotta think happily and positively and whatever has been done has been done. I can't do anything about that. Do I think it's okay for them to be oppressed, disowned, and killed? No. Do I have to worry about it? No. Because I don't live where they are and I can't help them out when I am probably half-way across the world. Like someone said, ya gotta leave the past behind ya. It's not my fault it's still going on. No need to bash on me.

[ So you're basically saying an inferior group is not allowed to be equal as a superior group just based on their sexuality? Welp, I'm sorry, but that IS judging people by their sexuality, saying that homos don't deserve the same rights as straights. You are basically okay with oppressing human rights there. No, I disagree! ]

How on Earth is that judging someone on their sexuality?! JUST HOW? I don't understand your logic, what gave you that conclusion?! I NEVER said I want homosexuals to die and rot in Hell, seriously and that they should be treated like garbage, WHAT made you come to that conclusion? Are you that dense and close-minded or what? Agreeing with someone's rights is not the same thing as accepting someone for who they are.


[ Also, I have often seen you try to use "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" as an excuse. That doesn't even make any friggin sense. It'd be like saying "I hate black skin color but I don't hate black people!" or "I hate vaginas but don't hate women for having them". Here's another reason I bring up sexism/racism to homophobia. Like different races with their skin color, homosexuals can NOT control their sexuality. They can't just wake up one morning and decide "Oh I want to be gay from now on!". Sexuality is a NATURAL aspect that people carry with them from birth or at a very young age. You can't change sexuality, and that is why most homosexuals hate homophobes. They are being oppressed for having a natural trait that they can't control, and that is another form of anti human rights. ]

Okay, first of all, it does make sense. It means I hate same-gender coupling and I could care less about it, but to people who like it or who are gay, then fine. I won't stop you. Be whoever you want. Give me one good reason why I should hate you over your sexuality. Don't you dare compare someone's skin color to a sexuality. Those are TWO different things. Look, I don't think racism is that much of an issue because from where I live, there's not much of it here... and anyways, loving someone versus a color of a skin are two completely different things. Sure, you can't help if someone has a skin color or if someone's gay, that's just who they are. It doesn't mean I hate them, it just means I would either hate their skin color or a sexuality. Just like if someone wore an outfit you personally don't like. You don't have to like it, it's their style and their choice. I for one don't hate anyone for being black/tan. It is not NATURAL. Okay, I can't change a sexuality, but what I can do is be against homosexuality. I am not supporting the idea to oppressed people. Seriously, how does someone NOT support homosexuality made you even come to that conclusion?

Ugh, I am done here. You're way too thick-headed for me. Go do something that makes you happy and positive. We are obviously gonna disagree here and nothing you say will change my mind and I will not change my beliefs just to please you. Have an awesome day and remember: Treat others the way you like to be treated.


[Also, regarding your last comment there; Just because you have not been oppressed it doesn't mean that you simply shouldn't care. There is a thing called empathy. If you could just put herself in a homosexual's shoes for once, you would know that being abandoned and killed just for being gay is not something you can just "think positively and get over with" about.]

I do care and I do feel bad for them, but I shouldn't worry about it. I should worry about myself and what needs to get done and what I can do to help make things a better place. Heck, I've been sexually abused since I was little, been bullied and harassed since the 3rd grade, and have gotten my heart broken. When people debate with me, my heart and liver hurts even more. It REALLY does. Which is why I tend to block people and think happily and positively and worry about myself first. I still need to worry about the work I need to get done and how am I going to succeed in life.

[ When you say that famous line 'treat others the way you want to be treated' , you need to understand that it also means that involves human rights as well. And that no one should be denied them. You wouldn't like your rights being taken away I'm sure. ]

Straight is normal and since two of the opposite gender can make a baby, I feel okay with that. I'm sorry, I disagree. Don't debate about me on this though, just please don't. I really think the LGBT should just stick up for themselves for once and call the cops. Maybe it's not easy, but I am here to help out whenever someone is needed. This involves NOT harming the innocent and shoving their beliefs down others' throats. Sorry, my mind has not changed and I don't want to debate about this.

slimshady #conspiracy #crackpot #sexist incels.co

Are Scientists giving off fake Science to Blue pill people?

When I took Science to study. I always had doubts on many scientific theories. I always have respect for scientists of the previous era. Now I learn Psycology and I think old Psycologists made much more sense than Modern Psycologists. While modern scientists are losing debates to flat earthers and Modern Psycology seems so bluepilling.


I watched an episode of a show named Brain games in which they were comparing male and female brains. I think I watched 2 episodes of this kind. In one episodes it was a tie and in the other episode female brains won. They were proving this by science and Evolutionary biology and made some male and female volunteers do some tasks.

Even in the real world it is propgated that female brains are equal to male brains eventhough male brains are bigger. Also females are painted as having more "sense" and maturity by some people. This all is utter Bullshit. Name me one task where females are better than males. In every task and profession that exists on this planet males are just better.

Even in things having no physical requirements. Even in professions traditionally dominated by females like Cooking, Males perform better. But for some reason these "scientific" people have to shove propaganda into our throats.

Many of the modern Scientists don't even follow the Scientific method to come to their conclusions. They just want their results and conclusions to be comforming their pre assumptions. I don't know how many times during my blue pilled days that "science" was giving me more blue pills. Some of them maybe just made up science but I remember some real scientists giving blue pilling ideas about relationships and social structures.

Matt Mazzalongo #fundie bibletalk.tv

Homosexuality is wrong in so many ways that one has trouble knowing where to begin. It’s wrong socially because it violates the universal and primal purpose of human sexuality which is the procreation and nurturing of children. This reason alone should be enough to refuse it marital status. The simple fact that two men or women cannot inherently and naturally produce a child is the basic reason that should deny them the status initially created and promoted to protect this act and the family that comes from it.

Homosexuality is wrong socially because it engenders basic anti-person and social problems. What the Gay lobby doesn’t publicize is that their group has the highest incidence of depression, drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, mortality, and suicide rates than any comparable heterosexual group. Of the less than three percent of the American population that is actively and openly Gay, only a tiny fraction is interested in permanent union. However, those who want to marry legally have received an enormous amount of publicity. The rest are using this debate as a method of legitimizing an unhealthy lifestyle that ultimately creates a burden on our social services and families who must deal with the negative effects of their choices and the de-stabilization of our way of life.

Homosexuality is wrong morally and spiritually. Every major religion condemns same sex activity. What is interesting is that even pagan nations of old (i.e. Assyrians) had specific prohibitions against it. As Christians we read in both the Old and New Testaments the clear condemnation of this sin. Leviticus 18:22 refers to it as, “… detestable;” Romans 1:26-27 calls it, “… unnatural… indecent;” Paul the Apostle says that those who practice this will not inherit the kingdom and are doing ungodly and unholy things – 1 Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim.1: 10.

Many religious leaders and teachers are changing their once held biblical views on homosexuality but can only do so by twisting clear passages to say what they don’t say (i.e. Paul condemned homosexual prostitution, not sex between two consenting males), or they deny that the Scriptures are inspired (i.e. Paul was writing from cultural prejudice against homosexuality). You can justify and approve of homosexuality and same-sex marriage but you can’t do it using the Bible as your inspired support or justification. When religious leaders do this, they are on their own.

[...]

I hope that the grass roots movement against this foolish and immoral legislation will gain strength so that the American people will speak out against it. I hope that we in the churches of Christ will not stand by silently as ungodly laws are forced upon us and cause the accelerated decay of our national moral fabric. Once homosexual marriage is widely recognized, there will be no reason to prohibit adoption, daycare, ministry and any number of key social functions for them to exploit in their effort to make homosexuality a normal, legitimate, acceptable lifestyle that cannot be challenged in any way whether it be legally or morally. When that day comes, what I am writing and saying will be a crime and you will be liable for reading it or sharing it.

beginningCatholic #fundie beginningcatholic.com

The full Catholic teaching on masturbation seems to be a secret to most people.

It is a challenging teaching.

But because this teaching calls us to live in a fully human way, it’s good news!

“Is masturbation wrong?”

Yes. The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation is always morally wrong.

Sex is intended to be both an expression of love for your spouse, and a beautiful means of procreation.

Sex is so special, powerful, and valuable that it is properly used only within marriage. If you’re not married, you should abstain from sexual activity.

I know: this is all very counter-cultural.

The truth sometimes is!

Sex is the ultimate gift husbands and wives can give: a total gift of self, body and soul. Sex is how you fulfill your wedding vows to love totally, freely, and completely. As long as you both shall live. The secret of life is hidden in that intimate sharing.

The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation denies every aspect of that promise of sex — of that promise of your vows!

Masturbation is:

Focused on yourself
A withholding from your spouse
A statement that sex is only about pleasure — your own pleasure
Inherently sterile
Often accompanied by “adultery in your heart” through pornography and fantasy
Catholics don’t condemn masturbation just because of some lofty idea of what the natural purpose of sex is. We speak the truth about the harm it does to people.

That is the true reason for the Catholic teaching on masturbation: it denies the meaning of sex. It makes you less than fully human.

“But everyone else says masturbation is healthy!”

Yes, they do.

The world has a way of saying that a lot of disordered things are “good”.

Masturbation is radically self-centered, and radically un-Christian. That’s why the Catholic teaching on masturbation says it’s wrong. It turns us and our sexuality away from God and toward ourselves by:

Training our sexuality in the habit of self-indulgence, not self-giving
Divorcing the pleasure of orgasm from union with the “other”, your spouse
Turning away from the risks of loving another
Refusing fertility & the full responsibility of sex
I know — many educators and health professionals seem to be having a love affair with self-centered, self-indulgent sexuality. Why that is, I don’t know.

They’re wrong. They’re not telling you the truth about sex, about yourself, or about life.

You and your sexuality are worth more than you can imagine.

The Catholic teaching on masturbation is centered on a virtue called chastity. It means giving sexuality its proper place in our lives. Not snuffing it out, but not giving it free reign. A proper place. Chastity is one of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. (See Catechism, 2337 - 2359)

The deep truth of the Catholic teaching on masturbation is confirmed by the enormous damage this so-called “private” act causes in people’s lives and marriages. Large numbers of men and women are starting to name their habit of masturbation for what it is: sexual addiction.

If we tell our teens that masturbation is normal and healthy, we’re setting them up with a habit that can yield a lifetime of difficulty. We’re telling them that self-indulgence and lack of self-control are positive things. This cannot form a strong foundation for mature, loving sexuality.

How is that either loving or healthy?

This talk of habit raises an important point: when is masturbation a sin? And how bad a sin is it?

The Catholic teaching on masturbation says that masturbation is a grave sin, what we call a mortal sin, by which we reject God’s offer of life.

However, Catholic morality also acknowledges that the force of habit can reduce or even eliminate our responsibility for our actions.

We have to freely consent in order to be fully responsible.
If a habit makes something less than a free choice, it also reduces our responsibility for our actions.
This does not give us free reign if we just call something a habit! Sinful actions still harm us greatly, even if we may not be fully charged with the guilt of committing them.

We have a responsibility to seek help and diligently strive to overcome our habits.

The Lord is patient & merciful. He desperately wants to free us from the slavery of sin. But we have to do our part, too.

If you think you’re trapped in the habit of masturbation or one of its close cousins (pornography, infidelity, prostitution, etc.), seek the competent help of a priest who supports the Church’s sexual morality, and specifically the Catholic teaching on masturbation. (Don’t be shy! They’ve heard it all before. Sadly, it’s quite common.)

kugel #fundie reddit.com

(butyourenice)

It's fucking creepy because a 16-year-old is mentally underdeveloped and in many ways still a child, regardless of physical development. Hell your brain does not stop developing until your mid-20s, but teenagers especially lack the frontal lobe development that would allow them to accurately gauge risk and develop informed inhibition. If you think the distinction between a 16-year-old and a 24-year-old is "arbitrary" (because what? They both have tits?), then yeah... Maybe you do belong on some list.
I've already addressed the difference between legality and morality in another comment. Your* entire rant relies on legality being the sole boundary between right and wrong, not to mention you've entirely missed the point of what I said in favor of listening to yourself harp about how adults should be allowed to have sex with kids

the reason my rant relies on the LEGALITY of a topic discussion LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT should be fairly obvious. Also you will note in my comment I state that I think an adult having sex with a 16 year old isnt right. I have taken a stance on morality. My comment was focusing solely on the legal aspect, and I agree with you on the morality part (which you would understand if you read my comment with any level of reading comprehension).My comment doesnt "rely" on the legality issue, i just decided that I would only join in on the debate on the legality side of things. That would be like saying a physics paper "enirely relies on the laws of physics". well no shit, its a specific paper that specializes in that one topic, that doesnt mean that I dont acknowledge all other fields of study just because I wrote something up about one of them.

But anyway, It doesnt matter what is morally wrong, or creepy, the law doesnt cater to your personal code of ethics. And that is my point. Just because someone else is immoral and unethical by YOUR standards does not mean it is immoral and unethical by everyone elses standards. And it certainly doesnt mean we should throw people in jail and ruin their lives because you, specifically you /u/butyourenice dont agree with it. The entire population of a country should follow exactly your moral code? get the fuck out of here you pretentious fuck. Is cheating on your spouse immoral and unethical? yes. Is it immoral and unethical to deny a hungry child food because he doesnt have enough money to pay for it? yes. Is it illegal to cheat on your wife or expect payment for your goods? Im not saying having sex with a 16 year old as a 65 year old ISNT unethical or immoral, what Im saying is that it doesnt matter. Legality is what the state has decided is right and wrong, and everyone living there is forced to follow it. Morality and ethics is how you personally chose to live your life. So if something is legal, then it doesnt matter whether or not you find it immoral, because someone else might not and they have every right to do so just like you. Im not saying having sex with a 16 year old isnt morally wrong, Im saying morality is highly subjective and personal, so if your morals say you shouldnt have sex with a 16 year old as an adult, then there is an easy solution. Dont have sex with a 16 year old as an adult. See? problem solved. And if someone else doesnt think that it is immoral and does have sex with a 16 year old as an adult, then guess what? they have their own set of morals and code of ethics that they chose to live their life by, and thats fine because they arent you, so your morals dont fucking matter to them! Its such an easy concept, but you people who think the whole world should cater only to people who share the exact same opinions and lifestyle as themselves are narrow minded and ignorant. Are 16 year old girls old enough and developed enough to decide if they should have sex? are you a 16 year old girl? Are all 16 year olds the exact same level of maturity? Yes it is something that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. And its a good thing that because it is legal, and rape is still illegal, then having sex as a 16 year old is a choice that they are free to make. If they have a parent/guardian who helps them make that decision, even better. But 16 year olds have a lot of decisions and responsibilities in their lives that require a much higher level of maturity than being allowed to have a penis inside of them.

Alessandra #fundie alessandrareflections.wordpress.com

What is the homosexual agenda?

The homosexual agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, objections of said homosexual agenda.

The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).

The homosexual agenda is largely responsible for irresponsible and
corrupt research and academic production regarding homosexuality.

Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity,
problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics.

On using the words “a homosexual”

The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.

This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.
This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.

Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.

FlatCommunication5 #transphobia reddit.com

For the sake of clarity: "old school" transsexuals, crossdressers, and autogynephiles are all the same people

The contemporary transgender movements is an offshoot of the straight male crossdressing culture of the 1980s and 1990s. These men all fit the AGP profile to a T: Joe Roberts and David MacKellar were NASA engineers. Many of these men transitioned and had SRS. A lot of them basically ran empires creating and selling 'feminizing' guides (books, DVDs etc) and accessories. There was a lot of in-fighting between crossdressers and "true transsexuals" (similar to ‘transgenders’ vs truscum). Neverthless, they lobbied relentlessly throughout the late 1990s. In the aftermath of Matthew Shepard’s murder, they demanded gay rights activists to include “gender identity” to their anti-discrimination lobbying and could be quite forceful about it. They were joining lesbian organizations as far back as 1997. Phyllis Frye (he defended a TIM who had married a man in a landmark case) is an attorney and he participated in the drafting of the International Gender Bill of Rights. Notice Martine Rothblatt's signature. Rothblatt is a friend of Susan Stryker. (the timeline of the article mentions the "gender identity" controversy and concludes with the story of a black TIM's arrest without mentioning straight male crossdressers at all - which is strategic. It mentions TIMs protesting the APA for "pathologizing trans people" in the 1990s)

from Sandy Stone's The Empire Strikes Back

Initially, the only textbook on the subject of transsexualism was Harry Benjamin's definitive work The Transsexual Phenomenon (1966). ... When the first clinics were constituted, Benjamin's book was the researchers' standard reference. And when the first transsexuals were evaluated for their suitability for surgery, their behavior matched up gratifyingly with Benjamin's criteria. The researchers produced papers which reported on this, and which were used as bases for funding.

It took a surprisingly long time--several years--for the researchers to realize that the reason the candidates' behavioral profiles matched Benjamin's so well was that the candidates, too, had read Benjamin's book, which was passed from hand to hand within the transsexual community, and they were only too happy to provide the behavior that led to acceptance for surgery.

This sort of careful repositioning created interesting problems. Among them was the determination of the permissible range of expressions of physical sexuality. This was a large gray area in the candidates' self-presentations, because Benjamin's subjects did not talk about any erotic sense of their own bodies. Consequently nobody else who came to the clinics did either. By textual authority, physical men who lived as women and who identified themselves as transsexuals, as opposed to male transvestites for whom erotic penile sensation was permissible, could not experience penile pleasure. Into the 1980s there was not a single preoperative male -to-female transsexual for whom data was available who experienced genital sexual pleasure while living in the "gender of choice". ...

Then there's Reed Rickson, a TIF who was Harry Benjamin's patient in the 1960s. Rickson's family ran a smelting business and she grew up wealthy. She founded the Erickson Educational Foundation (EEF) in 1964, a philanthropic organization funded entirely by herself, whose stated goals were "to provide assistance and support in areas where human potential was limited by adverse physical, mental or social conditions, or where the scope of research was too new, controversial or imaginative to receive traditionally oriented support." The EEF funded the creation of the Harry Benjamin Foundation and the opening of the Johns Hopkins gender clinic as well as countless research efforts, journals, and newsletters.

Dallas Denny, a TIM with degrees in psychology and sociology, took over EEF after Rickson’s death in the 1990s. Dallas Denny edited the magazine Tapestry (“tapestry” refers to the convergence of [autogynephilic] crossdressers and transsexuals. The magazine has existed since the late 1970s) and directed the crossdressing conference Fantasia Fair. He was a personal friend of Joe Roberts, crossdresser who appears in the Tri-Ess documentary. (check the comments for some overt old school AGP. They mention Alison Laing, a crossdresser who transitioned who published feminizing guides for crossdressers and the “Lobby Days” ) Denny has written guidelines for gender therapists throughout the 1990s and 2000s

A study sample from 1987 reveals that "(s)ome history of fetishistic arousal was acknowledged by over 80% of the heterosexual males, compared to fewer than 10% of homosexual males and no homosexual females." A 2011 study confirms this finding (69% self-report transvestic fetishism, 6 times more often than HSTS). AGP transsexuals have NEVER been the minority. As for AGP transition being pragmatic in some cases, this is what old school AGP transsexuals have done. (gaming the system + creating the transgender movement)

Robert Lindsay #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Female Rule or Male Rule simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on male views or female views.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society Amidst the Ruins
Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with a woman, looks at a woman or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with women, men looking at women and men asking out women from the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right. This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first. If you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.” If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent, a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing. Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who says he thinks about or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old girl, a “child.”
Being aroused by a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old girl.
Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia” and if minors are caught have such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend minors of either sex. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
A man who speaks to a female minor is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to a female minor is if he is scheming to have sex with her.
In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule which is the rule of Emotion over Logic. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

BigEarthBear #sexist reddit.com

Ever since a recent discussion, I have had a frustration with POMO activism and how incorrect it is in regards to feminism. Another person and I were talking to the group about the need for sex-based hate crime legislation. What we find is it is nearly impossible to get valid and correct hate crime data on the percentage of hate crimes against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. Here is how sex-based hate crime legislation is necessary as a category for LGBT.

Violence against lesbians is generally NOT classified as a hate crime because lesbians are classified as "female or "woman" in police reports therefore not subject to hate crime laws. So reports of corrective rape or gay bashing are instead put in the "women dead files". Sex-based hate crime laws would also put an end to "the women's dead files" because they can not ignore hate crimes in the same manner they do other crimes. This is why trans activists demand that trans women are reported as being TRANSWOMEN, not men or women.

It sparked the usual pomo crap. sex-based laws are noninclusive of trans people "TERFs" even though, like same-sex marriage, transgender people are already protected by the law, it is women who excluded from these protections based on their sex.

The conversation changed into the same old argument. My fellow activist is a "TERF." , "Trans women are women", "She's not a real feminist because her feminism does not include trans women." blah blah blah. Please note: There was no mention of trans men being men or trans men at all. Intersexed people were brought up out of context. The co-presenter was not attacked at all, I'm male, what a shock except to point out incorrectly that I am an alleged male feminist... people keep calling me a male feminist when there is no such thing as a male feminist.

I corrected them on two points during this discussion. 1) Feminism since it's beginning only focussed on female oppression. 2) Males cannot be feminists because it is a female movement. Feminism can affect how a male thinks or moves through the world but we can not claim feminism.

They immediately went to an explosion of talking a feminist theory or feminist writings out of context. Dworkin is the only 2nd waver I can recall that included transexuals. They even quoted the heretic Germaine Greer out of context. What I realized quickly is the misuse of the words woman and gender in regards to POMO TRA/ SJW/ Liberal Feminism vs feminism. At the time of those writings starting with the founding of feminism, being a woman was defined as adult human FEMALE the reproductive sex that produces large gametes and bares children. Gender was discussed as; men (males) patriarchal (male) oppression of women (females). So contextually it has always been solely about fighting female oppression. Trans women are males and trans men are females. Nothing that they quoted proved that feminism is about the inclusion of trans women and therefore the exclusion of trans men. It has always been focussed on reproductive biology if you take a serious thoughtful look at it.

Side note: Apparently I am a frustrating transphobic fag, according to that part of the group. They always call me a faggot.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

No, life does not begin at conception. When life begins is determined by pro-aborts using a Ouija board. Generally, the supernatural event defining the beginning of life that magically occurs sometime during pregnancy can be found by taking the moment of abortion and adding 5 minutes to it, thus alleviating the guilt of the abortionist, abortive woman, and bro-choicer who dragged her into the abortuary.

"Life is a continuum. Life on earth has started a few billion years ago and didn't stop since then. Or are you claiming sperm and egg cells are not alive? It would surprise me if scientists from Northwestern University really stated that 'Life begins with a “flash of light” or “fireworks"'. And it would really surprise me if abortionist used this silly argument."

Confusing sperm and egg cells with a conceived human shows how science-phobic you are, John. It seems to be a Hail Mary effort lately by pro-aborts to equate sperm to a human being and claim that masturbation is genocide. It must be difficult for the superstitious ones to accept that they were once zygotes, embryos, fetuses. For those of us who actually do science - and understand the difference between sperm and humans:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.” Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a femalegamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. The zygote is endowed with genes from two parents, and thus it is diploid (carrying two sets of chromosomes). The joining of haploid gametes to produce a diploid zygote is a common feature in the sexual reproduction of all organisms except bacteria.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." - Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." - Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

You're welcome. Embrace science, do not fear it.

"It seems you are confused here, World. You are the one claiming life starts at conception. Nothing in your post supports that notion. You even mention a source that says 'Although life is a continuous process ...'.
Thanks for admitting that your argument was rather silly."

"You are the one claiming life starts at conception."

And I just proved it using peer-reviewed medical and biological sources, unlike the superstitious one that you are.

"You even mention a source that says 'Although life is a continuous process ...'."

Read on, Child, there is more where you conveniently put the ...:

"fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.""

Still waiting for your evidence that you were never a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

"No need. You claimed 'life starts at conception'. Your evidence does not show that. It shows life is a continuum - conception is merely a milestone in the formation of a new individual - a crucial one, but certainly not the only one. Your silly argument for not allowing abortion because 'life starts at conception' therefore ends here."

I gave you peer-reviewed science, and you reply with feeewwwings?!?

Still waiting for your proof that you were not a zygote, embryo, and fetus. This won't take long, will it? :-)

gynarchyverse #transphobia #sexist #psycho deviantart.com

This is going to be a difficult issue to talk about, as any issue regarding gender is. But to quote Kurzgesagt, "Not talking about an issue will not help solve it".

I want to preface that in no way shape or form am I prejudiced against transgendered persons. They have a right to do what they want with their bodies/minds. I'm not arguing against that. But navigating the topic of transgenderism within the scope of Female Supremacy can be tricky. As I've learned in recent weeks, when member on here who once identified as a Female Supremacist (and was active in our community) came out as transgendered last month.

So I think now is a good time have a discussion about this.

I don't think anyone who supports Female Supremacy can deny that this philosophy is founded on very strict roles based on a person's sex.

Like it or not, it's the truth. It's right there in the name: FEMALE Supremacy. That means that Women rule and men serve. We cannot deny what science has proven: A Woman is a human being with two X chromosomes, and a man is a human being with one X chromosome and one imperfect Y chromosome, making males essentially an incomplete Female.

That is the core concept of Female Supremacy, that males are an evolutionary abnormality that spun-off from the default blueprint of life, which is Female. And as abnormalities, we must devote ourselves to empowering, serving, and worshiping our progenitors. For without Them we would not exist.

So given these very clear roles we have for men and Women, what are we to say when a male desires to become Female?

Those who identify as transgendered can change certain aspects about themselves to match the gender they identify with; namely hormonal therapy & surgery. But they cannot change their genotype. That is to say, they cannot change their chromosomes. A person who is born biologically male can never have a perfect XX chromosome, no matter how badly he wishes so. Similarly, a Woman cannot deny Her perfect XX chromosome for some reason she wished to become a male.

Your chromosomal pair your Goddess-given role in life, and you cannot change it once you have it. If You are blessed to have an XX chromosome, that means there is no limit to what You can do in life. You can use males as you see fit. You can tell males what to do and they have to obey You. You are the closet thing to Goddess on Earth.

And if you have an XY chromosome, then you get bask in the presence of Sacred Femininity. You get the honor of bringing amusement, happiness, and comfort to Women. And through submission to Goddess, you'll find spiritual enlightenment.

Now, onto to the fake Female Supremacist (whose name will not be mentioned) who's featured in the screen-capped conversation in the above picture.

You say you plan on "changing [your chromosome] for [yourself] someday". I ask you. How are you going to do that? How are you going to defy the laws of science and give yourself that perfect XX chromosome? I'm sorry, but you're not. If have an ounce of scientific knowledge on this subject, you know you're not. Truth be told, you made a fool of yourself in that conversation with earthculture. I don't know about him, but I cringed when reading your comment.

Secondly, when you announced to your followers that who were coming out as transgendered, you told me that you don't support Female Supremacy and you implied those in this community were fanatics. I have several messages from you that prove you are (or at least were) a very staunch supporter of Female Supremacy. So please don't lie about your pre-transgender leanings when I and several others know the truth.

And thirdly, in one of your recent posts you talked about me and the caption I made using your old avatar that you claimed was taken down by the site staff.

NEWSFLASH! I took that picture down! Why? Because you changed your avatar to the transgender flag, so my caption no longer made sense. No one would've known it was reference to you. That's the only reason I took it down. It wasn't because I felt bad for making it. I still think you're still fake Female Supremacist and a liar. And let me clarify, you being transgendered has nothing to do with my gripe against you, it's the fact that you stabbed me and everyone else in this community in the back. You owe us (especially me) an apology. Then I urge you to seek a licensed psychologist, preferably one who majors in LGBTQ+ issues and is a Female Supremacist, so they can give you the help you obviously need.

RANT OVER.

Brian Godawa #fundie godawa.com

Americans are suckers for the underdog. If you want to engender sympathy for a character, make them suffer persecution, unfairness, injustice. In other words, make them a victim. The ultimate power of the extreme violence of the The Passion of the Christ was that it basically made Jesus the most unjustly brutalized victim in the history of cinema. Which is really necessary since the point was to make him the savior of the world through suffering, so Gibson had to maximize that suffering to make the emotional connection in the viewer with the grandiosity of the redemption. This is why many liberals, in a fit of outright contradiction, hated The Passion as being “obsessively gory” but fully embraced the equal brutality of 12 Years a Slave as being “redemptive,” though both movies were doing the exact same thing. Because such viewers do not want to give religion the same redemptive power as race.

The thematic cleverness of The Imitation Game lies in its montage connection of Turing’s homosexuality with his genius and with all these other civil rights issues with which we have all come to agree upon. The movie creates a touching tragic homosexual love story from Turing’s past to show his deep pain of loss. And then it lays it on heavy with a bookend story of Turing’s tragic arrest and conviction of his homosexual acts in a time and place in British history where it was illegal. Who wouldn’t feel sorry for the suffering of chemical castration that he had to endure as a legal penalty? Again, more victimization, more emotional sympathy.

It will never occur to many viewers that there is no rational justification for claiming sexual behavior as an innate civil right, that there is no logical or rational connection between Turing’s homosexuality and his genius, his saving the world, or other civil rights protections. There doesn’t have to be. An emotional connection was made through montage and analogy, and that is just as powerful on the viewer’s psyche. Emotionally, the viewer feels the connection of Turing’s homosexual identity with greatness and with saving the world. The irrational, yet emotional conclusion is that to be against homosexuality is to be against greatness and saving the world.

This is the very reason why homosexual activists have been successfully commandeering school curriculums across the US to teach historical “contributions of homosexuals.” Even though their sexuality has nothing to do with their achievements, by emphasizing that identity through indoctrination, they will emotionally manipulate society to accept it as normal, or be ostracized as homophobic bigoted haters who will stop great achievements from saving the world simply by disagreeing with the morality of homosexuality. No logical or rational arguments are allowed.

Coded messages are creatively embedded in the story to subvert the viewer though analogy. Here’s how its done. The storyteller makes an argument with which the viewer agrees, by using phrases that are common with an argument with which the viewer may not agree. So, when Alan is explaining how machines and human minds are different, he says, “The question is, just because a machine thinks differently than you, does that mean it is not thinking? We allow such differences with humans. He have different tastes, different preferences. Our brains work differently.” Though these statements are about one area of scientific differences, they clearly reflect the common framing of the homosexual debate as “sexual preferences” rather than sexual morals, and the already discredited attempt to say brains of homosexuals are different by nature. You know, “born this way.” In this way, emotions can persuade contrary to the facts and reason.

The ultimate argument for normalizing homosexuality is the complete deconstruction of “normal,” to the point where people have contempt for “normality” by spinning it as being unrealistic, even destructive. At the end of The Imitation Game, Alan is depressed and envious of Joan’s “normal life.” But she then says that no one normal could have done what he did. She explains a litany of things like trains and tunnels and people that would not exist if it were not for him saving the world through decoding Enigma. She says, “If you wish you were normal, I can say that I certainly do not. The world is an infinitely better place precisely because you weren’t normal.”

A detective who figured out Alan’s secret sex life, after hearing his story of decoding Enigma, says, “I can’t judge you.”

So, now the emotional connection is reinforced between “judging” (that nasty evil word in our multiculty world) and “normality” (that wicked evil claim of Christians about sexuality). Really, this becomes a subversive intolerance and hatred of normal as evil.

Rational arguments are neatly subverted by the power of emotional ones in this beautifully crafted masterpiece of emotional montage. It’s really quite impressive propaganda. I think Christians could learn a thing or two from it that they should apply to their shabbily crafted celluloid sermons.

But there is another comparison with Christians and homosexuals in this world war of stories. The victimization of the homosexual in The Imitation Game is exactly reversed in the movie, Unbroken, about the Christian Louis Zamperini and his suffering as a WWII POW. It really typifies the reversal of what I think is going on in our culture where those who disagree with homosexual practice are now being targeted for their identities and oppressed through social bigotry and Christophobia (businesses and careers destroyed, smear campaigns of hate). In The Imitation Game, the homosexual identity is connected with the story of greatness, while in Unbroken, the Christian identity is disconnected from the story of greatness.

And who is the one whose identity is being oppressed?

Jim #racist #wingnut #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "Deus Vult"]

Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

[...]

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne
Altar
Freehold
Family
Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

[...]

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

[...]

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #wingnut naturalnews.com

Just as the Health Ranger predicted, Big Tech is now declaring war on gays to satisfy trans

Today’s LGBQs are finding themselves at odds with the Ts, as the Ts are increasingly demanding that the LGBQs submit to their ever-evolving sexual demands or else be deemed “bigots.” And just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long predicted, Big Tech is siding with the Ts in shutting down the free speech rights of the LGBQs because the Ts find their viewpoints “offensive.”

All acronyms aside, here’s the rub: Mentally deranged transgenders are angry that homosexuals aren’t sexually attracted to their mutilated trans bodies, so these transgenders are exploiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter to silence all homosexuals. As it turns out, homosexuals prefer others of the same biological sex, and aren’t interested in transgender freaks who merely “self-identify” as some other gender.

A homosexual male, for instance, is attracted to other biological males, not a transgender “male” who was born with a vagina, but later had it surgically altered to become a fake penis. The same goes for homosexual females, who prefer actual females and not mentally ill dudes who took cross-sex hormones and underwent a litany of gender-bender surgeries to become “women.”

For daring to espouse biological reality, homosexuals have found themselves as the new sworn enemies of the trans mafia, which recently petitioned Facebook to shut down a homosexual men’s group known as “The Boxer Ceiling” for this exact reason. This group, which is no longer visible on the social media platform, had described its mission as exposing “the abuse of gay men and lesbians by proponents of Gender Identity Ideology.”

Members of The Boxer Ceiling say that they have been “relentlessly targeted and harassed by Gender Dogmatists (both trans and non-trans), who fundamentally disagreed with our basic premise that everyone deserves sexual autonomy.” And after creating their group, these members were targeted even more by the trans mafia, and were eventually forced off the Facebook platform entirely.

When Breitbart News attempted to reach out to Facebook for a statement, the Mark Zuckerberg empire did not respond. Attempts to locate the page for The Boxer Ceiling group on Facebook are also pulling up a message stating: “This content isn’t available right now.”

For more related news about social media censorship of politically incorrect speech, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Dear victim society: What goes around comes around
A group of lesbian feminists encountered similar opposition from the trans mafia during a recent event it held at the Toronto Public Library.

Trans freaks threw a big hissy fit outside the facility after learning that a panel organized by Radical Feminists Unite-Toronto was taking place inside, and included a woman by the name of Meghan Murphy, founder of Feminist Current, who, like the members of The Boxer Ceiling, believes that biology trumps mental illness.

Not even 10 years ago, this type of trans insanity wasn’t even on society’s radar. But today, not only is the trans mafia demanding absolute acceptance and embrace of its perversion, but it’s also normalizing tyranny against all opposition with the help of Silicon Valley.

Watching the LGBTQP mafia at large – the P stands for pedophilia, by the way – eat its own is humorous, to say the least. We all saw it coming, at least those of us who’ve been paying attention to the movement’s rapid decline into total depravity.

“Now they’ve learned that when you are lower on the victim pyramid, you must cede your rights to those above you,” wrote one Breitbart News commenter about the plight of today’s homosexuals.

“Clearly trans resides higher on the pyramid than simply gay. One would assume that someone like a cis-male female-identifying non-binary pansexual Muslim refugee from Syria with chronic PTSD would be at the top of the pyramid.”

Ionel Dinu and Lori Gardi #crackpot vixra.org

(Emphasis original)

Fundaments of a Theory of Aether – Part 1

Abstract
The necessity of acknowledging the existence of a new chemical element is discussed. A new view of the electric current as a diffusion wave in a wire is advanced. The production of a magnetic field by an electric current is explained in terms of mechanics of surface waves.

Keywords: aether, aether acoustic wave, electrigen, diffusion wave, electric charge, electric current, magnetic field

Introduction
This work is an improvement upon the ideas advanced in the work titled Rudiments of a Theory of Aether (2007). Its aim is to continue with the ambitious plan of giving a mechanical description of the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, gravitation and light. While the previous work still used the concept of electron and electric charge, this is not the case now. Scrapping the concept of electric charge naturally leads to reconsidering the nature of the electric current and of the cause of the magnetic field produced by it. It will be seen that the new view advanced here is fully consistent with the phenomena observed in electromagnetism.
A mechanical explanation of electromagnetic phenomena is very much desired and has been the ultimate goal of the great physicists of the last century. Mechanics operates with the most fundamental concepts in physics and therefore it is most fitted in explaining physical phenomena. The basic tenet of a mechanical theory is that the actions produced by matter are due to what matter does, not to what matter is. In explaining the nature of gravitation, and its power to act at a distance through vacuum, the concept of mass having an intrinsic power to attract another mass at a distance has been denied, as did Isaac Newton many times in his writings (see The Origin of Gravitation).
A similar procedure will be used now. Electrostatic actions are not due to entities called electric charges (positive and negative). Electrostatic attractions and repulsions are the result of molecular vibrations transmitted through the Aether and the artificial concept of electric charge is replaced with that of energy charge. The concept of electric charge has been very helpful in systemizing the phenomena of electricity, but this does not mean that electric charge and electric force must be elevated to the status of fundamental concepts in physics. They are so now because no mechanical explanation has been found so far.

The Electrigen
Ever since electrical phenomena have been observed and recorded, two distinct processes have been identified: that bodies act a distance on one another, and that something in their constitution has changed, that they are in a new condition. Confusing these two has prevented researchers from finding a mechanical explanation of electrostatic phenomena.
On the one hand, Benjamin Franklin clearly noticed that something is being transferred from one body to another during friction or when being connected to an electrical machine. This change in constitution was related by him to the existence of an electric fluid that has been lost by one and gained by another.
On the other hand, charged objects act a distance on one another through attractions and repulsions. These interactions cannot be transmitted other that by vibrations in the intervening aether because they are observed even in vacuum and because the aether is a compressible inviscid liquid that can propagate interactions exclusively through longitudinal waves. If we are to find a mechanical explanation for these interactions, the only way is to think of them as being produced by what matter does, not by what matter is and proposing the matter is positive or negative. This further leads to the conclusion that electrostatic attractions and repulsions are due to matter set in a motion of vibration, in other words, that matter is charged with energy, not with “electricity”.
Thus, Benjamin Franklin’s electric fluid does not have to be a substance “charged with electricity”, it is sufficient to acknowledge its existence and to explain the electrostatic forces to which it gives rise by its vibration, that is, by its energy charge. In this work, this fluid is called electrigen.
The electrigen can be thought of as a chemical element. Following the scheme used in chemistry, its name stems from electri- (electrical phenomena) and -gen (gene - producing). Needless to add that it is a neutral substance, just as any other chemical element. And its name is not to be understood as implying that it is the only element producing electrostatic attractions and repulsions through its vibration. The other elements are equally potent when set in vibration but it is due to the electrigen having revealed the existence of electrostatic phenomena that such a name was assigned to it.
In acknowledging the existence of electrigen as a new chemical element, we find support from the most unexpected quarters, even from chemistry itself. Thus, no other that Dmitri Mendeleev, the founder of the Periodic Table of chemical elements, foretold the existence of elements x and y in Group 0. Look at Figures 1 and 2 of his table. In the present work, element x is identified as the Aether, and the element y as the electrigen.
imageimage
A further support for the existence of electrigen comes from the phenomena observed in vacuum tubes. William Crookes called it the fourth state of matter, and later cathode rays. O.W. Richardson observed that electrigen can be evaporated from substances heated in vacuum, and that in such a state of vibration the electrigen behaves as a “negatively charged substance”. In a mechanical explanation of electrostatic phenomena what this means is that the vibrating electrigen repels itself and attracts other chemical elements.
Due to its lightness, the electrigen is easily set in vibration and its oscillations can be conceived as transferring to the aether small amplitude, high frequency waves. Other elements, being heavier, would impart to the aether waves of larger amplitudes and lower frequencies. As a result, elements placed in such aether acoustic fields will be attracted repelled according to their natural vibration frequencies.

[…]

Conclusions
The present work showed how a mechanical picture of the electrostatic phenomena can be constructed by using the new concept of Electrigen as a Group 0, Period I chemical element of the Periodic Table of Elements. In this scheme, the Aether occupies the Group 0, Period 0 cell of the sametable, consistent with Dmitri Mendeleev’s conception of elements x and y.
The electrostatic phenomena of attractions and repulsions are attributed to the vibrations of the various elements and to the acoustic fields they produce in the surrounding aether.
The electrigen is conceived as covering the atoms of elements and clinging to them due to the external aether pressure. When chemical reactions take place, the electrigen is transferred from one substance to another. In a chemical cell for example, it is accumulated on the dissolving electrode, and produces a diffusion wave through a wire when one is connected between the two electrodes of the cell.
The electric current is thus an electrigen diffusion wave that produces surface waves in the surrounding aether. The circular motion of aether particles which results constitute the magnetic field observed when an electric current flows through a wire. This view has further consequences on the validity of Ampere’s formula for electric current elements as well as on our conception of the magnetic field, which will be discussed in a future work.

bsutansalt #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

[Repost] Women Do Not Have A “Sex Drive”

tl;dr Red Pill Theory focuses on inducing and maintaining female sexual attraction, but the applied theory (e.g. dread) is missing the underlying connective tissue - women have an attention drive, not a sex drive. If you want to maintain sexual attraction, learn to give the right type of attention (but not too much!).
________________

What Makes a Woman Feel "Sexual"?

Anyone who reads the sidebar understands that the Game is all about FEELINGS. How you make her FEEL is the key to unwrapping every other aspect of attraction.

"Feelings" are temporary emotional states. They are also overwhelming, meaning at sufficient levels they take priority over the rest of the cognitive processes.

Female sexuality is REACTIVE - it's not the dull aching horniness that men experience. It is rapid-onset response to desirable male attention.

The price of male attention is sex. Sex is the glue that holds male attraction firmly in place. 1

Ipso facto women are willing to pay the sex price and a natural feedback loop is created; male attention makes her "sexual", the sex engenders more attention from the male, the attention makes her FEEL "sexual", and so on.

They fuck because they want to FEEL sexual. Not because they want sex.

What Do Women THINK Makes Them Feel Sexual?

Who cares. Ask 10 of them once a day for a week and get 19182 different responses. Listen to their advice and get 0 sex.
________________

What Motivates Women vs. Men to Play This Game?

I don't buy the line that "women are natural Machiavellians/She's always planning the next branch swing/etc.".

Her goal is to maximally exploit her youth (in other words beauty) for maximal desirable male attention.

Can this take the form of a conniving woman, ready to trade up at the next possible chance? Sure. But that is a SYMPTOM and not a CAUSE.

Men want to fuck for fucking's sake. Some trade resources and their dignity for this (gradually rarer) privilege - we call them beta males. Others learn to exploit the desire for their attention. Be the latter guy.

Men's goal is sexual variety.
________________

The Breakdown - Why Women Leave

Ultimately, whether through fault of the man or woman, the cycle of attention stops.

Men who break the cycle generally stop giving the girl "sexy" attention. This can be the result of him becoming unattractive physically 2, but more often the man fails to make her FEEL seduced.

His attention shifts from "sexy" to "expecting" - this makes the girl FEEL...at best nothing, at worst like she is doing work. What used to be motivating attention has been replaced by a demand for service. Wrong kind of attention.

Cheating happens when some other guy steps in and gives her that seductive attention again, making her FEEL sexy. She might fuck him then, she might not. BUT the relationship enters Stage 4 Terminal Cancer at that point.

You may hear "I love you but I'm not IN LOVE with you" at this point 3. Scrap it and move on.
________________

Attention in Context of TRP Terms

Let's re-frame a few core concepts from applied (things you do) to theory (abstract thought that creates broader understanding).

* Dread is reminding a woman your "sexy" attention is always for sale, not overtly stating you will fuck other women

* The 3/2 rule is meant to stifle inappropriate outflows of your time and resources aka limitation creates mystery, it is not a math equation

* Pre-selection and social proof are when other women competing for YOUR attention increases its perceived value

I could go on - the point is the underpinning theme is provisioning and framing of attention.
________________

Conclusions

* Women do not have a sex drive - they respond sexually to desirable male attention

* Never rely on a woman to tell you what makes her FEEL sexual - especially not one you are fucking

* Males desire sexual variety, women desire maximal exploitation of their youth and beauty for attention

* Women cheat when they stop getting the sexy kind of attention - this PERMANENTLY prevents your attention from being "sexy" ever again
________________

Footnotes

Throughout the post there are footnotes of side observations. Each references a specific problem in the modern SMP. Here they are in order.

1. Men giving away attention for free in never before seen quantities - Remember how I said the price for male attention is sex? This dynamic is fucking that up - attention is available in mass quantity without the old cost.

2. There's a reason our advice starts at "lift" - there's no excuse to be physically unattractive - Don't lose the game because you didn't learn the basics. Keep it simple.

3. Reinvesting in a dying or dead relationship - Don't go looking in the dumpster. You'll only find trash. Roll around in there and that smell will be stuck on your for awhile.

BrazilianSigMarxist #racist #sexist reddit.com

There are only three genders: male, female and Mongofoid. Therefore resorting to Mongofoids still make you incel if you are a heterosexual male, since Mongofoids do not have female secondary sex characteristics.

According to trans activists, gender and sex is not binary and occupies a wide and diverse spectrum. Not only is there male and female, but a heterogeneous range of intersex realities and identities.

Knowing that, should AF be included in the LGBTQIA+ community? Despite most of them having wombs and vaginas (decorated with extensive gray and brown beef curtains), most of them lack secondary sex characteristics that would alert the casual observer to their female status. They may have female genitalia but secondary female characteristics like breasts and feminine curves are strangely absent from this species.

Furthermore, their faces exhibit almost no femininity at all and an AF is indistinguishable from an AM when she adopts the same grooming as the average man. Their eyes are masculine and small, and bald in addition which emphasizes the manly nature of their face. This is not helped by their robust face shape and strong, square jaw. I have seen many white and black men who are much more facially feminine than AF despite having all the usual male characteristics.

Scientific studies have shown that it is actually possible to distinguish gay faces from straight faces by their relative divergence from the masculine or feminine norms of their gender. Gay male faces tend to be more feminine, while gay female faces tend to be more masculine. Scientists posit that this is due to prenatal hormonal influences.

Knowing that, should the divergent sexual characteristics of AF make them a seperate gender from normal women, and instead some sort of intersex gender that includes the worst traits of dyadic male and dyadic female?

Yes, there is sufficient argumentation and many straight men have already began to recognize AF as non-viable partners due to various factors like their intersex nature and inherent evil. In fact gender theorists have begun to hypothesize that AF are a non-linear element in the gender-sex spectrum and that male-male attraction is actually less gay than being with an AF, especially since plenty of gay males demonstrate some feminine characteristics in their physical appearance and manner of comportment.

By proposing this thesis I mean no insult to the LGBTQIA+ community, and maybe suggest that instead that AF be included in the MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender identities, And Intersex) community instead, which is populated with bestiality enthusiasts and weirdos who like to fuck under 12s. Unfortunately, AF run rampant in all countries and are not curtailed from their devious and disastrous activities like they should be, so it looks like the A in LGBTQIA+ stands for Asianfemale now.

Asexuals will just have to be content with being represented with +, and to be fair being surrounded by AF will make you asexual anyway.

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

You'll never hear what I'm about to tell you from the predominantly Jewish-controlled mainstream newsmedia. I do not enjoy writing articles like this, but the truth needs to be told, so that no Christian dare idolize or speak highly of actor Leonard Simon Nimoy (1931-2015). Our world is fast-headed for eternal damnation. Literally, BILLIONS of souls will all be dead over the next few decades. I don't want you to go to Hell forever. Leonard Nimoy died so foolishly on February 27 last month.

Tragically, Mr. Nimoy went to Hell in his sins without Jesus Christ. Did anyone witness to him? Did anyone care? Would he have listened? It is very sad indeed. 2nd Corinthians 4:3-5, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not [unsaved people], lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them [enlightenment]. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.”

I have read nothing but positive comments from the Jewish-controlled media. I am NOT anti-Semite, God forbid. I love all Jewish people, including Leonard Nimoy. I am however against the arrogance-fueled-heresy of Zionism that blinds men's minds and hearts, hindering them from seeing the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. It breaks my heart to know that Mr. Nimoy went to Hell. As you will now learn for yourself, Leonard Nimoy was caught up into New Age philosophies of a male and female aspect of God. There is no feminine aspect of God (as sinfully taught by Feminist Theology). The Holy Bible is a masculine Book!

Leonard Nimoy Expressed His Jewish Religion Through Nude Photography

Leonard Nimoy was a big-time sexual degenerate. In a disturbing two-part YouTube interview video by Leonard Nimoy titled, “Sex And Religion,” featured at Rmichelson.com (I will not link to either of these websites because of their nude and lewd content), Mr. Nimoy makes some shocking statements. Nimoy claims that his first sexual experience was at age 8-to 9 years old, while attended an orthodox Jewish synagogue. He claims that the Rabbi got up and prayed in Hebrew, while everyone in the congregation made an occult hand-sign (which he later introduced as the famous “Vulcan Hand Sign” in the Star Trek series. He was told by his father to cover his eyes and not to look.

According to Nimoy, at the aforementioned occult synagogue ceremony, he was taught by the Jewish Rabbi that a female deity (named Shekhina) entered into the gathering room to bless the congregation. Yes, Leonard Nimoy believed that God has a female aspect (which is satanic New Age). The reason why Nimoy was told to cover his eyes was in humility to the Shekhina. So Nimoy claims he pondered how to see the Shekhina if you cannot look at her. His solution was to combine sensuality with religion. Literally, Leonard Nimoy claims that he sought to photograph the female aspect of God (the Shekhina) by photographing nude, lewd and sensual women. This is utter wickedness.

Biblically, God has no female side. Only in witchcraft, the occult, Yin-Yang and New Age occultism do we find the existence of a female goddess or deity. The Holy Bible teaches about GOD THE FATHER, and GOD THE SON, and GOD THE HOLY SPRIT (Who is referred to as “He” in John 16:13, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” All aspects of the Divine Godhead are masculine, and always shall be. There are no feminine aspects of the Godhead. Woe unto the wicked!

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

JewishRighter #fundie freerepublic.com

I’m an Orthodox Jew. Haaretz writers would no doubt call me “Ultra Orthodox”. I can tell you the article is (shockingly) absurd. First of all, there is no brave new world of homosexual acceptance and understanding emerging among Ultra Orthodox Jews. Jews who follow the Torah have only one opinion about it: it’s wrong. Period. Full Stop. Second, they make it sound as if the topic of homosexuality itself is some kind of scary topic that Orthodox Jews never talk about.

Wrong. It is not discussed in the same way that the permissive popular/secular culture does: we don’t talk about individuals; we talk about issues. Gay marriage, like homosexuality, is wrong. Gay synagogues are wrong. Any measure of compromise with the Torah outlook on homosexuality is wrong.

Like every other aspect of human behavior, homosexuality is addressed in a candid and sober fashion in the Talmud and other works on Jewish law. There isn’t a whole lot to say about it, since the Torah perspective is fairly straightforward (pun intended).

It is also important to dispel any notion that Orthodox Jews eagerly wish gays were put to death as prescribed in the Torah. There is no judicial authority with the power to impose such a penalty and the actual procedure (like all capital cases in Jewish law) has so many protections in favor of a defendant that the penalty would almost be impossible to carry out. Moreover, the correct attitude of Orthodox Jews is that they would rather see people change their ways than suffer punishments.

GachiYellow #homophobia #fundie #conspiracy gachiyellow.wordpress.com

Now let me show you evidence of the NWO actively trying to turn people gay. Gay people didn’t need help to become that way 2,000 years ago and they sure don’t need to be forced to become that way. Why would the NWO want to do that. It’s a variation of eugenics. If a population does not breed it eventually dies. For more information on eugenics see my other blog: Pro abortion = Pro eugenics

So, what can turn people “gay”? Actually In my opinion I don’t think “Gay” or “homosexual” is the right term. This stuff literally turn animals and people into hermaphrodites. Lowering testosterone levels alters males to females. Getting to the point high estrogen levels feminizes males. What is estrogen? The definition of estrogen is:

“any of a group of steroid hormones that promote the development and maintenance of female characteristics of the body. Such hormones are also produced artificially for use in oral contraceptives or to treat menopausal and menstrual disorders.”

How can testosterone be lowered? Well the proper amount can be disrupted with endocrine disruptors. The definition of endocrine disruptor is:

“Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that at certain doses, can interfere with the endocrine in mammals. These disruptions can cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. Any system in the body controlled by hormones, can be derailed by hormone disruptors.”

What chemical can be used to do this? BPA. BPA is a Endocrine disruptor.

“Bisphenol A (BPA) is an estrogenic endocrine disruptor widely used in the production of plastics. Increasing evidence indicates that in utero BPA exposure affects sexual differentiation and behavior…We hypothesized that BPA may disrupt epigenetic programming of gene expression in the brain…BPA exposure induced persistent, largely sex-specific effects on social and anxiety-like behavior, leading to disruption of sexually dimorphic behaviors.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23716699

“If a mother is ingesting BPA while carrying her fetus sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb. Although a child may become male in the womb the fetus is being bathed in estrogen [Blogger comment: This could lead to the male having a female brain] and subsequently nursed on BPA bottles which consistently causes estrogen to metabolize in the infant’s body. Is this what is causing male children to gravitate toward the nature of a female?”

http://revelationnow.net/2013/03/31/being-gay-transformed-this-way/

Below is proof that Gay people are used as a weapon by the elite. LBGT folks should be in a uproar about this. The NWO wants to use your cause to promote their sick evil eugenics program.

“Air Force Considered Gay ‘Love Bomb’ Against Enemies

The Air Force on Tuesday confirmed a report that in 1994 a military researcher requested $7.5 million to develop a non-lethal “love bomb” that would chemically alter the state of mind of enemy troops and make them want to have sex with each other rather than fight.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/12/air-force-considered-gay-love-bomb-against-enemies/

There are multiple chemicals that are endocrine disruptors. I don’t know them all but I wanted to highlight BPA because this stuff is used in making things we eat and drink out of.

“BPA is used to make certain plastics and epoxy resins; it has been in commercial use since 1957 and around 3.6 million tons (8 billion pounds) of BPA are used by manufacturers yearly. BPA-based plastic is clear and tough, and is used to make a variety of common consumer goods (such as baby and water bottles, sports equipment, and CDs and DVDs) and for industrial purposes, like lining water pipes. Epoxy resins containing BPA are used as coatings on the inside of many food and beverage cans. It is also used in making thermal paper such as that used in sales receipts.”

http://revelationnow.net/2013/03/31/being-gay-transformed-this-way/

To use this biological weapon, BPA, on people is so evil! Some of you may be asking why I put this in the religious section. Well for one the gay/straight debate usually ends up as a religious conversation. Also, I’m not posting this to bash LBGT. LBGT folks around the world should be outraged by this. Evil scum is actively trying sexually cripple all of us so we can’t procreate as God intended. LBGT don’t let the NWO use your platform as a base for one of their eugenic programs. Speak out against this.

Sue Bohlin #fundie blogs.bible.org

A recent email from a friend: "Sue, I'm seeing more and more 'evangelical' churches come out in support of gay marriage. Also, Christian friends are changing their views on the validity of the LGBT lifestyle being acceptable for a Christ-follower. I start worrying that I'm missing something, and even start questioning my beliefs."

No, my dear friend, you are not missing something, but it is a good time to question (not doubt) your beliefs so you can be more convinced than ever that the Creator God has not changed and neither has His word.

I think there are two big reasons so many confessing believers in Christ have allowed themselves to be more shaped by the culture than by the truth of God's word, drifting into spiritual compromise and even into apostasy (abandoning the truth of one's faith). This is not a new problem; the apostle Paul urged his readers in Rome, "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold, but let God re-mold your minds from within. . ." (Romans 12:2, Phillips).

Reason One: Rejecting the Authority of God's Word

The bitter fruit of several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship is that many believers have been especially vulnerable to Satan's deceptive question to Eve in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say . . .?" When Christians ignore or flat-out reject the unmistakably clear biblical statements condemning homosexual relationships, they are playing into the enemy's temptation to justify disobedience by making feelings and perceptions more important than God's design and standards.

There are now two streams of thought on same-sex relationships and behavior, the Traditional View and the Revisionist View. The Revisionist View basically says, "It doesn't matter what the Bible actually says, it doesn't mean what 2000 years of church history has said it means, it means what we want it to say."

People are redefining the Bible, gender and marriage according to what will let them do what they want, when they should (in my opinion) be asking the insightful question posed by Paul Mooris in Shadow of Sodom, "[A]m I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my proclivity, or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?"

The Bible:
Traditional View
The Bible is inspired by a Holy God and is inherently true and trustworthy. The Bible is written by men, but divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and is sealed by a God of truth and authority.
Revisionist View
The scriptures which traditional Christianity understands to condemn homosexuality [such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10] have either been mistranslated, yanked out of context or were only appropriate to the culture of that time. Therefore, we no longer have to follow passages we don't like.

Sexuality:
Traditional View
Sexuality and sex are God's good gifts to men and women. While sexuality is an essential attribute of human nature, our Creator did not intend it to be the defining characteristic of humanity.
Revisionist View
Sexuality—the feelings and attractions one feels for other people—is God ordained, diverse, deeply personal and morally permissible. One's sexual orientation, whatever it is, should be celebrated as one of God's good gifts.

Gender:
Traditional View
God created both male and female in His image, and each gender reflects different aspects of the imago Dei. God's sovereign choice of gender for every person reflects His intention for that person's identity; it is one of the ways in which he or she glorifies Him as Creator.
Revisionist View
We are free to make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is biological maleness or femaleness at birth, and gender is how one feels about their "true" maleness or femaleness internally. Based on Galatians 3:28, "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Marriage:
Traditional View
Marriage is God-ordained between one man and one woman in a lifelong, monogamous, covenantal relationship. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of the Lamb (Jesus) and the Bride (the church). The complementarity of husband and wife express God's intention of both genders in marriage.
Revisionist View
Homosexual behavior is appropriate within the confines of a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship.

Both individual Christians and churches have drifted into endorsing same-sex relationships because it always feels better to follow one's flesh than to follow Jesus' call to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24).

Reason Two: Snagged by the Gay Agenda

In addition to those several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship I mentioned earlier, many believers have not been submitting themselves to the truth of the Word of God. By default, then, they were easily shaped and swayed by the six points of a brilliantly designed "Gay Manifesto" spelled out in a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Originally published as an essay called "The Overhauling of Straight America" that was published in a gay magazine, the authors laid out this plan which has been executed perfectly in the United States. (The quotes below are from the essay, found here)

1. Desensitization and normalization of homosexuals in mainstream America. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

"The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!"

2. Portray members of the LGBTQ community as victims. Indoctrinate mainstream America that members of the LGBTQ community were "born this way."

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

"Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: 'As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!'"

3. Give protectors a just cause: anti-discrimination

"Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."

4. The use of TV, music, film and social media to desensitize mainstream Americans to their plight as gay people

Over the past 25 years, gay characters, on TV especially, have captured the hearts of American viewers because they were attractive, funny, smart—the kind of characters viewers would like to be. No one was shown the dark underside of gay bars and bathhouses, or same-sex domestic violence, or having to get one's HIV+ status checked.

5. Portray gays and lesbians as pillars in society. Make gays look good.

"From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization."

Use celebrities and celebrity endorsement. And who doesn't love Ellen DeGeneres?

6. Once homosexuals have begun to gain acceptance, anti-gay opponents must be vilified, causing them to be viewed as repulsive outcasts of society.

"Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the 'fags' they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

This is how I see how we got to this place where so many people have been deceived. They didn't anchor themselves to the Truth of the Word of God, and they opened themselves to the cultural brine of Kirk and Madsen's plan to overhaul straight America.

And it worked.

I will close with three personal observations about this situation:

Christians have bought into the culture's worship of feelings over God's unchanging revelation
People love how being a protector of the underdog makes them feel
Not enough of us Christ-followers are living lives that demonstrate the beauty and satisfaction of abiding in Christ
To my sweet friend who asked the question, let me say: God's good gift of sex and the intimacy of the marriage relationship is still intended ONLY for one man and one woman for life. In the beginning, one (Adam) became two (when God formed Eve from Adam), and then the two became one again. That is a deep mystery that makes all variations and deviations on God's intention wrong.

I am indebted to Hope Harris for her insight and analysis of this question.

Dr. Melvyn Iscove #fundie thestar.com

A long-time Toronto psychiatrist, who believes homosexuality is a “sexual disorder” that can be overcome, has been found guilty by Ontario’s medical regulator of sexually abusing two of his male patients.

Dr. Melvyn Iscove, 72, was described in a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s discipline committee as having a “special interest in the treatment of patients with problems related to homosexuality.”

He also engaged in mutual masturbation and oral sex with two male patients on different occasions during therapy sessions, and once had anal intercourse with one of them in his office, the committee found.

“Neither complainant described any emotional or romantic aspects of the sexual activity with Dr. Iscove, and both said that at some point, they thought that the sexual activity was part of the therapy and an attempt to cure them of homosexuality by engaging in the acts, rather than fantasizing about them,” the five-member discipline panel wrote in a decision released this week.

Iscove testified in his own defence, and the discipline panel noted that he studied and applied the theories of Dr. Edmund Bergler, a psychoanalyst who theorized on homosexuality in the 1950s. Passages of Bergler’s writings introduced at Iscove’s discipline hearing included “All attempts to prove homosexuality to be anything but an illness had in my opinion failed” and “there are no happy homosexuals.”

The discipline panel found Iscove tried to “soften the effect of these passages, but in the end, endorsed or at least accepted them.”

“Dr. Iscove also became evasive in responding to questions as to whether homosexuality should be considered an illness, and whether it was capable of being ‘cured,’ despite that these views were clearly held by Dr. Bergler.” the panel wrote.

“Given that Dr. Iscove had admittedly devoted his professional life to studying and applying the theories of Dr. Bergler, it was not clear to the committee why Dr. Iscove refused to acknowledge that he agreed with Dr. Bergler on these points.”

“He stated that these patients only became responsive to his therapy when they were ready to fight it (i.e., the homosexuality),” the panel said

The doctor still faces a separate discipline hearing for an allegation of “improper conduct in a public men’s washroom,” according to his profile on the College of Physicians’ online register.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

(commenting on story "Atheist Activist Group Takes Issue With Alabama Police Department's Mix of God with Government"):

Oboehner:
Shows the hypocrisy of one religion claiming rights over another, nothing more.

Zampogna:
Atheism is a religion just like baldness is a hair color.

Oboehner:
Baldness is a scalp condition like atheism is a religion.

Zampogna:
Yes, bald men suffer from male pattern scalp condition. One of your analogies is bound not to fall on its face if you keep trying.

Oboehner:
The hair color analogy is blocking the fall as it face-planted the moment it hit cyberspace.

Zampogna:
Atheism is the absence of religion. I know what you're attempting, to turn all rational and scientific beliefs into matters of faith. And they aren't. And even if they were, they at least attempt to make attempts to understand by studying and not just saying Goddidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Oboehner:
Yeah right, the "we really don't care one way or the other" activist group, LOL
I know what you're attempting, to turn matters of faith into scientific beliefs . And they aren't. At least attempt to understand by studying and not just saying anexplodingdotdidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Zampogna:
These ARE scientific beliefs, and you're trying to level the playing field by putting them on the same level as your ancient holy book. They couldn't be more different. Your holy book gets absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever and just demands you believe it. That's you. Science tests and re-tests and examines and studies over and over. That's my group. And I'm proud to be part of it.

Oboehner:
My "Holy Book" is an admitted matter of faith, it is not taught at taxpayer expense in government schools. Science can "test and re-test" all they want, if the belief and the flawed system they use never changes... You can be proud of whatever you like, that doesn't make it science, or even one bit true - you have only blind faith.

Dr. Michael Brown #fundie barbwire.com

[The Chicago Theological Seminary, a LGBT-inclusive seminary, had openly gay professor Ken Stone give a pro-LGBT speech in commemoration of its 150th anniversary. It also handed out some condoms for a pride event.]

In the case of this seminary, which has long departed from biblical foundations, there's another lesson we can learn, namely that the embrace of homosexual practice is not so much an advance in "tolerance" as much as it is a plunge into sexual anarchy, as demonstrated by the condom distribution event.

This is a major point I make in my forthcoming book Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide.

There I note that:

"We are more accepting of homosexuality today because our sexual morals our lower, not because we are more enlightened. Put another way, the gay revolution is not the successor of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; it is the successor of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Getting a grasp on this, we get a grasp on where our culture is really headed, helping us recognize that our embrace of homosexuality (even the more committed, less promiscuous kind) is part of our larger descent into sexual anarchy."

[...]

This means that what is happening at Chicago Theological Seminary is not taking place in a moral and spiritual vacuum. Instead, all these branches of sexual anarchy go back to the same root, namely, the rejection of spiritual authority. We think we know better than God!

[...]

To repeat: Contemporary America's embrace of homosexual practice is part and parcel of America's descent into sexual anarchy, which not only includes the full embrace of fornication, cohabitation, and having kids out of wedlock, but the celebration of polygamy, polyamory, and "swinging" on reality TV, not to mention nude dating shows and the like.

The good news (which forms Principle #3 in Outlasting the Gay Revolution) is that "Sexual Purity Trumps Sexual Anarchy," and if we walk in holiness and live in purity, by God's grace and empowerment, we and our families will thrive while those who participate in the culture of sexual anarchy will gradually defeat themselves.

As for Chicago Theological Seminary, one thing they will not do is produce world-changing disciples of Jesus, unless they make a truly radical course correction.

Stranger things have happened, have they not?

Lance Welton #racist vdare.com

[Note to mods: I'm filing this under RSTDT because that's the plurality of the quote, but there's enough misogyny and anti-LGBT content to contest this categorization]

The hysteria provoked by Donald Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court may well be unprecedented in US history. Never before has a president’s judicial nomination been met with such an overwhelmingly emotional reaction. And it’s not in the least bit surprising, either. Females (especially when rejected), minorities and homosexuals—the very people most infuriated by Kavanaugh’s elevation—are highly emotional. And there are sound evolutionary reasons why this is the case.

Back to Kavanaugh. Chef, from South Park once observed that, “There’s a time and place for everything, and it’s called college.” Anyone who’s ever been to university—or even to a co-ed high school—knows that students are callow, promiscuous and strongly sexually-driven. When I was at university, sexual behaviour between opposite-sex friends—sexual touching, lip-kissing and even making out—was perfectly normal, as were intense but brief sexual relationships (what Tom Wolfe called “Hooking Up”) and the consequent breaking of hearts. But, “What happens in college stays in college.”

Things can become difficult, however, when it is the female’s heart that is broken. Adult females are much higher than males in the personality characteristic Neuroticism—the essence of which is feeling negative emotions strongly. [Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65, By C. Soto et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011]. This is seemingly because, in the prehistoric environment, an optimum level of anxiety helped to ensure that the kids you were caring for didn’t get hurt. And worrying makes you more competitive to get your man and keep him, in a prehistoric context in which pregnant and nursing females needed males to support them. [Why Neurotics Haven't Died Out, By Rachel Rettner, Live Science, June 15, 2010]

And it really it is true that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Females are higher than males in all negative emotions. Though some men never fully get over a break up, women feel the emotional pain of a break up far more intensely. [Quantitative sex differences in response to the dissolution of a romantic relationship, By Craig Morris et al., Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2015].

...

Ramirez is also Hispanic. Hispanics being higher in mental instability than whites, probably because there was less intense selection against mental instability in ecologies where basic needs were more easily met, meaning that group cooperation is less important. [Mental Health Disparities: Hispanics and Latinos. American Psychiatric Association, 2017] Hispanics are also, on numerous measures, simply less honest than whites. [Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality, By Richard Lynn, Washington Summit, 2018, In Press]

A combination of Neuroticism and hysteria is likely to explain why Julie Swetnick went public, on 26th September, with her unfounded allegations that Kavanaugh attended parties where males would prey on young girls, spike their drinks, and rape them. [New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details local house parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped, By Dan Breuninger, CNBC, September 26, 2018]

Swetnick is also Jewish. Jews are much more likely than whites to suffer from schizophrenia [Scientists Discover Gene That Predisposes Ashkenazi Jews to Schizophrenia, By Ido Efrati, Haaretz, November 26, 2013]. The essence of schizophrenia is “hypermentalism”—being so acutely aware of the physical cues of mental states (such as facial expressions) that you read too much into them: a smile means he’s in love with me; a slight frown means he wants to kill me.

Schizophrenia also distorts your memories.Schizophrenia is at one extreme of a spectrum at the other end of which sits autism; the inability to infer emotion from physical cues. [Mentalism and Mechanism, By C. Badcock, in Human Nature and Social Values, 2003] If a group is subject to a harsh environment, such as the persecution which the Jews were historically subject to, it is more likely to survive if everyone in it cooperates together and gets along. This is more likely to happen if people are higher in “mentalism”—if they are better able to read the emotions of others. So, the average member of a highly cooperative group will be higher on the schizophrenia spectrum than the average member of a less cooperative group. But this means that a highly cooperative group will include a larger minority who are simply schizophrenic at the spectrum’s extreme end.

Kavanaugh was also strongly opposed by a group of senators that includes two African-Americans. African Americans, compared to whites, are high in psychopathic personality, meaning that they have poor control over their emotions, which can easily overwhelm their intelligence.(See Race and Psychopathic Personality, by Richard Lynn, Amren.com, July, 2002.) They also feel almost all negative emotions far more acutely that do white people, because in the easy ecology of Africa there was little selection for highly cooperative groups. The only exception: the trait psychologists call “social anxiety”. Blacks are so incredibly low in this—due to weak selection for cooperation—that, overall, it is found that they are lower in Neuroticism than are whites, despite their scoring higher on the other Neuroticism traits. [Race Differences in Anxiety Disorders, Worry and Social Anxiety, By Heitor Fernandes et al., Mankind Quarterly, Spring 2018]

Blacks are also higher in all psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, partly because, in a relaxed ecology, there is less selection against genes which cause antisocial behavior. Indeed, Darwinian selection, in general, is weak in such ecologies, leading to high genetic diversity. [Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis, By Robert Schwartz and David Blankenship, World Journal of Psychiatry, December 2014]

Kavanaugh has also found himself subject to sustained attack by the “LGBTQI+” community, simply because he has refused to express an opinion on gay marriage. According to “Human Rights” campaigner Chad Griffin, Kavanaugh’s refusal to do this is “alarming and completely unacceptable” . [What does Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh mean for LGBT rights? By Ella Braidwood, Pink News, September 28, 2018]

We should expect such strong emotions from this group. Homosexuals are more mentally unstable than heterosexuals. They have higher rates of anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, suicide and, fascinatingly, left-handedness, than heterosexuals. [Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, by Ray Blanchard, Laterality, 2008] As I showed recently, we are evolved to be right-handed, so left-handedness means something has gone wrong: it betokens “developmental instability”, either due to mutant genes, a sub-optimal fetal environment or both.

In line with this, younger sons are more likely to be homosexual, because the mother’s immune system regards male hormones emanating from the fetus as enemy agents. It duly overwhelms them with female hormones; the mother’s immune system getting stronger with each pregnancy. If her immune system is too strong, due to mutations, her male offspring will not only be homosexual but they may inherit these mutations, explaining why homosexuals and the left-handed are prone to allergies; where the immune system overreacts. (See Blanchard, above.)

Lesbians are masculinized females. [Genetic and Environmental Influences on 2D;4D Finger Length Ratios, by Kyle Gobrogge et al., Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008] They are often the product of mothers who produce too much testosterone [Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, By S. Resnick et al., Developmental Psychology, 1986] due to the mother’s mutation-caused conditions. And it is no surprise that transsexuals—suffering as they do from mind-body dysmorphia—tend to be mentally unstable.

The intensely emotional debate provoked by the judge’s nomination may seem beyond belief. But it makes sense if examined from viewpoint of evolution and genetics. “Hell Hath no Fury” not merely “like a woman scored” but also “like a minority” and “like a sexual deviant scorned.”

Moreover, the level of hysteria in American politics is going to get worse. As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow documented recently, the Democratic Party has “tipped”—in 2016, for the first time ever, a majority (53%) of its Presidential voters were non-white, homosexual or Jewish. (61% of the Democrat vote was female). Non-whites are increasingly claiming leadership roles (New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Florida) which means the kind of behaviour we saw from Kamala Harris and Cory Booker at Kavanaugh’s hearings (“I am Spartacus”, the “Jane Doe” letter) will become more common in Congress in the future.

...

In other words, there’s going to be a lot more screeching. My advice to the GOP (and America): Buy earplugs.

Saul25 #fundie thendtimes.com

[Topic: Gayism and demon Spirits.]

I have never heard of any true homo animal, homosexuality as we know it seems to be confined to the human race. I am convinced that there are demon spirits that specialize in just about every sin that enslaves mankind. The will of man is free to chose by orders from God, so a demon entity cannot just come and take up residence in a human host, the human must DO something that opens that door. Satan cannot go against the will, so in some form or fashion a human has to do something that invites the demon entity in. An example might be a young person who finds himself a little attracted to the same gender, the person has plenty of control at that point and can just resist it. However if he starts to think that he is a homo and actually says,"I am homosexual",and believes what he has said", that can be an invite to a spirit of homosexuality and after that the person cannot control himself.

['Oranges' lists over 100 documented examples of homosexual behaviour in animals.]

Lies by the homos, I have studied nature all my life both in person and in reading. A bunch of homos can produce a homosexual relationship out of two pencils being in the same bowl, it is just a bunch of nonsense. Human homos reject the opposite gender even if given the opportunity to mate, think for crying out loud, if this was done in any species they would cease to exist because the continuation of the species is dependent on male to female mating and if male to female mating occurs then they are not homosexual as is the true homosexual human. There are no species that are homosexual as defined by the true homosexual human.......AND DON'T BOTHER ME AGAIN WITH SUCH NONSENSE!

Harun Yahya #fundie harunyahya.com

Families are the fundamental building blocks of society. In order for a society to flourish and remain healthy, the family should consist of a father and a mother who are able to produce and give rise to children. However, there is a rising trend in many Western countries, which is intrinsically in contradiction to what is considered a normal society: same-sex marriage. As of late, being modern and classy in society requires freedom, which is definitely true, but according to the changing western cultures and values that includes acceptance of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, many activists promote homosexuality as another human rights issue that must undeniably be protected. Some endeavor deliberately to oppose religious values and merits while some are misguidedly following them in order to be hip, modern, trendy and in tune with their notion of what a new modern culture should consist of. They are usually unaware of the damage it is imposing on society, especially on children and the young generation.

Accordingly, homosexual activists use every opportunity they get in order to spread their homosexual lifestyles both within their communities and outside their communities. The media seems to be the leading tool used to disseminate and justify their argument. Homosexual lifestyle and those promoting such rights are increasingly finding support and legitimization in the US via Hollywood movie and television shows, TV programs, reality shows, fashion related shows, news reports, columns, music videos, books, magazines and the list goes on. They intend to portray homosexual behavior as quite ordinary, healthy, and culturally hip. To intensify their argument, some activists depict homosexuals as very healthy, fit, good looking, classy, and successful people with executive professions within communities and societies. With the effect of these tools supporting the culture of homosexuality, 20% of Americans claim TV has shifted their opinion on the side of new form of marriages. Regrettably, in film and in the fashion industry people support homosexuality in order to get higher positions. The fact is however that reshaping marriage and marketing homosexuality are a grave danger to society via morality, physically and economically.

I feel it is important to remind the readers why I write this article. As a matter of fact, the purpose of this article is to remind young people not to fall into this brainwashing trap and to keep the strong spiritual values to have for an honorable life; in this way the members of society who pay heed to morals will respect them in the appropriate way. Therefore, it is everyone's responsibility to disclose the heinous and abhorrent acts that are deemed to be in compliance with this "new way" of life style all wrapped up in the name of human rights. Most importantly, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in the divine religions (Koran 7/80-82, Bible Romans 1/24-28) and in the stories of the holy books people who engaged in such indecency mentioned in the holy books were penalized (Koran 15/68-75, Bible2 Peter 2/6-10).

Considering the matter in terms of morals and ethics, we encounter a higher rate of child molestation in same-sex couple households. It is a moral obligation to protect the interests of helpless children in our society. Extensive researches show that children of same-sex parents are more likely to experience sexual confusion and to engage in homosexual activities themselves that will eventually cause them to suffer from psychiatric disorders, substance addiction, sexual assault, suicide, and sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. In the US alone, government investment in the domestic response to HIV has risen to more than $24 billion per year.

For this reason, it is alarming to view the statistics in terms of same-sex marriage and the increase in the number of children they adopt. For example, 94,627 children live with homosexual couples in the US and the estimated total number of children living with at least one homosexual parent range from 6 to 14 million. Similarly in the UK, as of March 2015, the number of adopted children by gay parents skyrocketed in the last 12 months reaching a record high. There have been many recorded cases of sexual molestation of boys by their homosexual parents and many more unrecorded because they are ashamed or afraid to report it. Thus, it is important to note Pavel Astakhov's - Russian Ombudsman for Children's Rights - evocative comments regarding the molestation cases of same-sex couples in an interview: "Russian orphans always attracted foreign perverts because of accessibility. The foreigners were simply coming and taking children for money." In conjunction with this report, Russia made some adjustments on adoption of Russian children by foreign families banning American citizens from adopting Russian children in 2012 and in the following year the State Duma passed a law that banned the adoption of Russian children by foreign homosexual couples. It makes us wonder about the psychological trauma these little children suffer. The first step to overcome this situation is to train children in terms of this threat they may experience. Children starting from the age 4-5 should be informed very meticulously regarding this issue; they should learn to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and never hesitate to report the sexual abuses they undergo as it is not their fault and not an act they should be ashamed of.

In order to receive acceptance and compassion from society, homosexuals argue with some illogical excuses to justify their indecent acts such as claiming they have high estrogen levels or that they are genetically born that way. Yet, all these assertions have been refuted through scientific studies. There is no significant difference of estrogen or testosterone levels between homosexual and straight men. Also researchers have not found any supporting evidence that people who are homosexuals are somehow genetically dispositioned to be so. There is no genetic evidence whatsoever. Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the US, and Scandinavia during the last twenty years all conclude the same point, that homosexuals are not born genetically that way. It should be kept in mind that even if they were right, none of these would justify their indecent behavior. A person may be born without any sex or with two sexes or with some physical sexual defects but they do not constitute justification to behave in an indecent way. A person is responsible to keep their chastity on every occasion in order to live an honorable life.

Everyone should feel the responsibility to raise public awareness in order to have a better social and living environment by considering the examples and evidence enumerated in this article. It is crucial to inform and educate people about the serious negative effects of homosexuality on them and their environment. Besides, the activists should end promoting it as if it is something enviable because the truth is indeed on the contrary. However, it is important to stress that I am completely against violent and barbaric actions against homosexuals since what we are opposed to is only the abnormal acts they do. Therefore, people of good should join forces to protect against the damages which homosexuality inflicts on society as a whole.

kushitekalkulus #sexist kushitekalkulus.tumblr.com

I am a black man that loves black female sexuality

I love black female sexuality and I believe that people who try to suppress black female sexuality are evil devils.

The reason that I as a black man love black females who express their sexuality openly is because I know that these sisters do what they do to impress me as a black man. I know that they do what they do to serve my needs and wants as a black man and I sincerely love and appreciate this.

I love the fact that I as a black man have divine ownership over black women. Whenever I see a sista with a nice ass, I know that I am looking at what is mine, because these women belong to me. Whenever I see a sista with a nice rack, I know that I am looking at what is mine, because black women will always be mine.

I never hesitate to grab large handfuls of my woman’s ass in public, whenever I see fit. I never hesitate to hug my lady from behind and aggressively grope her bosom when I see fit.

Women look sexy to impress their men and when black women are purposely thorough and sexy in front of me, I sincerely love and appreciate it.

Matthew K. Burke #fundie politistick.com


God Made Man and Women; Biology Agrees, Yet Fake Scientist Bill Nye Wants Children to Change Their Flavors

Anti-Christian bigot and fake scientist Bill Nye on Monday published a new anti-Christian video in which he rejects the science of biology and pushes homosexuality on the nation’s youth.

Denying the biology of thousands of years, Nye claims that anyone who supports gender perversity and sexual delusion is somehow “enlightened” and “forward-thinking” in a new episode of his Netflix show that masquerades as promoting “science” (Bill Nye is not a scientist, fyi) but instead attempts to brainwash children with Cultural Marxism.

Using cartoon ice cream characters to make his deceitful point, Nye portrays the vanilla ice cream cone as a Christian bigot for believing in the obvious science that God made two sexes, male and female while portraying other flavors, like strawberry, as representing other ‘sexualities” as being the victims who are discriminated against.

In the video, the vanilla heterosexual cone who believes in biology says that his “feelings” make him “the most natural of the ice creams.”

“I just think if you want to get right with the big ice cream in the sky, change your flavor,” the vanilla cone says to the other flavors of ice cream cones as if the biological body and anatomy you were born with is somehow based on feelings rather than…reality.

Psychotic sexual deviants who one day wake up and “feel” like they are the sex opposite of their biology and science are not mentioned in the video. Instead, they are the rational and open-minded, accepting sorts, of course, according to Bill Nye.

For lack of better descriptors, it’s shameful, disgusting, and evil.

In 1963, as a matter of congressional record, the Communist goals to destroy America were revealed, all 45 of them. Here are three that leftist Bill Nye either knowingly as a subversive, or unknowingly as a useful idiot, is trying to at least partially fulfill with his video:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Actually, to correct Bill Nye’s flawed ice cream analogy, God did make different flavors, all kinds of different races, skin colors, personalities — we’re all individuals with uniqueness, etc. But he only made male and female, a scientific fact. But DNA proves there are only two sexes — male and female.

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

Sue Bohlin takes a look at the arguments for same sex marriage and finds them lacking from a Christian, biblical worldview perspective. She explains that those pushing for same sex marriage have redefined it into something it never was and was never intended to be.

What’s Marriage For?

In any discussion on same sex marriage, we need to start at the beginning: What is marriage is for, anyway? Marriage begins a family. The family is the basic building block of society. It has always been this way from Adam and Eve down to today.

Man did not invent marriage; God did. He invented and ordained marriage as the foundation for all human society when He gave Eve to Adam and pronounced them man and wife. Marriage is one of those institutions that is found in every human culture. Across the globe and across the ages, marriage has always been defined the same way: one man and one woman in a committed relationship, providing a safe place to bear and raise children. I would suggest that since this pattern for marriage applies to all cultures and all times, this indicates that God is its inventor and creator. It’s such an intrinsic part of the way we relate to each other that even those who have lost track of the story of the true God (the non-Judeo-Christian cultures) still practice marriage according to the pattern God designed: one man and one woman in a committed relationship, providing a safe place to bear and raise children.

God has woven “marriage into human nature so that it serves two primary purposes throughout all societies.”{1} The first is the way men and women were created to complement each other. Marriage balances the strengths and weaknesses of masculinity and femininity. Women help civilize men and channel their sexual energy in productive rather than destructive ways. Men protect and provide for women—and any children they produce together.

Marriage is built on a basic building block of humanity—that we exist as male and female. The strong benefit of marriage as God intended it is that males and females are designed with profound and wonderful differences, and these differences are coordinated in marriage so that each contributes what the other lacks.{2}

The second purpose of marriage is producing, protecting, and providing for children. Marriage ensures that children have the benefits of both mother and father. Each gender makes a unique and important contribution to children’s development and emotional health, and marriage provides the best possible environment for children to thrive as they enjoy the benefits of masculinity and femininity.

Those who are pushing for same sex marriage don’t see marriage this way. They seek to redefine it as a way to get society’s stamp of approval on their sexual and emotional relationships, and a way to secure financial and other benefits. Both of these reasons are about the adults, not about children. Both reasons are driven by the philosophy of “How can I get what I want? How can I be happy?” It’s a very self-centered movement.

Many homosexuals want the right to marry only because it confers society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship—not because they want to participate in the institution of marriage.


Why Same Sex Relationships Are Wrong

Let’s look at several reasons (though not an exhaustive list by any means) that same sex relationships are wrong.

First, homosexuality is an attempt to meet legitimate needs in illegitimate, ungodly ways. We all have God-given heart hungers to feel loved and known and validated—to feel that we matter. God intends for us to have those needs met first by our parents and then by our peers, but sometimes something goes wrong. People find themselves walking around with a gaping, aching hole in their souls, longing to make the connections that didn’t happen when they were supposed to, earlier in their lives. From both the women and the men that I know who are dealing with unwanted homosexuality, I hear the same thing: “I just want to be held, I just want to be known, I just want to be special to someone.” But turning to homosexual or lesbian relationships to get those needs met is not God’s intention for us.

Second, same sex relationships are outside of (and fall far short of) God’s created intention for sex. God made us male and female, designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Two men or two women coming together can never live out God’s intent for His creation. The biology of our gender shows us that same sex relationships don’t work, but opposite sex relationships do. It is unwise to ignore the obvious about how the pieces fit, or don’t fit, as the case may be.

Third, marriage is an earthbound illustration of the mystery of Christ and the church.{3} There is a mystical unity of two very different, very other beings coming together as one. Only the profound differences of man and woman display this mystery. “If the man represents Christ and the woman represents the church, then a male to male partnering would be, in essence, a symbolic partnering of God with Himself apart from His people. Likewise, a lesbian relationship would become a symbolic partnering of God’s people without Him. Either option is incomplete, unnatural, and abhorrent.”{4}

Fourth, same sex relationships are idolatrous. In Romans 1, Paul describes the downward spiral of people who worship the creature instead of the Creator. When God says intimate relationships with people of the same sex are forbidden, and people insist on pursuing them anyway, they have elevated something else to the position of a god. It could be the other person, or sexual pleasure, or even just one’s own feelings, but all these things become idols because they are more important than anything else, including God.

Homosexual and lesbian relationships are wrong because God designed us for something far better. The nature of the gospel is to bring transformation to every aspect of a believer’s life, and many people have discovered the “something better.” (See my article, “Can Homosexuals Change?“)

System Resistance Network #fundie thelionrises.org

Homosexuality, faggotry, sodomy, whatever you want to call it, has been a blight on mankind for millenia.

There are 3 types of faggots;

Those who are born that way due to hormone fluctuations in the womb; therefore, a deformity.
Those who are turned that way due to abuse as a child; therefore, a mental illness.
Those who pursue it as fetish; therefore, a sexual degeneracy.
All are simply degenerate and must be purged from society for the greater good. Let us look at the statistics. These will shock and horrify you.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times as likely to be molested, and children in the care of lesbians are ten (10) times as likely to be molested by their carers compared to children with normal parents.

This is clearly the most disgusting aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, with incestuous paedophilic tendencies being at a horrifyingly high level when compared to the normal population.

Children under the age of 16 are far more likely to turn out homosexual when sexually abused, showing how the rate of homosexuality has increased with the societal acceptance of faggotry allowing for these disgusting people to be near children. By stamping out paedophilia, we can cut down on the rate of homosexuality as one of the pathways to homosexuality is removed.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times more likely to identify with something other than the norm of heterosexuality, while children in the care of lesbians are four (4) times as likely. Continuing with the latter, children in the care of lesbians are 75% more likely to currently be in a same-sex relationship, while gay men result in the children being three (3) times as likely.

This is extremely concerning. This is all self-reported data specifically on children in the care of homosexual parents. This is not covering the data of homosexuals abusing children not in their care, and the influence the abuse will have on the mental health of the child.

By pushing for “equal rights”, which is a disgusting concept no matter the topic it is pushed upon, you are condemning countless children to a life of misery. The creation of homosexuals through child abuse by homosexuals will create more homosexuals due to knock-on effect of the abused becoming the abuser. Stamp out paedophilia, turn them into tree ornaments, put bullets through their skulls. Whatever it takes to protect our children and ensure they live happy lives.

As for those who are born “naturally” a.k.a. a birth defect, it is up to science and society to treat this. By shunning homosexuality and making them run from the streets and sodomy venues back into their homes, they will do less damage on the surface. But they must still be eradicated entirely. Hormone therapy corresponding with their sex, e.g. testosterone for male homosexuals, could be an option to treat their deformity.

Then finally, for the fetishists, they are nothing but purely hedonistic degenerates. Society must reform to shun this ill-minded lot. Bring back shame into society, for shame is a powerful force to ensure the conformation to society’s standards and preventing moral decay.

As we all know, HIV/AIDS is rife among the homosexual community, especially involving gay men.

There is a sickening fetish known as “bugchasing” where gay men willingly become “pozzed” by a HIV-infected partner, or the HIV-infected deliberately infects an unwitting partner to give them the “gift” of HIV. Degeneracy knows no bounds with the faggot. Some of you may think “Well it’s their life, if they want to destroy it, so be it” but you are forgetting that in this nation of ours, our taxes go to the NHS which provides free treatment for these degenerates to continue living and infecting further sodomites. You are paying so these utterly degenerate scumbags can continue on with their disgusting fetishes, further destroying this already broken society.

The dominant exposure to HIV is among gay men, with 50% of the cases being from this category. 82% of HIV cases in Rossendale are a result of homosexuality, with 61% and 58% in Lancashire and Cheshire.

1.5% of the UK population identifies as homosexual, with 1.1% being gay men. 1.1% of the population is responsible for 50% of the HIV cases in the UK. This means that gay men are 90 times more likely to have HIV than a normal person.

Gay men are three (3) times more likely to use drugs, and six (6) times more likely to inject drugs compared to normal men.

Reported use of stimulants is approximately five (5) times higher among gay and bisexual men, with methamphetamine usage at fifteen (15) times higher.

Drug use among lesbians is four (4) times higher than among normal women, with a higher usage rate of cocaine, ecstasy (MDMA), amphetamines and ketamine.

These are just three sickening factors due to society’s acceptance of homosexuality. But we must not forget those who are pushing homosexuality upon Western nations. It is the System and the Jew that inhabits said System. Homosexuality is a symptom of the cause.

The Rabbis praise homosexual acceptance within White countries, but not within their own faith or within Israel.

The System appeals to this tiny percentage of the population, such as with the cash-strapped police force painting and decaling their vehicles with rainbow flags paid for through the “diversity fund”. Never forget that the System is infested with paedophiles in all parties. They protect each other to continue pursuing their abhorrent fantasies. The people shall never forget the betrayal to the nation and its children committed by these degenerates.

Atavistic Autist #sexist #racist #homophobia incels.co

[JFL] Incels are called "psychopaths" for analyzing society and advocating for a more ethical order, while actual psychopaths are loved by normies and foids

I just came across this thread on le Reddit, which argues that the amount of psychopaths/sociopaths/antisocial people in society is severely underestimated, which is a proposition I would agree with.

But the example the OP uses for unappreciated psychopaths is... us. JFL

Learning how social dynamics operate, especially as it concerns female nature (which our soyciety not only allows but encourages to be totally uninhibited and unrestrained), and detesting it as "brutal" and "cruel" is not psychopathy.

Psychopaths are the ones who prosper in modern society, and are enlivened by brutality and cruelty, not the ones who are victimized by it. The free-for-all environments of the feminist "sexual marketplace" and the capitalist economic marketplace are their playgrounds, where they are the bullies and we are the bullied. By virtue of being as exploitative and parasitic as possible in intent, yet extremely charming in affect, psychopaths automatically excel with foid-bloodsuckers and their equivalents in the social climbing game: rapacious, greedy scum in corporations and manipulative liars in politics.

Just take Pete Butt as an example. He is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is a literal psychopath. Since the age of 6 year old, he has been completely enamored by the need to climb the social ladder and become the most powerful man in the world. Virtually everything he's done in his life has had that end in mind: to build a resume which would qualify him for the presidency, and establish its superficial credentials, while internally he believes in nothing but his own ambitions for the ultimate reigns of authority. He would be the youngest president to ever take office. And normie and foid voters are actually letting him get as close as he is to his goal!

Pete Butt is also gay, something which he did not admit until it became politically expedient for him.

I'm a psychopath for complaining about being lonely, but a dude pummeling his gf every day and all the thugs getting laid are good people.

Yeah okay.

Men scoring higher in psychopathic traits tended to receive higher ratings from women
Brazil, KJ. Forth AE. 2019. Psychopathy and the Induction of Desire: Formulating and Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, pp 1-18. [Abstract]

Women are drawn more than men to nonfiction stories of rape, murder, and serial killers
Vicary AM, Fraley, RC. 2010. Captured by True Crime: Why Are Women Drawn to Tales of Rape, Murder, and Serial Killers? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1): 81-86. [Abstract] [FullText]

Childhood bullies experience greater sexual success than non-bullies
It was found that a greater likelihood of being the perpetrator of bullying behavior was correlated with a greater sexual partner count. However, due to the nature of the study it was impossible to tell if the mediating factor in this relationship was the bullying itself, or the HEXACO personality traits that are associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in this behavior, specifically the trait 'Honesty-Humility', that was found to being generally lower among bullies. This personality trait has also generally been found to be related to the 'dark triad' traits.

Volk AA, Dane AV, Zopito AM, Vaillancourt T. 2015. Adolescent Bullying, Dating, and Mating: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology. [FullText]
Provenzano DA, Dane AV, Farrell AH, Marini Z, Volk AA. 2017. Do Bullies Have More Sex? The Role of Personality. Evolutionary Psychological Science. [FullText]

Male gang members have dramatically more female sexual partners

Palmer CT, Tilley CF. 1995. Sexual Access to Females as a Motivation For Joining Gangs: An Evolutionary Approach. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(3):213-217. [Abstract] [FullText]
Mocan N, Tekin E. 2006. Ugly Criminals. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 12019. [FullText]

Male serial killers, terrorists, and rapists receive thousands of love letters from women in prison

Fimrite P, Taylor M. 2005. No shortage of women who dream of snaring a husband on Death Row / Experts ponder why deadliest criminals get so many proposals. SF Gate. [News]
Gurian EA. 2013. Explanations of mixed-sex partnered homicide: A review of sociological and psychological theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 18(5): 520-526. [Abstract]

Criminal and anti-social men have more sexual partners and have sex earlier
Ellis L, Walsh A. 2000. Criminology: A Global Perspective, 1st Edition. pp 227: Table 8.11. [References]

Cluster-B personality disorders lead to 3.5x as many sexual partners and more offspring
Guitiérrez et al. (2013) conducted a study in order to determine if the various personality disorder clusters—Type A (Schizoid, Odd), Type B (Narcissistic, Anti-social) and Type C (Avoidant, OCD)—were solely detrimental in terms of life outcomes for the individuals with these personality disorders (PDs), or if they instead presented their sufferers with various potentially adaptive benefits, such as greater sexual and social opportunities.
Namely, those individuals high in type-B personality cluster traits (Narcissism, Anti-Social, Borderline, Histrionic) of both sexes has 3.5x as many mates as low B subjects, with five times as many short-term mates and twice as many long term mates. It was also found that those higher in cluster B had 39% more offspring then those lower in cluster B traits.

Gutiérrez F, Gárriz M, Peri JM, Ferraz L, Sol D, Navarro JB, Barbadilla A, Valdés M. 2013. Fitness costs and benefits of personality disorder traits. Evolution and Human Behavior. 34(1): 41-48.

39% of hospitalized male psychopaths had consensual sex with female mental health staff
Gacono C, Meloy JR, Sheppard K, Speth E, Roske A. 1995. A Clinical Investigation of Malingering and Psychopathy in Hospitalized Insanity Acquittees. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 23(3): 387-397. [FullText]

Men are attracted to "nice" women, but women are not attracted to "nice" men
Researchers sought to evaluate niceness by defining it as: "a characteristic that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship." In other words, niceness is the degree to which a person understands, values, and supports his partner's identity and values and is willing to put commitment and effort into the relationship. This is also known in psychology as "responsiveness."
The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." They also found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal from the men and greater desire for a relationship.
On the other hand, when women perceived their male partner to be more responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

Birnbaum GE, Ein-Dor T, Reis HT, Segal N. 2014. Why Do Men Prefer Nice Women? Gender Typicality Mediates the Effect of Responsiveness on Perceived Attractiveness in Initial Acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 40(10): 1341-1353. [Abstract]
Mejia P. 2014. Study Finds That Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around. Newsweek. [News]
Judge TA, Livingston BA, and Hurst C. 2012. Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. [Abstract]

Female narcissism reduces marital quality for men, but male narcissism does not for women
It was found that high degrees of female narcissism predicted a decline in marital quality and satisfaction over time. However, male narcissism did not negatively affect marital quality or satisfaction.
This would seem to imply men are greatly bothered by narcissistic wives, but women are not so typically bothered by narcissistic husbands. This conclusion is in keeping with evidence reviewed that women find narcissistic men more attractive and actively seek them as husbands.

Lavner JA, Lamkin J, Miller JD, Campbell WK, Karney BR. 2016. Narcissism and newlywed marriage: Partner characteristics and marital trajectories. Personal Disord. 7(2): 169-79. [Abstract]

Women desiring marriage and commitment are more attracted to narcissistic men
Haslam C, Montrose T. 2015. Should have known better: The impact of mating experience and the desire for marriage upon attraction to the narcissistic personality. Personality and Individual Differences. 82: 188-192. [Abstract]

BRUTAL

Cluster B personaliteehees rule the world. It is up to Cluster Cs with the revolutionary and cleansing spirit of OCD to wipe them all out and build a new ordER.

For their part, Cluster As will establish the new mythology/religion, and what superstitions foid-cattle should believe in.

Ted Bundy was a textbook psychopath but he got tons of women consensually and attracted female attention even after his crimes were brought to light.

Ted Bundy was literally a Republican activist and had his eyes set for a career in law and then politics. But he was too sexually dimorphic for his own good, and simply could not help himself from raping gullible foids to death.

Pete Butt and his innocent, neotenous face (not to mention his homosexuality) is much more suited for a psychopath with political inclinations tbhngl. Even if he was to engage in his sexual fantasies and rape little boys or murder, sodomize, and then cannibalize homeless men, nobody would even deign to investigate it.

Notably, the homosexual psychopath I study in the OP is into rap music:

Do you like rap music? You could be a psychopath

The article argues that this goes to show how neurotypical and normal psychopaths are, and I agree, but I think that it demonstrates the existence of a psychopath-negroid synthesis as well.

Just like ~50% of violent crime in the US is committed by Blacks, ~50% of violent crime is also estimated to be committed by psychopaths. Rap music seems to unite them, and together they commit an overwhelming majority of the violent crime (not all of it, because there is some demographic overlap between them, of course).

''It was convinient'' or in other words, he is just a typical follower. He is just a part of the hive mind and everything what might be considered different than that from the hive mind itself, is dangerous to it and therefore repusled.

The conceit of psychopathic niggers to appropriate autistic terminology and refer to others as "neurotypical" compared to them, and call their pathetic manipulations "masking," is absolutely hilarious.

I cannot wait until they are all put down. There is no place for narcissists and psychopaths in the upcoming ordER. They will learn the spirit of collectivism, cooperation, and solidarity which has heretofore eluded them in their mass graves.

mtngirlofco #fundie christianpost.com

You have mentioned that you were raised in a Christian home. Again, my answer is that it was most likely a legalistic and harshly ruled, hypocritical environment. There is a difference between true Orthodox Christianity and harsh legalism in so-called Christianity. Legalistic Christianity will produce any number of sexual deviant expressions whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenders, or someone like J Duggar who is driven by lust for the opposite sex. Our sexuality can take many wrong turns and that is why the Bible proscribes sexual expression between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage. It is healthy and there is no possibility of STD's. All people, whether or not they're married must exercise self control. It's what makes for a healthy society.

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

The Differences Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Relationships

Sometimes you hear gays or lesbians say, “We’re just like anybody else. We have two kids, a dog, a mortgage, and we worry about the economy. We just don’t want anybody telling us who we can love.” My friend Brady, who used to be part of that gay sub-culture, calls the homosexual lifestyle “a façade of normalcy.” And it is only a façade.

Consider the huge variance in the stability of relationships. Despite a high divorce rate, 57% of heterosexual marriages last over twenty years.{5} The average length of homosexual relationships is two to three years.{6} Only 5% of them last 20 years.{7}

And consider the issue of promiscuity. In heterosexual marriages, over three-fourths of the men and 88% of the women remain faithful to their marriage vows.{8} Most sexually active gay men are promiscuous, engaging hundreds of sexual partners over a lifetime.{9}

The concept of a committed relationship is very different for the two groups. Most heterosexual couples are faithful and stable. When homosexual men are in what they call a “committed” relationship, this usually includes three to five outside partners each year.{10} Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Church, told the Dallas Morning News, “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses. . . . We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can’t marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there’s no deception. Each couple has to decide.”{11}

In Holland, which legalized gay marriage in 2001, the average is eight outside partners.{12} One study of gay men who had been together for over five years could not find one single monogamous relationship.{13} Not one!

Women in lesbian relationships often stay together not because they want to, but because they’re stuck financially and emotionally. “I heard one speaker say at a Love Won Out conference, “We don’t have partners, we have prisoners.” Of course, that’s not universally true, but over the years of walking toward Jesus with women who were no longer in lesbian partnerships, I have heard over and over, “We didn’t know how to do life apart from each other.”

Heterosexuals live longer, happier lives. Sexually active homosexual men live a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. They are at huge risk for contracting AIDS, and run a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight men. The gay community experiences three times more alcoholism and drug abuse,{14} and much more promiscuity and domestic violence than the straight world.{15} Gay men can expect to live twenty years less than their straight neighbors.{16}

And finally, a home with a mom and a dad is the best possible place for children. Homosexual parents put kids at risk. The American College of Pediatrics discovered that children raised by gay parents tend to be more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation in the family, have homosexual experiences more often, and are encouraged to experiment in dangerous, destructive lifestyle choices.{17}

Please hear me: We’re commenting on the extremely high-risk behavior that is part and parcel of a homosexual lifestyle. That’s not the same thing as condemning the people who engage in it. A homosexual lifestyle is a façade of normalcy, but it can be changed.


Answering Arguments for Same Sex Marriage

Let’s look at several arguments being offered for same sex marriage.

The first is that marriage will encourage faithfulness and stability in volatile homosexual relationships. But the nature of homosexual and lesbian relationships is broken to begin with. Two broken people will not create a whole, healthy relationship. The best description I’ve ever heard of same sex relationships is “one broken little boy looking for his daddy, connecting with another broken little boy, looking for his daddy.” And the same is true of women. Neither a marriage license, nor the approval of society, can fix the nature of a relationship that is irretrievably broken at its core.

Another argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure hospital visitation. But it’s the patient who decides. If he appoints his partner as a health-care proxy, even if he’s in a coma that document will insure access to the hospital. We don’t need marriage for that. It’s a smokescreen.

A third argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure survivorship benefits. But that’s what a will is for. You don’t need marriage for that.

Some say that we need same sex marriage for Social Security benefits. This is an interesting argument, since Social Security benefits were created to address the financial inequity of father as breadwinner and mother as stay-at-home caregiver. Homosexual relationships are usually two-incomes. It’s very rare to have one stay-at-home caregiver of the kids, since homosexual relationships do not and cannot produce children naturally. When they do, they are borrowing from God’s plan for creating families.

Then there’s the discrimination argument. There are really two issues that fall under this argument: denied liberties and denied benefits.

Concerning the issue of denying the liberty to marry, this argument doesn’t hold water. Any person can marry whoever he or she pleases, with certain restrictions that are true for everyone. You can’t marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone; there is no discrimination here. The problem is, some people don’t like the restrictions.

True discrimination functions against an unchangeable identity, such as gender or color. Homosexuality is a lifestyle, a chosen behavior. Even sexual orientation is changeable. It’s not easy, but it is possible.

The other issue of discrimination is denied benefits. But benefits are granted to families because society has an interest in providing a safe place for children to grow up and be nurtured. So the government provides child-oriented benefits such as inheritance rights and tax relief to ease the financial burden of children. Insurance policies and Social Security benefits provide for the money gap between wage-earner and caregiver. These benefits are inherent to families. The essence of marriage is about building families. Homosexual relationships cannot build families legitimately. They have to borrow from heterosexual relationships or technology to create children.

Eugene McCarthy #crackpot macroevolution.net

Okapi: A giraffe-zebra hybrid?

imageOn their rumps and legs, okapis have striping like that of a zebra.

imageThe okapi has a giraffe-like head.

The okapi (Okapia johnstoni), also known as the forest giraffe or zebra giraffe, is a good example of the way theory affects both perception and research activities. Okapis mix traits otherwise seen only separately either in the giraffe or in the zebra, and under ordinary circumstances this fact would constitute strong evidence that okapis are giraffe-zebra hybrids. Moreover, old news reports say that peoples native to the region where the okapi occurs believe it to be a giraffe-zebra hybrid.

And yet it seems no scientist has investigated this possibility. Why? Well, in trees representing accepted notions of evolutionary descent, giraffes and zebras are placed on widely separate branches. So any biologist worth his or her salt will tell you: The two are simply too far apart for giraffe-zebra hybrids to be possible. Thus, it is not surprising that there are no reports of attempts to produce giraffe-zebra hybrids. Experimentation does not occur because theory says it would be useless to try.

imageOkapi tongue

imageGiraffe tongue

The okapi and the giraffe were assigned to the same order (Artiodactyla) because they both have cloven hooves, and to the same family (Giraffidae) because they share certain distinctive features: Both have large eyes and ears, thin lips and a long, extensible tongue that allows them to lick their entire face (even the ears); their backs slope upward from rump to withers; they also share the same dental formula: (i 0/3, c 0/1, pm 3/3, m 3/3) × 2 = 32. Both, unlike any other mammal, have molars with rugose enamel and bony horns that remain covered with skin throughout life (Nowak 1999, vol. 2, p. 1085).

Yet the rump and legs of an okapi are covered with black-and-white stripes exactly like those of a zebra. Perhaps, then, if okapis had solid hooves instead of cloven ones, they would be classified as perissodactyls (Order Perissodactyla) and would be considered more closely related to zebras than to giraffes? An okapi is about the same size as a Burchell’s zebra.

The chromosome count of an okapi is also like that of a zebra, to which it is not supposed to be related, and unlike that of a giraffe. Giraffes have 30 chromosomes (Taylor et al. 1967; Hösli and Lang 1970; Koulisher et al. 1971), whereas okapis have a variable chromosome number of 44-46, depending on the animal in question; most seem to have 2n = 45 (Ulbrich and Schmitt 1969; Hösli and Lang 1970; Koulisher 1978). The chromosome number of Grevy’s zebra is 2n = 46 and plains zebras have 2n = 44 (Benirschke and Malouf 1967). Variation in chromosome count is itself unusual among mammals, but common in hybrids.

Okapis also produce high levels of abnormal sperm, which is consistent with the idea that they are the products of a distant hybrid cross. Thus, Penfold (2007) reports that 52% percent of the spermatozoa produced by these animals are morphologically abnormal. As those authors state, “okapi semen collected by electroejaculation routinely contain high numbers of non-motile and plasma membrane-damaged spermatozoa, apparently unrelated to season or the length of time since the male was housed with a breeding female.”

imageGiraffe and zebra drinking together Giraffe and zebra drinking together at Kruger Park.

It is, of course, well known that giraffes and zebras exist in mixed herds in various parts of Africa, and therefore are in potential breeding contact (these regions include those where okapis occur).

However, zebras are much smaller than giraffes, which might lead one to suppose that they would be physically unable to mate. And yet, hybrids sometimes occur between animals where the disparity in size is even greater. Male Steller sea-lions (Eumetopias jubatus) often mate, and sometimes even successfully hybridize with female California sea-lions. And yet the former average around 1100 lbs while the latter weigh only around 200 lbs., a ratio of 5.5:1 (the female often dies in such encounters) Such cases are nothing unusual in the literature on hybridization. Florio (1983) reports a case of a lion father who weighed 550 pounds (250 kg), while the leopard mother weighed a mere 84 pounds (38 kg), a ratio of 6.54:1.

In the case of a male giraffe 2,628 pounds (1,192 kg) with a female zebra, 770 pounds (350 kg),the weight ratio is only 3.4:1, that is, the difference is less disparate than in either of the two crosses just mentioned.

And this difference would be even smaller with the cross reversed, that is, with a female giraffe and a male zebra. Giraffe females weigh nearly a thousand pounds less than males, while zebra males weigh a bit more than females, which would yield a ratio closer to 2:1, not at all unusual in a hybrid cross. Moreover, giraffes do sometimes lie down, and a male zebra would, of course, have much better access to a recumbent female giraffe.

A final fact consistent with the idea that okapis might be giraffe-zebra hybrids is their rarity at the present day and their absence from the fossil record. Hamilton (1977) says that while giraffes are well-known as fossils, paleontologists have seen no trace of okapis. Zebras, too, are known from fossils (Eisenmann 1992). The IUCN rates the okapi as endangered, although it also states that “there is no reliable estimate of current population size.”

Raping Girls is Fun #sexist #psycho #fundie #conspiracy #racist ifunny.co

(Submitter’s Note: the link is to a screenshot that was taken from the, now defunct, website “Raping Girls is Fun”)

[Rapepill] INTRODUCTION TO THE RAPEPILL: THE REASON WHY WE, AS RAPECELS, SAY RAPING GIRLS IS FUN

The Rapecel manifesto
A spectre is haunting the western femisphere —- the spectre of Rape-Culture. All the powers of feminism have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Bluepilled normies, white knight cucks; women's studies professors; Jewish sex offender psychologists; even young, borderline personality disordered femoids, and Chad's embittered, cast-off fucktoys, neither of whom can stop fantasizing about the Chad-rape they wish they could get, yet have no choice but to sublimate those fantasies by immersing themselves in the literature that condemns rape culture. They want to be raped by Chad, and accuse the betas and incels of rape for having the audacity to expect sex in return for their often state-enforced provisioning.
Where is the incel who has not been decried as rapey by his opponents in power? It is high time that rapecels should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Rape-Culture with a manifesto of rapecels themselves.
What is the rapepill?
The rapepill is the sexual component of patriarchism. It is the the understanding that men and femoids are sexually complementary; that sexual polarity depends on the union of a dominant male with a submissive female; that hierarchy is more efficient and stable than rule by a committee of two equals; that providing a stable home for the raising of children is incompatible with the notion of moment-to-moment consent to sex.
The rapepill is based on an acknowledgement that femoids, being emotional and childish (especially during their years of peak beauty and fertility), are not fit to make their own sexual decisions, and that men therefore must make those for them. But the rapepill also says that even if femoids had the same intellectual capacity as men, they would still need to be forced into sexual submission, because the power imbalance between man and woman creates unity in the family behind a common leader. The ability to compel the female to have sex gives the man a reason to stay with her, and creates harmony in their relations.
On a primal level, rape reassures the female that, being the type of man who is strong and assertive enough to take charge of her, her master can also go out into the world and do what is needed to protect and provide for her. She knows she is kept safe from her own self-destructive impulses as he subjugates her under his will, sexually and in other ways. Rape then is symbolic of care for her, because it springs forth from his ownership of her and desire to preserve his property so that it can be used for the satisfaction of his sexual cravings.
What is a rapecel?
A rapecel is a man who cannot have sex without getting accused of rape. As the term implies, he is a combination rapist and incel.
One might argue, "Many so-called 'rapists' don't actually copulate with anyone; they were wrongly accused." Or, members of the more mainstream factions of the incelosphere will try to distance themselves from the out-and-out rapecels by saying "NAIALT (not all incels are like that)!"
But the distinction between "rapist" and "non-rapist," as weighty as it may be in law, politics, and culture, is without a meaningful difference. Femoids can feel raped just by knowing that an incel looked at them lustfully. And with femoids, all that matters are feelings; to them, feeling raped is worse than actually being raped. To a femoid, "rape" is symbolic of every wrong that men do to femoids, because it is the one act that only a man can perpetrate against her. "Rape" encompasses every failing that a man can have in his relations with femoids, which is why when a relationship breaks up, often the femoid will decide that her mate was sexually abusing her the whole time.
Since female consent is an arbitrary social construst, and the female's perception of having consented, or having been raped, can change from moment to moment, and since her perception is all that matters in determining her happiness or sadness, we may as well say that those men who tend to inflict upon femoids feelings of being raped are for practical purposes rapecels. In today's society, all sub-8 men are effectively rapecels, since relations between the sexes are more dysfunctional than ever, making femoids increasingly inclined to cry "rape" because they feel unhappy, and because they know it will attract sympathy and assistance they could not otherwise get so easily. Female nature is to instinctively use deception and victimhood as a cloak and shield against any attempt to impose upon her personal responsibility for her actions.
In times past, femoids were protected from the consequences of poor sexual decisions by being forced to obey their fathers' wishes that they stay virginal until marriage and then marry a man of their father's choice, and stay faithful and loyal to him. Now, femoids have been unleashed to make poor sexual decisions, and if these relationships or lack thereof turn out badly for them, their recourse is to claim, "I was raped," if they want society to step in and help them in dealing with the consequences, and inflict retribution on the man they believe wronged them. In most cases, this will be a man who is not Chad (because they would never cry rape against Chad, since the halo effect makes them continually worship him rather than having contempt for him; and since they always harbor a desire to have sex with him in the future, rather than wanting to get rid of him), nor a truly dangerous man (whom they would fear too much to want to get on his bad side).
Thus, the rapecel is usually a gentle, meek man -- or at least, he starts out that way. He could also be an ugly man who is determined to get what he wants. But note here that under the inflated standards of male aesthetics which characterizes our epoch in which hypergamy has been unleashed, "ugly man" increasingly is a category that encompasses every sub-8 man, as for practical purposes they are just as incel as the sub-4 men of times past. Their acts of sex with femoids are just as likely to be labeled rape as those that sub-4 men used to engage in years ago.
Why do you, as rapecels, say "Raping Girls Is Fun"?
Raping girls is fun because it is what we, as men, are meant to do. The masculine man is all about conquest; what distinguishes him from the female is that rather than talk endlessly, to try to make sense of his feelings, he instead finds pleasure in bending nature to his will, making progress in his work, and rising to ever-higher pinnacles of success and accomplishment. With rape, man extends his dominion to the female, putting her to the use for which she was made, indeed the only use she is good for, and therefore the only use that can truly satisfy her, since compared to man, she is incompetent at everything else and therefore would feel inferior were it not for having between her legs what man wants and can only get from the female.
Rape appeals to our natural, primitive instincts, as we evolved during a time when rape was normal; yet it is not something we should aspire to evolve past, because it is classical, rather than anachronistic. Civilization does not mean we should stop raping; on the contrary, civilization makes more rape possible, as it enables men to combine forces to overpower femoids and force them under men's sexual domination; and rape in turn is a building block of civilization, subduing female rebellion so that femoids can bear children and be compelled to raise them with the children's father, producing physically and psychologically healthy offspring that can then participate in civilized society.
With all this in mind, we can let our consciences rest free of any guilt that rape is wrong just because a femoid says "Stop," "No," etc. We can enjoy ourselves as we thrust into these femoids while they cry out in pain and struggle against us, confident in the knowledge that this is right and what we are supposed to do, and what we as men have been blessed with as our birthright, and have earned through our contributions to society. Once we have taken the rapepill, all that remains is to put our ideas into practice, and that is where the excitement begins, because nothing is more fun than raping girls.

Owen K Waters #conspiracy humansarefree.com

The 5th Element is Aether

The legendary Fifth Element holds the key to the answer to one of today’s top mysteries in the worlds of physics and cosmology.

by Owen K Waters, Spiritual Dynamics

Scientists estimate that 84% of the matter in the universe is composed of invisible dark matter, but they have no idea what it is.

With a short venture into the world of metaphysics, you are about to find out the answer!

image
In ancient Greece, all material things were said to be composed of a mixture of the four elements of earth, fire, water and air. There was also said to be a more subtle, fifth element.

This was called the quintessence (literally, “fifth element”), implying its very delicate or refined state of existence.

For many centuries, philosophers considered that all matter consisted of combinations of the basic elements in the Greek tradition. In the early 1500s, Philip von Hohenheim boldly renamed himself Paracelsus, meaning “beyond the medical pioneer Celsus” and came out with a counter-proposal.

He declared that, instead of the old elements, all things consist of the subtle essences of elements that he called salt, sulfur and mercury.

However, this only served to confuse the situation further as both theories did little to identify the basic chemicals that combine to form the enormous variety of compounds that are found in nature.

Next, fast-forward to the Age of Enlightenment. In the late 1600s, the early scientist Robert Boyle published The Sceptical Chemist, rejecting both schools of thought in favor of the then-novel idea that materials are composed of a variety of basic chemicals which, unlike compounds, cannot be further reduced by chemical operations.

This demystified chemistry, laid the basis for its development as a science, and made possible the development of the table of elements that we use in chemistry today.

As the science of chemistry developed and accumulated physical knowledge, however, it became focused entirely on physical materials and ignored the old idea of anything more subtle.

The fifth element has been given various names in traditional Eastern thought and practices – such as prana, chi, qi, and mana – but it can be better understood by calling it vital life energy or etheric energy.

From a physics perspective, the most concise term is etheric energy, which implies a more subtle energy than electric energy.

When electric and magnetic energies combine in complementary motion, they produce physical light as well as the building blocks of physical matter. Your body is composed of electromagnetic energy. Etheric energy is actually more common in the universe than electric energy.

Its manifestation, etheric matter, forms most of the matter in the universe. Cosmologists know that it exists, even though they can’t see it (hence the term, dark matter), because of its gravitational effects on physical matter in the cosmos.

“Dark” energy and “dark” matter are roughly five times more prolific than their physical counterparts, so their influence in the cosmos is quite marked.

The gravitational effect is a result of the fact that both energies – physical electric energy and the more subtle etheric energy – share a common interaction with magnetic energy. The magnetic energy component is provided by the ever-present fabric of space, which I term the God Field.

By using the term the God field, we can reduce a common form of confusion that exists today. The God field was traditionally called the aether and, although that sounds a lot like etheric energy, the two are quite different.

image
The God field is the fabric of space. It is a subtle, fluid, magnetic energy which fills all space. It is intensified within and around matter, where its attractive nature produces the force of gravity.

Etheric energy, or vital life energy, is the primary energy of the universe. Electric energy is, by comparison, a secondary, more physical energy.

Electric energy interacts with the magnetic fabric of space to form physical light and physical matter. Etheric energy interacts with the magnetic fabric of space to form etheric light and etheric matter.

Etheric energy is a subtle, primary life energy, while electric energy is a physical, secondary energy. Both energies interact with the magnetic fabric of space, producing etheric matter and physical matter.

The great advantage with knowing about etheric energy is that this vital life-giving energy holds the key to vibrant wellness. Vital life energy or etheric energy is present in all effective healing systems.

In acupuncture, it is the “qi” energy that is enhanced or balanced in its flow along acupuncture meridians. It is the healing energy transmitted in distant healing. It is the same healing energy that is passed to the recipient in Reiki or Polarity Therapy.

Vital life energy is the essence within sacred healing oils. It is the energy that flows into a person as they practice Qigong. It is the life energy in organic foods, in water exposed to sunlight, and in the oxygen that we breathe.

Without vital life energy, we would not physically exist. With additional vital life energy, miraculous healing can occur.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Something I've noticed about transgender dating.

After I dumped my mtf boyfriend for becoming a woman when I'm straight I googled the situation out of curiosity. Maybe I'm biased but this is just something I've noticed. Whenever a wife/girlfriend describes her partner as being transgender people say "just take it one step at a time you may find you're still attracted". Yeah, okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female. *upturned eyes emojis*

But if it's a gay man who's partner is becoming MTF the answers tend to be more honest and practial "you're not compatible just be friends".

I hate to see sexism in absolutely everything but what else would it be?

(1984stardusta)
They will say two things at the same time:

Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians, but vagina fetishists who hate women in every shapes and forms.

Or trans women are women, if your husband becomes a woman you have to keep loving him, because he is the same person in a different body and love doesn't care, just learn to be a lesbian and change your identity and sexual orientation for love.

In both cases women need to ignore preferences, boundaries and sexual attraction to pander to his needs, lesbians need to become heterosexual and heteros need to become lesbians because his sexuality is more important.

(gfty6789)
Right, imagine the outcry if everyone just started saying "no, you're being a vagina fetisist, go sleep with that penis" to TIMs.

(Cineezyy)
I remember going on one of the subs that discusses trans partners and the majority of posts by females (with a MtF partner) were talking about how they can be supportive to maintain the relationship. While the posts by males (with a FtM partner) were talking about how their dick will no longer get hard.

(1984stardusta)
The burden on the partner is absurd, how can someone condemn natural and healthy sexual drive?

All the pressure to repress sexuality in name of a greater good is regressive. Ignore your feelings, thoughts, preferences and just be nice! Don't be yourself, be kind or you are a murderer, because this person is going to commit suicide unless you agree to everything.

Suddenly, a man or a woman needs to feel aroused by the representation of the opposite of their needs and ignore sexual organs.

What can possibly go wrong?

(butyoucantedit)
I wonder what would happen if lesbians just started openly and happily "indentifying" as vagina fetishists. Cos you're not allowed to ~kink shame, right? Of course I think I know what would happen...

(unfeelingzeal)
"Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians,"

i'm a bi guy and that's what a trans mod and a trans member over on a sub that shall not be named said to me, in a topic literally asking what the difference was between pan- and bisexuals. i said i'm only attracted to cis men and women and basically got attacked for saying that's bullshit because "you can't tell" who's trans and who's not.

please, get real. not even a majority of trans people are passing.

i've left that community because they're extremely toxic to anything outside of their extremely narrow definitions of sexuality. according to them, i'm either a fake bisexual, a wrong bisexual or i'm a flat out bigot. umk.

(the_lonliest_shibe)
I wouldn't say that your partner "became a woman". Even with all the surgery in the world he will never be a woman - he'll never have a uterus or get pregnant or have XX chromosomes.

I think it's more apt to say that your male partner has decided to imitate a woman, and it's perfectly understandable to not be attracted to the female form if you are straight. Theres nothing that's going to change that and people who try and change your mind on that are delusional. If i tell a straight guy "oh just try being with a man, you could learn to enjoy it" I will get (rightly) yelled at because I'm trying to pressure someone into changing their views and preferences. Yet men do it to us all the time..

I'm a lesbian and I regularly get pressured to date TIMs or men. What TIMs do not understand though is that I'm attracted to women. Not men dressed as women. Breasts and a womanly form are just one aspect of that - I'm also attracted to someone who has gone through the same struggles as I have and has the same out look on the world. And you can never change that with surgery or medicine...

(hostabunch)
Just. More. Male. Bullshit.

Do you really think a gay man is going to keep a partner who doesn't have a penis anymore?

(ChewMyMeatForYou)
As a bisexual, I want to clear something up. I'm not just attracted to both men and women because of their appearance. Universally, confidence is seen as attractive. (Not cockiness or attention-seeking, just pure IamwhoIam confidence.) There are definitely people I meet who are typically attractive, yet lacking confidence, or worse, having too much confidence and too little education.

I have yet to meet a trans person that doesn't place their personal comfort aside or has enough self-esteem to have an awkward-free interaction. If I can't eat a meal with you as a friend, without you doing something that makes me uncomfortable, I'm never going to date you. That goes for the straight men, or gay women I'm interested in.

Living a lie of this is what men sound and look like or vice versa, is exhaustive. Being GNC myself, having PTSD, that's enough work for me to manage navigating life without conflict. Why would I take on someone else's self-esteem conflict, to enhance my life? I'm an adult. It is my responsibility to help myself, not save others.

(LittleOwl12)
AGPs need their long term partners to stick around because for the part, they are unappealing. If not flat out repulsive. One guy on Tumblr braved the storm and explained why he never transitioned: the Uncanny Valley. He rightly pointed out that trying to pretend to resemble something you clearly are not is creepy.

(Babyorlaith123)
I think repulsive is a bit of a strong word but I do agree most transgender people don't pass from my experience (and I've met a LOT due to liberal acquaintances). Usually TIFs don't look the slightest but manly and TIMs are quite ugly and unappealing. Doesn't make them bad people but yeah.

(LittleOwl12)
No, it doesn't make them bad people but I stand by the word repulsive. Some of them really are disconcerting to look at, especially the huge older men squeezing into clothes meant for teenage girls.

I'm not using that word out of spite and I know it's a strong one, but I think it's important for people to understand why transition very rarely "works" the way you want it to.

(Cineezyy)
I’d say repulsive is pretty accurate tbh

(Bananastic)
> okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female

?

Male can't transition to be female. They are still males, some of them decide to use hormones or cosmetic surgery to look more like women, some don't and identify as "butch" transwomen or say they don't have to change anything to be a woman.

You could perfectly still be attracted to a trans woman as a straight woman. The problem is if they physically transition as i suppose you are like most of us both attracted to primary and secondary sex characterisitics in people.

(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
The one woman I know that this happened to stayed in the relationship (last I knew) but told me once that it was like there it was like there was another woman and that woman was more important to him.

It doesn't get better, you did the right thing. You are right as well that women don't generally find the 'new woman' attractive.

NUTN2SAY #fundie wnd.com

You know what? It's time for concerned tax paying American Citizens to review life in America after World War 2. Take a look at all the nonsense that has been rammed down your tax paying throat since that time. The kidnapping of America's Posterity away from the child's parents only to be brainwashed by corrupt and mentally ill tax paid employees who are bound and determined to turn other peoples children into non life producing homosexuals...courtesy of the federal department of education! Your tax dollar at work. Folks! That issue alone is an attack on America's Posterity by people who have no self respect other than to enrich themselves at your expense!

Just today I heard on the news Biden say that if you came across U.S. borders illegally then you are already an American citizen! So much for thousands of years of immigration policy all around the world! Encouraging criminals and making those criminals new citizens who provide undue job search competition towards America's true unemployed Americans! And you pay taxes for this crap!

World War 2 and then the 1960's! The communist came to town and took over the education system so as to gain access to America's Posterity. They then (California of course then all across the U.S.) introduced No Fault Divorce that worked to increase the numbers of troubled single parents (mostly moms) now finding themselves in search of a job there by creating the "latchkey kid" who in turn is free of parental influence. Look at the push for homosexual relationships in this country...a push that comes from tax paid government peoples like that sick freak Holder. In defiance to the Laws of Mother Nature your tax dollar is being spent on turning America's Posterity into homosexuals under the guise of human rights! No self-respecting nation turns its "Village Children" into homosexuals! Now you know with that guy from Russia rides his horse with no shirt on. He's showing the world what a real parent looks like,,,brave and strong, while America shows the world a man who is claimed to be throwing baseballs like a little girl for her first time who happens to be a favor of turning other peoples children into homosexuals!

America has become the disgrace of the world and the world laughs at America!

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

hollyavila #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

First of all, I don't vote. I know better. Second of all, I would never vote for a Bush. Look up the Franklin Cover Up. G W's father is a pedophile and his grandfather was a financier of Hitler.

But here's the point, G W was just a puppet doing what he was told. Yes, he has probably been forced to do the rituals with his satanist father, and is probably a satanist himself, but he's not the one who planned and did 9 11. That was the Brotherhood of Saturn. It was a ritual. Two towers? That's the symbol of the High Priestess. 9 11 was an attack on the female aspect of the Divine.

They have their own bitch goddess who expects human sacrifice. Bohemian Grove they worship a statue of an owl. The fat man said that it is Molec, but he's wrong. Molec was depicted as a bull. No, the owl is Lilith, the bitch goddess. In Hebrew, the word lilit is translated as screech owl. It's the same baby eating goddess that is depicted by the statue of liberty.

These are satanists from way back...all the way back to Egyptian dynasties. The US was founded on satanism, in the form of Masonic rites. Now a single phallic tower has been erected where the two towers once stood: the male aspect reigning supreme over the female aspect.

thouhtsandreplies #fundie thoughtsandreplies.tumblr.com

[ So basically, you want to pretend that homosexuality can be cured, even though there are many, many homosexuals who have gone through reparative therapy and been harmed by it? Why don't you seem to care about how harmful reparative therapy is? Also, mental illnesses are inherently harmful to the person who has them, and they prevent people from being able to live a productive life. You cannot say the same thing about homosexuality, since many gay people live safe, happy lives ]


Having a belief is not a pretense.
Those men who identify as former homsexuals, if they were pretending and I don’t believe they were, would be the one’s who would know.
The existence of failed attempts does not prove the absence of successful attempts. The question is not ‘does it work’ but do people have the RIGHT to try it if they so desire!


You can’t find out if it works if you stop the attempts altogether. =/ Duh.

Would you say that surgery is never successful because sometimes it isn’t? That is your logic. And it doesn’t work. Why don’t you care how harmful surgery is!!! When did you stop beating your wife? Why don’t you care? That’s called a loaded question..

You’ve attributing to me, a pejorative indifference. You are wrong. Please learn to ask a question without assumptions in the question. Recognize before the question is asked that you have made an assumption and ask distinctly for confirmation or denial of that assumption. WRONG WAY: Why don’t you care!?
RIGHT WAY: Do you, or do you not care? If not why. If so, what leads you to your conclusions through said caring.


To answer the questions you SHOULD HAVE ASKED: 
Of course I care. What I have is logical priorities rooted in a fundamental goal of LIBERTY, which dwarfs the kind of emotional blindness you’re working from. You don’t stop someone from doing something JUST because you think it’s bad for them. That kind of logic would justify the outlawing of homosexual activity on a strictly scientific basis.
Are homosexuals free individuals capable of making their own choices? 
Or should reparative therapy by outlawed because they’re not?

There are nuances beyond this dichotomy, but first acknowledge the dichotomy, and the stupidity of the latter.

“mental illnesses are inherently harmful… and they prevent people from being able to live a productive life.”

Although homosexuality can CLEARLY be said to be ‘inherently harmful’ when practiced [biologically or psychologically], that’s not the definition of mental illness. 

A mental illness is a condition that affects a person’s thinking, feeling or mood. Such conditions may affect someone’s ability to relate to others and function each day.


Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors. Many people have mental health concerns from time to time.


We happen to have knowledge on a number of trends among homosexuals. Lesbians have a strong tendency to engage in domestic violence. The Atlantic: A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent: Nov 5, 2013 

Monogamy is basically unheard of among [male] homosexual couples. SLATE: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous Promiscuity is the norm and due to biological facts creates a much greater risk of STD infections among gay males, which is the reason the vast VAST majority of AIDs patients are gay [or drug users]. CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates by Thaddeus Baklinski Mon July 08, 2013

But your definition is wrong. 

If you want to be redundantly clear, one’s mental health is in a state of illness when one is mentally ill, but that’s not what you said. And people with minor mental illness lead productive otherwise happy lives all the time.


Do you really think that the lives of anyone with OCD or Turrets is ruined & they’re all miserable and incapable of being ‘productive’? =/ 

When I put it like that it just sounds silly.

Ricardo Duchesne #racist eurocanadian.ca

The New York Times review happily stated without equivocation that "the evidence of black superiority in athletics is persuasive and decisively confirmed on the playing field". Some journalists added that White people only dominate sports that require expensive equipment, such as golf, sailing, hockey. Others surmised that without "the economic gap", without "racist control" of the economy by whites, blacks would dominate every single sport.

Actually, the only condemnations came from the academic world. The author Jon Entine, thought to be White but really a Jewish guy from Australia, was accused of perpetuating the stereotype that blacks are good in athletics but not in academics.

They are all lying. The scientific evidence is decisive: Whites, both males and females, dominate almost all the competitive sports. Blacks are very good in some sports, the sports that American media moguls love to showcase, basketball and football. They are also dominant in some athletics, but mainly just running. They are not good in all jumping competitions, white males and females absolutely dominate the pole vault Olympic medals.

The constantly repeated phrase that "white men can't jump" is a another lie of the establishment: White athletes have dominated the high jump. Just check the male and female Olympic medalists.

As far as "major sports" are concerned: Whites dominate Hockey and Soccer and Tennis and Golf, and, to a considerable degree, Baseball as well. The majority of the top 100 Soccer players in the world are white. While some blacks have been excellent at Baseball, in a very good assessment "ranking the 25 best Baseball players of all time", Whites outnumber non-whites 20 to 5.

Whites dominate ALL the Winter Olympic sports: alpine skiing, luge, short track speed skating, biathlon, freestyle skiing, skeleton, and snowboarding, bobsleigh, curling, cross-country skiing, ski jumping, figure skating and speed skating.

The ten most successful nations in the Winter Olympics are all White nations.

White males and females also dominate the Summer Olympics. Nine of the ten nations with the most Olympic medals are White. It is true that a few of the medalists in these White nations are black. But aside from a few competitions in athletics, whites have decisively dominated Triathlon, Swimming, Archery, Water Polo, Canoeing and Kayaking, Cycling, Wrestling, Gymnastics, Equestrian, Fencing, Field hockey, Handball, Lacrosse.

They have been very competitive, and sometimes dominant, in all the other competitions, such as Boxing, Running, Volleyball, and Judo.

Almost all the "all-time top 25 decathlon athletes" are White. Yes, Aston Eaton is ranked number 1, but he is half white, and the second and third in rank are white.

Therefore, Jon Entine's claim that blacks athletes are genetically "better at sprinting, endurance running and jumping" is false. They are clearly better at sprinting only — and not always

Gary Naler #fundie remnantbride.com

First, for general information, hyenas are not dogs, the Canidae, as one might think. Instead, they have their own family, the Hyaenidae, which is actually closer to the cats, the Felidae. There are four species within the Hyaenids: the spotted, brown, and striped, as well as the aardwolf. The range of the spotted hyenas is strictly within Africa. They have one main foe, and that is the lions, which are responsible for up to 70% of their adult deaths. Lions will actually hunt and kill hyenas; and if hyenas find a lone female lion and significantly outnumber her, they will kill her. Interestingly though, hyenas will eat lions, but lions will not eat hyenas. Uniquely, they just kill them.

Another important general fact to know about the spotted hyena is their social structure. More will be noted about this; but, they live in groups known as clans. Normally, the clans are thirty to forty members, but can be as large as eighty or ninety.

Now, having noted this, let us begin examining some of these things that make the spotted hyena so dramatically anomalous from all creation. Prepare yourself, you are getting ready to discover some of the most bizarre things you have ever heard about an animal.

First, let us identify the prevailing issue that causes us to address the spotted hyena in context with the ill fate of the woman taking the place of the man. Remember, we are looking at Yahweh God’s creation testimony concerning this. One might then suspect that the spotted hyenas are a matriarchal society where the female rules, . . . and this is exactly what we find. In fact, spotted hyenas are matriarchy on steroids! Not only does the dominant female rule over the males, but the females are ordered according to what could be called a caste system, where each one of them occupies a specific social, hierarchical status that is strictly enforced. Every aspect of their daily lives are ruled by their individual ranking within that caste. And like any caste system, the female cubs born to any one of those mothers, are locked into that inherent status. Thus, a female offspring of the head matriarch will replace her mother upon her death.

And, this caste system has further highly determining consequences as well. How much food each member eats is dictated by their place in the caste. Those at the bottom eat least and last. Therefore, the lower in the caste, the less healthy they are, and the less likely their cubs are to survive. Again, welcome to God’s testimony of matriarchy on steroids!

So, in this severe matriarchal system, how do the males fare? There are many feminists who would love the outcome of the male spotted hyena. In fact, I’m surprised they do not use the spotted hyena for their mascot. Evidencing this, the following image adopted in the 1980s by feminists, could just as well have been their true and most fitting mascot, attested by Yahweh Himself. Click on this image to see its true fulfillment in feminism. (Click on it again to repeat it.)

Let’s put it this way: the only thing lower in the female caste system, . . . is being a male. While the chief matriarch is the zenith in the clan, any male is the nadir, the lowest place there is, and the one who suffers the most extreme adversity. Any male is dominated by all the females. It does not help the male either that, as with the black widow spiders and the phalaropes, the females are distinctly larger, and far more aggressive. In the photo to the left, you can see this obvious size difference in the mounting male. And, the males that are more likely to be allowed to mate with the females are passive and younger. In fact, it eventually comes down to which male is willing to put up with the abuse of the females. We see the same in society: dominant females tend to marry passive men whom they can control (when they do marry).

Jacob Harrison #fundie jacobharrisonanglocatholicsociety.blogspot.com

hydrolythe:
For somebody trying not to be homophobic you sure do are pretty damn homophobic. Here are all my issues:
1: There are no innate laws of nature. We didn't even reproduce sexually until the algae came along, which is certainly a long time. There is definitely the Christian metaphysical statement that we are created male and female, but it remains just that.
2: Great that you're propagating the theory that being gay causes AIDS. I'd say that the main reason AIDS is so prevalent is because of religious rallies against the condom and comprehensive sexual education. The virus will spread regardless of what our sexual orientation is.
3: The Bible clearly says that it was because they wanted to distance themselves from other cultures where homosexual seks was prevalent. Why even adding AIDS to the equation?
4: For some reasons Christians like you don't seem to have trouble with people who lend at interest, despite it clearly being against the Bible. Why is that? I'd say because that doesn't disgust people anymore.

Jacob Harrison:
1. Well what cause Algea to evolve sexually was for reproductive purposes.

2. Lack of sanitation in a hot desert environment like Ancient Israel causes aids. Ass fucking is generally less sanitary than normal vaginal sex. And abstinence only sex education teaches people the harms of sex to scare people into not having sex. It reduces the amount of people who have sex and therefore reduces aids.

3. I was referring to why it was dealt with harshly in the Old Testament not why it is forbidden in the New Testament.

4. I have a problem with lending at interest but unfortunetely that has prevailed today. In Merry Old England, laws were passed against lending at interest.

hydrolythe:
1. There is no "higher purpose" in evolution. I'd say that it was because sexual reproduction offered advantages at the time of the evolution happening.
2: Nope. Ass fucking and vaginal sex are equally unsanitory. Also, you act like you've never heard of the condom.
3: I too was referring to this. We might have differing translations, but mine clearly states that it was because of this.

Jacob Harrison:
1. Since our sexual hormones evolved for procreation, we should use it for procreation.

2. I heard of condoms but heard that even condoms are not 100 percent effective at preventing infections. Besides it is better to teach abstinence so that people don’t accidentally forget to use a condom which happens.

In the harsh unsanitary environment in ancient Israel the buttcrack would be full of bacteria from the persons shit so back then, anal sex was less sanitary.

3. Does it say that in the Old Testament or the New Testament in your Bible. Show me the verses and I’ll see what those verses say in the Latin Vulgate.

hydrolythe:
1: It is not because something has evolved for procreation that we ought to use it for procreation. Just because something "is" it does not mean that we "ought" to do it.
2: And what when abstinence fails?

You're also delusional if you think that the butt is less sanitary than the vagina. Both are equally likely to get you an STD.

3: It does say in the Old Testament. Specifically Leviticus 18:3

Jacob Harrison:

1. But not using it for what it is supposed to do goes against the laws of nature.

2. Well it will fail less when people will be taught abstinence. And when it fails, well a new baby ?? will be born.

3. It does say that it is an abomination. But that was not the reason why it was dealt with harshly in Leviticus. Remember, it was a harsh desert environment and toilet paper has not been invented yet. Imagine all the bacteria from the dirty buttcrack. ??

hydrolythe:

1: What laws of nature?

2: Dude. Having a baby should not be taken lightly. You'll lose time and money raising it.

3: Leviticus 18:3 says this: "Don't live following the habits of Egyptians where you lived, nor those of the Kana'n where I'll bring you. Don't live your life according to their predicaments and commandments, "

Also, I never said it was harshly dealt with in Leviticus because they believed it was an abomination. I said it was harshly dealt with it because they wanted to differentiate themselves from the other people in their surroundings.

Jacob Harrison:

1. The laws of nature is doing what is most natural. Since sexual hormones evolved for procreation, they should be used for procreation.

2. The baby can be adopted.

3. It was forbidden because God saw it as an abomination. God did not want the Israelites to practice the abominations of the surrounding cultures. However the Bible never says that it was the reason why the punishment was so harsh in the Old Testament.

hydrolythe:

1: There is no "doing most natural". Things mutate first and only after they've mutated we know if they've a purpose or not. Sexual hormones didn't evolve for procreation, they evolved due to different physical-chemical bonds being combined to form a being that can reproduce sexually.

2: Don't you think that adoption clinics are already filled with children? Why add more?

3: Therefore you can't claim to know the answer either.

Jacob Harrison:

1. Yes sexual hormones evolved to produce a being that can reproduce sexually so that there would be genetic diversity. So they did evolve for procreation.

2. The reason why there are so many is because abstinence is not taught.

3. I don’t know all the answers but I try to make the best guesses. It is the most likely explanation because otherwise it makes God’s morality subjective to the context of the time.

hydrolythe:

1: Evolution is not a guided process, but, by our standards, a random process. Homosexuality is just as much a product of evolution as heterosexuality. And since you didn't propose me any moral argument against it, let me propose one in favor of it. Namely, that they have happiness acting upon it and that if you forbid it, that you don't maximise happiness.

2: So does abstinence. And besides you're commiting the perfect solution fallacy. It's not because a solution isn't perfect that we shouldn't learn how to use it.

I'll leave you with this: "The perfect is the enemy of good." - Voltaire

3: So you agree that if a dog does something right and decent, even if that dog has no knowledge of what is right and decent, that it is a moral agent. This is weird, but I'll go with it. I disagree, for one, that one needs God in order to be moral under the definition you propose. Utilitarianism, for instance, is an objective moral code without God under the definition you proposed, since it says that maximizing the human happiness is a goal in itself. I would even say that it is more moral than God under that definition, because there are several rules in the Bible that prevent you from doing good works to people, such as not allowing the Ammonites and Moabites to become citizens of Israel.

Jacob Harrison:
1. Regardless of whether you believe that God was the mastermind, guiding the process of evolution or not, we know that it is the environment that causes the organisms to evolve. I am aware of the evidence that some homosexuals evolved as population control, but that does not mean that all homosexuals are born homosexual. Besides, for the ones that are, well that makes their sexual hormones a useless holdover like the appendix. It cannot be used for it’s evolutionary purpose of procreation, so it must not be used. Homosexuals can have as much happiness master-bating.

2. I am not commiting the perfect solution fallacy. I am saying that abstinence is a better solution than contraception because it is the only way to prevent pregnancies.

3. God wants to maximize human happiness, but he sets righteous guidelines to prevent bad things from happening. The Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to become citizens because they were a threat to Israel.