General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

Haters gotta hate and the judgmental gotta judge.

I know you didn't get it but the original post was about the hypocrisy of Pravda constantly spreading the dirt on the one church, which are a bunch of cooks running around with God hates gays signs, while ignoring the other church. In the other "ignored" church all kinds of crap were going on including the gangland style hits on two of obamas lovers and another of his lovers in the "Down Low Club" mysteriously dying in a very short period of time, coincidentally right at the time he decided to run for president. . No tales to be told by them.

The intent of my post was to point out that obamas gay lovers at the jeramiah wright church mysteriously (conveniently) were murdered gangland style only two weeks before the Iowa primary, and that didn't raise anyone's suspicions? Certainly not Pravdas.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29548

You must have believed I was attacking the homosexual escapades of the president as opposed to the convenient gangland style deaths of his three lovers at Trinity. Was that a Freudian thing that made you miss the point of the article and only see the gay part of it or just a lack of comprehension? You appear to carry a torch for defending the gay lifestyle so I guess that is why you began this thread in the first place. At least one would hope that is the reason.

Yet the Harvard study I posted shows that your belief that straight guys are Homophobic proves your thinking 100% wrong. Gays are the Homophobic ones.

So really, just what exactly prompted you to post an article on homophobia in the first place? Was it a Freudian thing? Or was it just the normal Single Cell Anemia thing that attacks the liberal mind destroying all reading comprehension? Quit trying to imply others are gay. You are the one who is defending that lifestyle, not Glen,Yod, or myself. We all know the gay lifestyle is perversion.

Sorry, I dont know what "original post" you are referencing. The original post in this thread was done by me, and you keep proving its point!

Marriage is a religious term. Civil union is a governmental term. I totally agree that any civil union between 2 people should have all the protections granted under the law. Corporations are allowed the same advantages and discrimination at all levels is unacceptable.

So why is it so important for 2% of the population to show a complete lack of tolerance? Seems a small minority are just trying to shove something up our asss.

In the end I'm sure God will sort it out...

"Sorry, I dont know what "original post" you are referencing. The original post in this thread was done by me, and you keep proving its point! "

Sorry that it went above your head but I should have expected that you couldn't find a link if it jumped off the page and bit you

Love between any two people is not perverse, but saying it is perverse because of some dusty old book is perverse. In my experience homophobes are the most vocal about the subject because they are gay-curious, or latent homosexuals themselves. So go ahead and get that rainbow guitar strap you've been eyeing Slacker.

You're absolutely right. Love is a good thing between any living thing. In America, you can even love your stuff.

But sexual behavior has little relation to "love" and yet has been redefined as somehow equal since at least the 60s. Behavior can be perverse, no matter the gender of the subjects involved, so it becomes more a question of social morality. History tells us that the super-State of the Greeks and the Romans were utterly decayed into nothing within a century of promoting perverse behavior as normal.

So Jimmy.....is it perverse when it's father and daughter? Mother and son? Father and son? How about a 30 year old man and a 12 year old boy? How about 4 men and 10 year old girl? Three men and a goat?

At what point does behavior approach being perverse now, since the goal posts have been moved?

"Sorry, I dont know what "original post" you are referencing. The original post in this thread was done by me, and you keep proving its point! "

Sorry that it went above your head but I should have expected that you couldn't find a link if it jumped off the page and bit you

Maybe if you learned how to write clearly instead of just cutting-and-pasting people might pay attention to you ... nah ...

You said 'original post' and linked to a different thread. Maybe if you had said 'my original post in this other thread: ..."' But really, I don't care what thread you were pointing to, as I don't pay attention to 99% of the BS you cut-and-paste here, and hadn't looked at that one.

That's right BICH = B.S.

Mike, you mean you look at 1% of Slacker's crap? There's three days of your life you won't get back.

That only figures out to about 1 post a week - and I didn't say I read it, just looked at it!

Pro 18:2 Fools have no desire to learn; they would much rather give their own opinion. The mouth of a foolish man is his destruction, and his lips are a net for his soul.
2Ti 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

So much truth in so few words. "while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." Couldn't have said it better myself.

You are deceived by yourselves and your unwillingness to accept truth. Perhaps some of you libs will be counted worthy to call on the name of the Lord.when the sh*t hits the fan and you will trade your foolishness for wisdom . God wishes all to be saved, but fools reject wisdom, for the only the fool says in his heart there is no God.

Mike, you mean you look at 1% of Slacker's crap? There's three days of your life you won't get back.

That only figures out to about 1 post a week - and I didn't say I read it, just looked at it!

Well it's ok to "look" (at the mentally disabled) .... just don't stare.

When I said "any two people" I thought I was addressing people who knew that fathers cannot marry daughters.

Well, most people in this world know that a man can't procreate with another man, and that there are serious health risks involved with perverse behavior like getting your dipstick brown. Doesn't matter in Obama's America. Perverse is now considered "normal".....even "good".

And since perverse behavior is now equated as "love", then what reason would there be for a prohibition of family members or animals? Why can't seven guys marry 4 women, a sheep, and a horse? And really, why is rape still considered perverse if it is how one person "loves" another? I mean, aren't you are pro-choice for men too?

The bigger question I'd love for anyone to attempt to answer is:

1. Who decides what the standard is now that the goal posts have been moved?

2. Why do 5 corrupt people have the authority to invent a "civil right" that is not found in our law and make it the new standard, in opposition to the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans (and even moreso internationally)? Don't you realize that this can be repeated by people you wouldn't agree with, and don't you know that is why we have laws that prescribe how changes are legally made? Why isn't it a problem that those laws were not followed? Have you not given this broken process any critical thought because the propaganda convinced you this issue is important enough to over-rule the Constitution?

3. Does changing the definition of a word that has been used for the entire 7,000 years of recorded human history really change anything except surface issue of how one "feels" about being gay? Answer: Yes, this is a trojan horse to get the rest of us to pay for their benefits.

4. Will the changing of what is "normal behavior" in favor of perverse behavior stop here? I think not. Pandora's box is now open for business. That should make the perverse very happy!



.