RASH OF KIDNAPPINGS The Bitter Fruit of the Homosexual Agenda

Gargantua | August 19, 2002 | Gargantua

[saradippity]

Your thoughts are excellent and I am happy you posted them. I have read that there are at least 7 components of what is known as I.Q.,one of which is ability to recognize patterns.Thus said,it is quite easy to explain the "blind spots" in many who appear to be very intelligent people like OWK,for example.He may be off the charts in math and comprehension and three or four other criteria,he may be a genius based on those facets but clearly he has no ability to recognize patterns or connect the dots,so to speak.

[Taliesan]

Hi!

OWK, you stubborn pagan: I try not to take your side in these things but I get irked with my brothers.

Hope you are well.

[OWK]

but clearly he has no ability to recognize patterns or connect the dots,so to speak.

Yes... that must be it.

(also explains the problem I have with stripes and plaids)

[Destructor]

I guess you missed my earlier post about the thread on Free Republic regarding a study on pedophilia. The Study found that homosexual males were three times more likely to engage in pedophilia than married heterosexual males. I also mentioned another thread about a homosexual slang dictionary. If you go to the archives and look it up it will open your eyes to what homosexuality is really about. You will find one slang term after another for sodomizing young boys. Logic really ought to tell you that homos can't reproduce. They have to recruit!

Personally, I don't think Jesus intended people to allow evil-doers to walk all over them, and abuse them. I guess we all have to draw the line somewhere, and that is where I draw the line. If that makes me a bad person (in your opinion), then so be it.

[NittanyLion]

The Study found that homosexual males were three times more likely to engage in pedophilia than married heterosexual males.

As I see it, a pedophile could fit into one of three categories:

1. Heterosexual who molests a child of the opposite sex
2. Homosexual who molests a child of the same sex
3. Bisexual who molests child of same sex while engaging in relationships with opposite sex (or vice versa)

I don't know where the answer lies, but I assume the study found that Group #2 molests at a rate of three times Group #1? Where did Group #3 fit in?

[OWK]

I guess we all have to draw the line somewhere

Of course we have to draw the line somewhere. And the only objective place to draw the line in a political sense, is the placed called "rights".

Pedophiles clearly violate the rights of children. Their actions cause harm to the child. Grave harm. As such, pedophiles can and should be restrained and punished with physical force if necessary.

Consenting adult homosexuals are another matter altogether. Their actions do NOT violate the rights of others. The only potential harm their actions can cause, is to the participants (who weighed the risks, and consented anyway). Hence consenting adult homosexuals may NOT be restrained by force.

There are many choices that individuals can make which might cause harm to themselves, but do not cause harm to non-participants, or violate the rights of non-pariticpants in any way. Smoking cigarettes, excessive consumption of alcohol, drug use, overconsumption of fatty foods... many things. But inasmuch as only the consenting actor is harmed by the action, the action may not be morally restrained.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help the potentially self-destructive individual by giving him an understanding of the consequences of his actions. This doesn't mean you shouldn't tell him he's wrong... This doesn't mean you shouldn't try and help him find an alternative to self-destructive behavior... In God for example... It just means that force is not an option.

I'm just trying to help you understand that there's a difference between a consenting adult homosexual (whose actions have the potential to harm only himself) and a pedophile (whose actions clearly harm others).

And that the statistical likelihood of a homosexual BEING a pedophile, does not rationally afford you the option of treating all homosexuals as if they were pedophiles.

This is about as simple as I can make it.. And it's understandable if you try.

It's up to you.

[mercy]

It's not that WE disagree with you. It's that YOU plainly disagree with God's Word.

[mercy]

It isn't poor dot connecting aptitude. It's lack of morality. Insisting on 'rights' as the hingepin or cardinal point of human society and thus putting rights above morality is simply unballanced. See my quotes above in post #457. Without morality obtained from devine inspiration ... this nation can not succeed. Indeed no people on earth shall endure apart from Godliness. And Godliness is far above mere human philosophy.

[Taliesan]

It's that YOU plainly disagree with God's Word.

Show me.

[mercy]

****I'm just trying to help you understand that there's a difference between a consenting adult homosexual (whose actions have the potential to harm only himself) and a pedophile (whose actions clearly harm others).****

A false argument. I don't care what these people do behind closed doors. I simply insist that they obey normal human conventions and keep it to themselves.

The arguement does not hinge upon their sexual behaviour. It hinges on my right NOT to have my children exposed to their perverse ideas and behaviours. It is my right not to have my child taught by them or scout mastered.

It's my right to maintain the sanctity and civil benefits which acrue to the institution of marriage. Marriage has been defined from time immemorial as the legal union of a man and a woman. If it can now be redifined as the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman it might as well be between a man and a beast. The entire construct is rendered DOA by homexual union.

That's the tip of the iceberg. We who hold morality as the glue of society shudder to think what all will come next. The Libertarians wish to open the floodgates in the name of 'rights'. Do they realize the concept of rights will eventually have no meaning if there are no longer moral guidelines?

[Taliesan]

Insisting on 'rights' as the hingepin or cardinal point of human society and thus putting rights above morality is simply unballanced. See my quotes above in post #457. Without morality obtained from devine inspiration ... this nation can not succeed. Indeed no people on earth shall endure apart from Godliness.

Oh, I see your confusion. You equate "human society" with the legal system, and thus create false conflicts.

This is true: "no people on earth shall endure apart from Godliness". But that says nothing about whether something should be legal or not.

[Destructor]

I disagree with you on a couple of points, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[NittanyLion]

It hinges on my right NOT to have my children exposed to their perverse ideas and behaviours. It is my right not to have my child taught by them or scout mastered. It's my right to maintain the sanctity and civil benefits which acrue to the institution of marriage.

A right which can be acquired only be violating another's rights, is not a right at all.

[Taliesan]

We who hold morality as the glue of society shudder to think what all will come next.

Things will go from bad to worse. The love of many will grow cold. Men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, disrespectful to parents, hold to a form of godliness but will deny the power thereof.

[mercy]

Most of what I know about Libertarians I have learned here on FR. I can't think of one instance where a Libertarian used scripture to support their ideas. In deed it appears that almost all of them argue from the atheistic perspective.

I don't want to get into your disagreement with Gargantua over scriptural references. I don't maintain that any Christian must agree with me on just about anything. But I must make the judgement based on a very few essential points of Christian doctrine whether or not a person is indeed a Christian.

I cannot accept that any true Christian would argue that American society should promote homosexuality as simply a lifestyle alternative. Such a person does not worship the same God I do.

[headsonpikes]

"hold to a form of godliness" bump.

[NittanyLion]

I cannot accept that any true Christian would argue that American society should promote homosexuality as simply a lifestyle alternative.

Is a neutral stance where government concerned, promotion? Is it possible to believe government has no place prohibiting an activity that I find to be repugnant?

[Taliesan]

I cannot accept that any true Christian would argue that American society should promote homosexuality as simply a lifestyle alternative. Such a person does not worship the same God I do.

I agree.

[Taliesan]

I don't want to get into your disagreement with Gargantua over scriptural references. I don't maintain that any Christian must agree with me on just about anything. But I must make the judgement based on a very few essential points of Christian doctrine whether or not a person is indeed a Christian.

It's not just a disagreement over references. You two seemed to be of the opinion that anybody who contradicted scripture on any point is a servant of Satan. I argue that anybody who makes scripture up lacks the credibility to make that criticism.

The essential points of doctrine you have a right to use to decide if a person is a Christian or not would be the ones the scripture uses. A libertarian political philosophy is not on that list. You have a right to your opinion about libertarians; you have a right to believe homosexuality is wrong in God's sight (as it indeed is); you have no right to label people servants of Satan because they don't agree with you on what the United States government ought to do about consensual homosexuality.

If these distinctions are beyond you, that only means they are beyond you.

[mercy]

What is government? It was once thought to be we the people. WE are the government. This entire discussion seems to me to be about the shape of society as it reflects the will of the people.

No, I don't want the fed in this, laying down sweeping decrees ... although we all know this will be the final outcome. Issues such as openly homosexual teachers openly advocating homosexuality should be local. It should be the right of any school board to decide these sorts of matters and the right of any private alternative schools to provide sanctuary for those who do not agree with that board.

If an individual state wishes to sanctify homosexual union ... so be it. Let it compete with the other states who stick to established morality and see which flourishes.

Unfortunately we have made the issue of homosexual SPECIAL rights equal with basic human rights. When the Southern states insisted on refusing constitutional rights to blacks they made it necessary for the fed to step in. And thus was opened the door to a flood of usurping fed statutes abrogating constitutional state's rights in all quarters.

It was once thought moral and just ok to practice slavery. That changed as well it should. It was once thought acceptable to treat women as second class citizens and deny them the vote. These were changes that actually increased the moral terpetude of the society.

Now the lie has been sold that it is a basic human right that homosexuals be allowed to write and teach curiculae in the public schools promulgating homosexual behaviour. It can be easily argued they have the right to a teaching job. It can not be successfully argued that it follows they can promote homosexual behaviour on my dime.

If the fed ever sanctifies this sort of curiculae and takes the argument away from the local boards and states ... we will know that the final dam has burst and all freedoms shall be eventually swept away.