Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
How about Spearhead another site that SexMachine linked?

One section of categories is for Girls who cry Rape. http://www.the-spearhead.com/category/girls-who-cry-rape/

A link to a blog for pro/male-Anti-feminist technology.

How about this blog post? http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/

Let me save you some reading:

[quote]She, like most other college girls, is simply parroting what?s been fed to her by her profs. Girls are good at that, which is why teachers like them so much ? they?re easy.

If you?re the father of an American girl, is this really what you want your daughter to absorb over the course of four years? Does it add any value whatsoever to the family or to the nation?

Your money would be much better spent sending her to sewing or baking school. Let?s face it: Ms. Fleig isn?t going to discover the cure for cancer. Despite being an attractive young woman, she isn?t going to colonize Mars, either (at her size, she?d be too expensive to launch out of the Earth?s atmosphere). In all likelihood, the best she could hope for is a nonprofit or government job fully funded by her father?s and brother?s tax bills.

And yet she represents 60% of college students. What an enormous, unsustainable waste. It?s impolitic to point it out, but from a cost-benefit point of view, in most cases higher education is entirely wasted on women, and as in Ms. Fleig?s case is often counterproductive.[/quote]

If you want to figure out why SexMachine thinks the way he does why not look at the websites he reads? Haven’t heard of any of them like me? Maybe that is a good thing. [/quote]

I didn’t use either of the sites as a primary source. Those sites just happened to contain links to studies by the CDC, WHO etc. don’t pretend that I endorse the views of every blogger on the site. I don’t.
[/quote]

Actually your first post was directly from one of those sites. All three of the sites you mentioned have serious bias issues at the best, demonstrably hate based lunacy at best.

So you just stumbled upon those three sites? You managed to just stumble upon sites like that? Really? That’s the story you’re going to concoct when the websites you link get exposed for the sick trash they actually are?

I don’t buy it. Google doesn’t directly take you to places like that. You have to know of them. You have to look for them. You are highly familiar with the content of those websites since that is who you link to. I didn’t say you endorsed everything, but you’re just trying to deflect now when people actually take a look at the websites you’re linking us to.

You said you weren’t derogatory to gays and you lied. You’re now shying away from the disgusting websites you linked. You don’t have to convince me, but I expected you to come up for some type of reason for why you just happened to only be linking to hate filled far right websites.

Google searching for marriage rates, and even end of marriage doesn’t take you to sites like spearhead. You gotta know where to look for that kind of garbage. You’re familiar with the websites. I wasn’t. Most people on here weren’t.

Wonder why that is? “Didn’t use them as a primary source?” Your OP came directly from one of them. Shit how the hell did we find out about them?! You just happened to only link to scary hate sites in this thread. Back away to save face if you must, but your story has a lot of holes and I didn’t expect you to own up to actually reading this type of garbage. They are just sites you happened to come across right?

282

[quote]H factor wrote:

Actually your first post was directly from one of those sites.

[/quote]

It wasn’t an opinion piece. It was an excerpt from a book about gay propaganda techniques.

That may be why I didn’t post any opinion pieces from them. I merely used them as incidental links to studies by reputable institutions.

From google yes.

Ah, go to google images and type ‘marriage rate’ then press return. The fourth picture is a graph from Spearhead. That’s how I found it. I’ll check back later for your apology.

Ah no. Anything not on the dark web can be accessed via google.

Lol and you call me crazy? You’re a paranoiac. Seek help.

[quote]

You gotta know where to look for that kind of garbage. You’re familar with the websites. I wasn’t. Most people on here weren’t.

Wonder why that is? [/quote]

…

283

BTW the authors of the book quoted in the OP borrowed heavily from the work Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China

That’s why you’re so batshit. You’ve been systematically brainwashed.

284

We are the ones who are brainwashed?

There’s a whole world of morality out there, different books, theories of right and wrong.

Many of us are familiar with the bible, there are quite a few moral dilemma’s in the bible that Christians struggled with in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In part because the morality of the bible isn’t static, it changes and adapts with the times with the Pope’s as well as the worlds influence.

To many of us it seems that most Christians are pretty selective in their sexual morality as well. With things like moral rules about no sex before marriage, that it is wrong for a man to lay with another… Which one are you going to harp on?

You pick and choose what morals to follow and which ones to reason around. It’s okay for you to reason around sex before marriage and things like intercourse, but you are completely static in your moral judgement about homosexuals?

It’s weird. It comes off as a weird pathology, it makes you seem like a biggot against gays based on your selective faith since you use your faith to reason around why wont accept gays, but you accept all the other sinners including those who have sex before marriage. You would exclude people certain things that the majority of people consider basic human rights because you selectively enforce your morality and would impose your view on the rest of society.

Your type of thinking isn’t coherent, it isn’t honest with integrity. If you are going to have a morality based on the bible then own it. Own the whole thing, or at least try to own it and admit where you fail. That is the strength of faith. That you can err, be forgiven and improve, self realize in part through introspection. These are all supposed to be facets of the bible and your parish, and sometimes people are ahead of the morality of the Church.

Since the Church itself changes in morality it means that they can be wrong. They have been wrong in the past, recent past, and they will be wrong about things in the future, the Church itself errs which I have brought up plenty of times. We can bring up the various immoral Popes, slavery, adultery, pedophilia which was covered up by the Church for basically centuries. In my own town there is a long history of pedophilia and the church moving priests around to avoid justice.

285

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We are the ones who are brainwashed?

There’s a whole world of morality out there, different books, theories of right and wrong.

Many of us are familiar with the bible, there are quite a few moral dilemma’s in the bible that Christians struggled with in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In part because the morality of the bible isn’t static, it changes and adapts with the times with the Pope’s as well as the worlds influence.

To many of us it seems that most Christians are pretty selective in their sexual morality as well. With things like moral rules about no sex before marriage, that it is wrong for a man to lay with another… Which one are you going to harp on?

You pick and choose what morals to follow and which ones to reason around. It’s okay for you to reason around sex before marriage and things like intercourse, but you are completely static in your moral judgement about homosexuals?

[/quote]

I don’t recall discussing those things. I think you’re making some assumptions there.

Again you’re making assumptions.

I could care less what most people think.

Why do you keep harping on about religion? The overwhelming majority of my arguments against the normalisation of homosexuality were secular.

Feel free to address any of the points I have made.

286

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We are the ones who are brainwashed?

There’s a whole world of morality out there, different books, theories of right and wrong.

Many of us are familiar with the bible, there are quite a few moral dilemma’s in the bible that Christians struggled with in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In part because the morality of the bible isn’t static, it changes and adapts with the times with the Pope’s as well as the worlds influence.

To many of us it seems that most Christians are pretty selective in their sexual morality as well. With things like moral rules about no sex before marriage, that it is wrong for a man to lay with another… Which one are you going to harp on?

You pick and choose what morals to follow and which ones to reason around. It’s okay for you to reason around sex before marriage and things like intercourse, but you are completely static in your moral judgement about homosexuals?

[/quote]

I don’t recall discussing those things. I think you’re making some assumptions there.

Again you’re making assumptions.

I could care less what most people think.

Why do you keep harping on about religion? The overwhelming majority of my arguments against the normalisation of homosexuality were secular.

Feel free to address any of the points I have made.
[/quote]

Your arguments against normalization of homosexuality actually come from your notions of right and wrong/ the ethics you learned from the bible, or I should say selectively learned.

You then went and looked for reasons outside of your ethical doctrine to support your ethics. That’s a messed up for someone who dabbles in meta ethics. It dabbles with the internal mechanics and order of what is informing you about right and wrong, and how to justify right and wrong. The most messed up part is if you would impose such ways upon the rest of society with what seems to me to be a pretty backwards form of rationalization.

If you had real integrity about your ethics you would have just as strong of moral feelings against adultery, and having sex outside of marriage in general.

For someone with such a hook as SexMachine, it’s weird. To see how lopsided and selective you are about your Christianity. If you’re Christian then stick to your guns. We are all hypocritical and liars to some degree, you need to check your ethics with some integrity, even from here the selective corruption are the holes in your ethics, and are pretty scary to look at.

287

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Your arguments against normalization of homosexuality actually come from your notions of right and wrong/ the ethics you learned from the bible, or I should say selectively learned.

[/quote]

Again you are making assumptions. The fact is I felt the same way long before I was a believer.

No, I didn’t need to look for reasons as I already had a fully developed ethical system based upon instinct, observation and history.

It is you who have things backwards. And it is homosexual activists who are imposing their will upon the civil society. I merely oppose their radicalism and wish to maintain the status quo of traditional marriage and family values.

And who says I don’t? More assumptions.

Sexmachine is a character played by Sam Raimi in the film From Dusk Till Dawn.

[quote]

To see how lopsided and selective you are about your Christianity. If you’re Christian then stick to your guns. We are all hypocritical and liars to some degree, you need to check your ethics with some integrity, even from here the holes in yours are scary to look at. [/quote]

I have stuck to my guns.

288

How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

If I can show you studies that show at least some homosexuality in men is linked to the x chromosome then what would that do?

What if I could show you evidence that homosexuality in men can come about because of the amount of sons that woman has had, and that homosexuality in some cases is a mothers resistance towards a male fetus’ own testosterone production?

What about examples of homosexuality in nature?

Are you categorically denying that your christian ethics impact your world view, or inform you about your own ethics?

What you have stated on this thread leads me to believe that your faith has given you a pretty static set of ethics that you are unwilling to allow to be bent, or change. Yet you must acknowledge the Church’s ethics have been anything but static…

So, go ahead then… Splain yourself…

289

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.

290

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.
[/quote]

You have the right to be a homophobe. It’s America! I’m still a bit of a homophobe myself in that I think it’s pretty friggin gross. But, as an American I think that’s the individuals business. With gays, I recognize that we have been quite spiteful to them in a legal way by various means as well as culturally which I have already brought up… What with anti sodomy laws and myself growing up playing smear the queer before even knowing what a queer was. We put laws in place to persecute them and single them out when there really isn’t anything in the constitution that says we should do such.

I think gays should, and should have always had the right to marry in the country according to the Constitution. That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry, because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be allowed to.

291

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.
[/quote]

You have the right to be a homophobe. It’s America! I’m still a bit of a homophobe myself in that I think it’s pretty friggin gross. But, as an American I think that’s the individuals business. With gays, I recognize that we have been quite spiteful to them in a legal way by various means as well as culturally which I have already brought up… What with anti sodomy laws and myself growing up playing smear the queer before even knowing what a queer was. We put laws in place to persecute them and single them out when there really isn’t anything in the constitution that says we should do such.

I think gays should, and should have always had the right to marry in the country according to the Constitution. That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry, because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be allowed to.

[/quote]

Lol! Unconstitutional? Washington didn’t allow homosexuals in the army and described their behaviour as detestable. Jefferson authored a bill in Virginia mandating castration for sodomy. All 13 states and later all 50 had anti-sodomy laws.

292

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.
[/quote]

You have the right to be a homophobe. It’s America! I’m still a bit of a homophobe myself in that I think it’s pretty friggin gross. But, as an American I think that’s the individuals business. With gays, I recognize that we have been quite spiteful to them in a legal way by various means as well as culturally which I have already brought up… What with anti sodomy laws and myself growing up playing smear the queer before even knowing what a queer was. We put laws in place to persecute them and single them out when there really isn’t anything in the constitution that says we should do such.

I think gays should, and should have always had the right to marry in the country according to the Constitution. That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry, because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be allowed to.

[/quote]

Lol! Unconstitutional? Washington didn’t allow homosexuals in the army and described their behaviour as detestable. Jefferson authored a bill in Virginia mandating castration for sodomy. All 13 states and later all 50 had anti-sodomy laws.
[/quote]

Exactly :slight_smile:

You finally get it.

There are amendments in the constitution which have historically inhibited people from the pursuit of happiness by disallowing them to take part in the same things that all other Americans take part in, which in itself is unconstitutional.

A good example is the 18th Amendment, we get shit wrong sometimes, and then we make more amendments to fix shit.

Certain things are supposed to be unalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. As American as anything we have

293

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.
[/quote]

You have the right to be a homophobe. It’s America! I’m still a bit of a homophobe myself in that I think it’s pretty friggin gross. But, as an American I think that’s the individuals business. With gays, I recognize that we have been quite spiteful to them in a legal way by various means as well as culturally which I have already brought up… What with anti sodomy laws and myself growing up playing smear the queer before even knowing what a queer was. We put laws in place to persecute them and single them out when there really isn’t anything in the constitution that says we should do such.

I think gays should, and should have always had the right to marry in the country according to the Constitution. That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry, because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be allowed to.

[/quote]

Lol! Unconstitutional? Washington didn’t allow homosexuals in the army and described their behaviour as detestable. Jefferson authored a bill in Virginia mandating castration for sodomy. All 13 states and later all 50 had anti-sodomy laws.
[/quote]

Exactly :slight_smile:

You finally get it.

There are amendments in the constitution which have historically inhibited people from the pursuit of happiness by disallowing them to take part in the same things that all other Americans take part in, which in itself is unconstitutional.

A good example is the 18th Amendment, we get shit wrong sometimes, and then we make more amendments to fix shit.

[/quote]

But there is no gay marriage amendment to the federal constitution so it’s not unconstitutional. And the founders would be horrified at such a notion. They’d consider my views radical and ultra liberal.

294

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
How do you account for scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics and survivability?

[/quote]

It may be genetic or it may not. Doesn’t change anything. And saying it’s linked to survivability is pure speculation/straw grasping.

Nothing. If it’s a genetic condition - and I’m not agreeing that it is - that makes no difference.

There is some evidence that women with more sons are more likely to have a gay child. But again that makes no difference to any of my points. It doesn’t matter why someone is gay. What matters is that they recognise it’s not normal/healthy and not engage in homosexual sex.

Monkeys sodomise their children. Should we do that too? Dogs eat their own vomit. Should we do that?

What I am saying is that my opinions on homosexuality were exactly the same before I was a believer.

I’m concerned with my own ethics and with the ethics of society. Just because people on this thread have been unable to convince me that homosexuality should be legitimised doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Present a cogent counterargument and I will give it serious consideration.
[/quote]

You have the right to be a homophobe. It’s America! I’m still a bit of a homophobe myself in that I think it’s pretty friggin gross. But, as an American I think that’s the individuals business. With gays, I recognize that we have been quite spiteful to them in a legal way by various means as well as culturally which I have already brought up… What with anti sodomy laws and myself growing up playing smear the queer before even knowing what a queer was. We put laws in place to persecute them and single them out when there really isn’t anything in the constitution that says we should do such.

I think gays should, and should have always had the right to marry in the country according to the Constitution. That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry, because it’s unconstitutional for them not to be allowed to.

[/quote]

Lol! Unconstitutional? Washington didn’t allow homosexuals in the army and described their behaviour as detestable. Jefferson authored a bill in Virginia mandating castration for sodomy. All 13 states and later all 50 had anti-sodomy laws.
[/quote]

Exactly :slight_smile:

You finally get it.

There are amendments in the constitution which have historically inhibited people from the pursuit of happiness by disallowing them to take part in the same things that all other Americans take part in, which in itself is unconstitutional.

A good example is the 18th Amendment, we get shit wrong sometimes, and then we make more amendments to fix shit.

[/quote]

But there is no gay marriage amendment to the federal constitution so it’s not unconstitutional. And the founders would be horrified at such a notion. They’d consider my views radical and ultra liberal.
[/quote]

The founders would be horrified at me serving in the Marines as well since I have some black heritage.

The founders wouldn’t be cool with blacks marrying whites… Or the prospect of there being a black president.

Like I said, sometimes the founders got shit wrong. We have done things like Amend the Constitution where it’s gotten things wrong like prohibition of alcohol.

Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what your forefathers believed in, in spirit. While as individuals they were subject to their own lack of worldliness because of social norms it doesn’t mean we need to follow their personal flaws which likely came about because of religion and the times themselves.

295

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The founders would be horrified at me serving in the Marines as well since I have some black heritage.

[/quote]

I doubt that. They were very much against slavery but didn’t have the support to outlaw it at the time.

Jefferson had a black mistress and fathered a child with her.

Yes they were wrong to allow capital punishment for sodomy. But they weren’t wrong to consider sodomy unnatural and unhealthy.

296

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The founders would be horrified at me serving in the Marines as well since I have some black heritage.

[/quote]

I doubt that. They were very much against slavery but didn’t have the support to outlaw it at the time.

Jefferson had a black mistress and fathered a child with her.

Yes they were wrong to allow capital punishment for sodomy. But they weren’t wrong to consider sodomy unnatural and unhealthy.

[/quote]

How do you even define un-natural? Is it the same way food companies advertise your chicken? All natural vs. Organic, vs. Organic and freerange, vs organic and cage free? Vs. Organic and vegetarian diet? Lol

Like you say, apes sodomize their offspring which happens in nature, that is natural. I see dogs jump on peoples legs all the time, is that natural? Seems to be… It happens in nature without our meddling… Seems to happen with humans quite a bit too, men and men as well as men and women.

In nature, some animals eat their kids…

The funny thing is in nature there isn’t marriage. So why are we attaching nature to marriage in the first place?

297

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But there is no gay marriage amendment to the federal constitution so it’s not unconstitutional. And the founders would be horrified at such a notion. They’d consider my views radical and ultra liberal.
[/quote]

Marriage is a state issue but the 14th Amendment opines that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Not allowing homosexuals the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples is near impossible to defend, legally, based on the pretext of that amendment. This was the same amendment used by the Supreme Court to strike down legal bans on interracial marriage (i.e., anti-miscegenation laws) in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case in the mid-1960s.

Granted, the historical background is different where interracial marriage bans are concerned, which is why the appellate courts have cautiously interpreted its application to same-sex marriage cases, BUT you can’t make the argument that disallowing same-sex couples the same privileges as heterosexual couples, be it in the form of a marriage or civil union, is a deprivation of the liberty of said consenting adults (liberty of choice in a marriage partner with applicable equal benefits )sans the due process of law.

On a side note, I think the word homophobia is poorly applied to debates like this. Most people likely do NOT have an irrational fear of homosexuals or same-sex sexual behavior, even those that have a personal, moral objection to said behavior; therefore, implying that someone is a homophobe is a brass assumption that someone has an anxiety disorder in the form of a phobia, which is a rash judgement unless you are a clinical psychologist who has diagnosed that person. I think the misuse of the word does everyone a disservice on both sides of the argument and, quite frankly, it’s a standard ad hominem crutch that usually has no place in a legitimate debate.

298

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The founders would be horrified at me serving in the Marines as well since I have some black heritage.

[/quote]

I doubt that. They were very much against slavery but didn’t have the support to outlaw it at the time.

Jefferson had a black mistress and fathered a child with her.

Yes they were wrong to allow capital punishment for sodomy. But they weren’t wrong to consider sodomy unnatural and unhealthy.

[/quote]

How do you even define un-natural? Is it the same way food companies advertise your chicken? All natural vs. Organic, vs. Organic and freerange, vs organic and cage free? Vs. Organic and vegetarian diet? Lol

Like you say, apes sodomize their offspring which happens in nature, that is natural. I see dogs jump on peoples legs all the time, is that natural? Seems to be… It happens in nature without our meddling… Seems to happen with humans quite a bit too, men and men as well as men and women.

In nature, some animals eat their kids…

The funny thing is in nature there isn’t marriage. So why are we attaching nature to marriage in the first place? [/quote]

By unnatural I mean against natural law. I don’t know what you’re getting at with the rest of your post. That people should be able to go up to strangers and start humping their leg? I only reinforces what I was saying.

299

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I doubt that. They were very much against slavery but didn’t have the support to outlaw it at the time.
[/quote]

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners.

300

So Sex just happened to stumble upon three completely far right websites tailored to the type of thinking he is espousing in this thread by google?

He didn’t click on the first, second, third, or fifth image, but the 4th one. The one that is from a disgusting website like spearhead?

Also he didn’t search with web for that, but images?

He “magically” happened to have the three links for the stuff we are talking about in this thread be from obscure websites that place an emphasis on the type of things we are talking about but from extreme points of views similar to what he has espoused throughout the thread.

Someone got caught. Someone is trying really hard to say “it’s not what you think it is!” It was an accident. I just happened to be wearing a white sheet the same night as those guys!

You’d have to be an idiot to think this was an accident, but Sex is going to try and play that card because he can’t play any other one. He got exposed.