Update: from based to soycuck.
LGBT Agenda
- Thread starter Shaquilleoatmeal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cultural marxism
Putin: "The USA is run by a satanic elite."
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei: "The USA is the great satan."
The USA...
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei: "The USA is the great satan."
The USA...
Every nation has it's blasphemy laws.
Death penalty for faggotry is one of the toughest pills for Christians to swallow. Too many Christians have a soft spot for fags since “it’s two men doing a private act, I’ve fornicated myself who am I to judge”This theory is often repeated, but was never true historically, and there is little evidence to support it today.
Historically, in times of heirarchy and authority, the culture clearly eminated from the leadership. Indeed, even the arts and culture were typically sanctioned by the elite class or the government itself.
In a modern democracy, perhaps things have reversed. Still, I tend to the viewpoint that culture is downstream from politics.
Remember, we only got gay marriage because it was politically forced on us. Supposedly "superliberal" California rejected it. "Liberal" Barack Hussein Obama opposed it. Then it was forced politically and it has spread culturally like wildfire. Is that not culture following politics?
The same was true of course with forced integration, miscegenation, "civil rights", tranny bathrooms, etc. In fact, I struggle to see examples of the Andrew Breitbart claim of politics being downstream from the culture.
This is not the best article, but just one of the more mainstream articles google was willing to serve up on a quick search.
Again, this wasn't even true in "liberal" California, whose residents banned gay people from marrying until the political system reversed the will of the people.
If the majority accept LGBT today, it is precisely because of the political actions condoning such actions first.
If you still think politics trickles down from culture, look into Weimer Germany and how just a few years later, the most degenerate people in Europe did an about face and were doing this:
It’s the main reason people hate Steven Anderson, even though he speaks the truth.
The death penalty is not something I'd accept for just homosexuality.Death penalty for faggotry is one of the toughest pills for Christians to swallow. Too many Christians have a soft spot for fags since “it’s two men doing a private act, I’ve fornicated myself who am I to judge”
It’s the main reason people hate Steven Anderson, even though he speaks the truth.
Pedophilia... absolutely.
But homos can still repent and change their actions.
There isn’t anywhere in the Bible that says the death penalty exists for pedophilia.
Some say Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Offend in this biblical context means “cause to sin”, how can a 6 year old sin when they’re being molested? Unless you’re implying god holds them responsible (which of course is nonsense).
Also it says “believe in me”, so atheist little ones wouldn’t apply here.
Anyway lastly I’ll point out how Romans 1 calls them “reprobates”, meaning beyond the hope of salvation. There isn’t a single example of sodomites in the Bible being saved. While King David was a murderer was saved and Rahab was a prostitute was saved.
Death penalty for homosexuality sounds extreme but looking at the fruits (more like the thorns) of homosexuality makes it hard to deny that it's in the state's best interest to target it with utmost prejudice.
There is.
1 Corinthians 6. Some of the believers who have been washed, sanctified, and justified were former homosexuals.
Not only can homosexuality be repented of, it must be repented of.
The Church is in the repentance business, not the death-penalty business. Hence, I can endorse the state's right to enact the death penalty on homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, and all other perversion because the state is not the Church at the end of the day, nor is it meant to be.
Which Bible version and verse is this?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Pick any translation you like, the Koine Greek remains the same. What the KJV renders as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in verse 9, most other translations will render as "homosexuals", which is what arsenokoitai means.
Paul then describes this sin, along with other sins, as formerly characterizing some of the believers in Corinth in verse 11. Such were some of them. But they were washed, sanctified, justified.
Homosexuals can and must repent.
Last edited:
August 14 - Gay Uncle Day
Last edited:
Re: California voting for gay marriage.
Exactly. That is proof of the political class influencing the masses. Gay marriage was forced by political dictate when unpopular; today if a poll was held, gay marriage would probably have majority support in at least 45 states, if not all. I mean.. that's exactly what culture following politics means.
But I agree, like everything else (nature vs nuture, IQ versus experience, race vs education) it's ALWAYS a bit of this and a bit of that.
On the other hand, look at what is happening around the world.
Is this going to succeed or fail?
Or just look at places where the people are racially and ethnically identical, like the Koreas or Taiwanese vs mainland China and explain why one of the two "suddenly" has a huge incidence of gayness over the past couple of decades. It's obvious:
The alternative theory would have to explain why South Koreans are more attracted to the anus than those above the 47th parallel, and its politicians just finally throw up their hands and say "fine, since you love the butt, you can have the butt". That theory never made any sense to me.
Last edited:
Re: California voting for gay marriage.
Exactly. That is proof of the political class influencing the masses. Gay marriage was forced by political dictate when unpopular; today if a poll was held, gay marriage would probably have majority support in at least 45 states, if not all. I mean.. that's exactly what culture following politics means.
But I agree, like everything else (nature vs nuture, IQ versus experience, race vs education) it's ALWAYS a bit of this and a bit of that.
On the other hand, look at what is happening around the world.
Is this going to succeed or fail?
Or just look at places where the people are racially and ethnically identical, like the Koreas or Taiwanese vs mainland China and explain why one of the two "suddenly" has a huge incidence of gayness over the past couple of decades. It's obvious:
The alternative theory would have to explain why South Koreans are more attracted to the anus than those above the 47th parallel, and its politicians just finally throw up their hands and say "fine, since you love the butt, you can have the butt". That theory never made any sense to me.
The difference in acceptance of gay marriage for China vs Taiwan would actually be a point in favor of how politics is downstream for culture. Taiwan already had a reputation for being gay friendly compared to the rest of Asia long before the legalization of gay marriage. Taiwan's always been more open and accepting of a lot of the clown world stuff of which gay marriage is a part of since the nation has always craved being part of the whole rules-based liberal world order since they see it as a way of contrasting themselves with the mainland Chinese and also a way of garnering sympathy from countries that see China as a rival.
The point is politicians who advocate for abortion, gay marriage, war, trannies, child mutilation, childsex (that one is coming), do not deserve our support, attention, and certainly not our endorsement, monies or energies.
What we are supposed to do about it? If we are interested in changing our communities, work on a local level, get involved informally with neighbors and organizations, or formally in local politics.
Do not give support, energies, or attention to evil men doing evil things. Do not honor them or give them your blessing. This was how the vast majority of Christians viewed the world of politics prior to the 1980s. (Which is striking because our leadership today is far more evil than in past decades).
Lee Atwater convinced tens of millions of faithful Christians to come to the voting booth in 1981, most for the first time. Prior to this, men of faith considered it immoral to participate in the political process. Has that changed? Ask your priest.
I suppose one could argue for some sort of Machiavellian "yeah it is bad to participate in a corrupt practice but in the end if it creates a victory or good result then we can argue that the End Justifies The Means." That's not really a defensible Christian position, but irrelevant, because despite all the support from Christian voters and the "Moral Majority" movement, we ended up with a far more evil society today than we had in the 70s.
The facts do not support the idea that Christian voters make any positive moral difference. In fact, one would struggle to find any area of improvement. (The Gilens and Page study proved empirically that there is zero correlation between American voters wishes and political outcomes meaning even if you voted so hard that 100% of the people came out, there is zero evidence that anything would change):
So why compromise your soul to support evil?
If Godfearing Christian people had abstained from the political process (as they had done for decades prior to 1981) what would be the result today? We may never know, but it is hard to imagine a worse outcome.
And the biggest argument is that life is a zero sum game. We only have a certain amount of time to post online, go to political rallies, enjoy our time off from work, and live life, and by capitalizing on the time and attention of 10s of millions of Christian voters, we may never know, in the spirit of Bastiat's Seen and Unseen, the work they WOULD have otherwise done, OUTSIDE of the political realm, to preserve our society today, had they not been hypnotised by false promises from demonic leaders.
You can only look at any event of the past 20 years, and see that it is really ONLY the people on their own, outside of the political sphere, who are having any victories. Look at the BLM riots for example. Even during a "conservative" supermajority with a "conservative" president, government did nothing to stop rioting--it was guys like the Idaho militias and Kyle Rittenhouse. If they were busy campaigning for Nikki Haley, or collecting donations for the Federalist Society, Kenosha Wisconsin would probably be a smoldering ruin today.
None of this was controversial a few decades ago, and entire churches stayed completely away from the political process. Adam Curtis talks about this a lot in Power of Nightmares part 2.
At the end of the day, we live in a representative democracy, so if one wants to go to the voting booth every four years and QUIETLY hold your nose and pull a lever for one of the 2 selected choices, I don't see a big problem with that, but go to the booth and come home and continue, without letting these evil leaders live at all in your thoughts and actions outside of election day. And remember, thanks to the electoral college, it is highly unlikely your vote will ever have a chance of mattering. There are only about 7 states that are ever up for grabs, where you vote could potentially matter (assuming you somehow believed in the fantasy that your vote has a political outcome, which the Gilens/Page study disproved)..
And why is that?
Did they come from a region of China that has more microplastics in the water?
Are they mysteriously naturally a more evil people, because they live in a tiny island?
Are they evolving into different types of homo sapiens than mainlanders?
Or could it be once they separated from the mainland in 1949, a series of laws were passed which created a difference in the populace that didn't exist before?
What is the explanation other than a political one?
Does anyone credibly believe that what makes these people
behave differently from these people
is ANYTHING other than this man?
