SSMcDonald #fundie

SSMcDonald #fundie politicaloutcast.com

This is not the first time I have sent you this same message; I suspect
maybe you people are deliberately being part of the problem:

People play into the hands of the evil one by using his politically
correct euphemisms.

In this instance, the use of the euphemism “gay” helps to spread his
unacceptable evil by glossing over what it really is; (homosexuality) making the
term "gay" acceptable in the thinking of the uneducated masses.

ALWAYS use the correct terminology: pervert,
homosexual, deviant, queer, or sodomite. CEASE using the evil one’s terminology,
“gay;” you only promote the spread of his agenda.

69 comments

old comment by UHM

"In this instance, the use of the euphemism “gay” helps to spread his unacceptable evil by glossing over what it really is; (homosexuality) making the term "gay" acceptable in the thinking of the uneducated masses."
Oh another fucker that doesn't understand how language works.
"homosexual" - for any gender no matter if male or female, scientific in its usage and therefor neutral.
"gay" - for same-sex people, especially male, unscientific and colloquial, had prejortive meaning but lost it over time.
"lesbian" - for female same-sex people, unscientific and colloquial, had prejortive meaning but lost it over time.
"pervert" - "turned aside", "turned from the norm", often meaing to be moral, but often also something completely normal like a "perverted business model". Prejorative.
"sodomite" - practitioner of sodomy, depending on who you ask that includes anal, oral and bestiality.

We can test how these words work: "A is a B"
|A B homosexual gay lesbian pervert sodomite
he Y Y N Y Y
she Y N Y Y Y
it Y N N Y N
You might have noticed something by now, they aren't the same words.

@Filin De Blanc: It's almost as if Andy Schlafly took over Satanism.

old comment by rikalous

@Phillip-George:

What is Gay? Holding hands?

If it's between two members of the same gender and done romantically, yes. If it's between two members of the opposite gender, no.

Double fisted true love and an attack on the immune system?

See above. As plenty of people have told you, hets do all the same sex stuff homos do. Plenty of het sex stuff carries just as much risk of STD spread as gay sex.

Pick up a news paper. Gay Lobby is screaming on a daily basis. Sex, Sex, Sex is one of the defining things of the 9 points of a civilization in decline.

The gay lobby wants to be allowed to marry. The anti-gay lobby goes on and on about anal sex being icky. Who's the sex-obsessed one in this picture?

@ Gay lobby spokesman,

Thanks for the offer and it sounds like a very highly paid job with all the right benefits, health etc. But I don't know if it would be offensive to claim the title spokesman.

Please use spokes person as not to offend anyone here.

Sasha, rikalous, you're beginning to get the point. Definition. Actual detail.

Eg. Indissoluble union, till death does you part, love honor and obey. Obey, Obey. The Marriage Bed is Undefiled. Marriage is to beget children, an act of worship. To the exclusion of all others, not to be entered into lightly.

Sasha, Male sperm trains a woman's immune system. The more sperm, the more often, the less the incidence of pre-eclampsia. Females can swallow it, take it vaginally or rectally, it lowers risk to mother and baby.

And you got the point. The marriage bed is undefiled. So no, heterosexual sodomy doesn't exist. [but I'm not dogmatic about this]

Anyway, anyone passing interested, Jesus said seek first the Kingdom of God. Nothing makes sense without a minimal content of revelation..

otherwise you're just preaching humanism.

old comment by Canuovea

PG, one thing...

Marriage isn't just for children, at least according to St. Paul. If you can't abstain, marry in order not to burn. So in that sense it was a sexual outlet for those who weren't asexual or able to totally deny the desire for sex. It was as a holy vent for sexual attraction. Of course those with homosexual attraction (gay) got the short end of the stick there.

Of course, marriage wasn't necessarily a Christian institution. In fact, there have even been secular marriages in history. Rome, for instance. Marriage was just a means to show that the babies that came out of that particular woman were your heirs. You could sleep around elsewhere if you wished (Caesar, for instance).

Now it seems to be about expressing love and commitment for another human being you care about. Definitions change, I suppose.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

So much for the claim about "loving the sinner and hating the sin."

@PG

By the very definition you posted, "sodomite" has been used as a term of abuse for nearly two hundred years. Unless you are going to return to using the English of Henry VIII, you're stuck with the language as it is today. Language, like everything else, moves on.

As for "What is Gay?", you don't even have to hold hands to be gay. Gay relationships are primarily relationships and, like heterosexual ones, can last through the disability, sickness and beyond the death of one partner. Marriage, gay or straight, is not all about sex. Until you have some perspective on what a life-long relationship involves, you would do well to pontificate a little less about marriage.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@rikalous

Marriage is to beget children, an act of worship. To the exclusion of all others, not to be entered into lightly.

"Ah, the old gays-can't-marry-because-they-can't-have-kids thing. So either you're okay with infertile het couples marrying, which is hypocrisy, or you want couples to pass a fertility test before they can marry, which is cruel to the infertile and invasive to everyone."

Elton John. David Furnish. Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, and Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John.

I love the smell of annihilated arguments - and unjustifiable bigotries - in the morning. Smells like... victory.

...oh, and in b4 the troll dares to say what I'd expect bigots like him to come out with, when confronted by said argument-annihilating facts...!

old comment by Canuovea

I do think the adoption part makes sense (agreeing with Anon-e-moose, it happens)... and while annulment due to infertility happens... that doesn't mean that an infertile couple cannot get married. As in, they cannot by (real, secular) law do so. They can, so the point really is moot.

Consider a Gay couple to simply be infertile. If they get married, they can recognize that they cannot physically have children. They can, however, adopt, so... same deal.

As for the right to coitus... secular law doesn't actually care what consenting couples do or don't do in the bedroom.

Understanding the difference between Canon and State law isn't naive. One matters to everyone living in the state, one matters only to those who acknowledge it matters...

SSMcDonald #fundie politicaloutcast.com

69 comments

Confused?