So we've begun another June and with that we will be inundated with references to "Gay Pride", and still I've no understanding of how anyone can take pride in how they want to get their rocks off. While I know throughout history men (and some women) have taken pride in how many sexual partners they've had, but that's also a matter of taking pride in degradation, not in anything noble or beneficial to society or its culture. The same here. There's nothing noble about giving in to carnal desires and less so when those desires are the result of disorder and dysfunction as it the case with the homosexual. It's no different than taking pride in being bi-polar (no pun intended) or schizophrenic.
And of course, our culture has not been improved in any way by promoting, enabling, celebrating and defending the abnormal as normal. To the contrary, it has greased the skid of moral degradation which was already problematic and harmful. This was piling on...adding to the problem of cultural decay. Just as was true with the Playboy/Penthouse era leading to Hustler and other raunchier materials, and Hollywood pushing the envelope with regard to what can be portrayed on film...and then the effect it all had on the culture (did the culture lead to all that, or was it the other way around...likely it was both sides impacting each other), so too has the "acceptance" and "tolerance" of this perversion led to far worse manifestations of carnal expression and influence.
Children are more at risk than ever before and it's more clear than ever how these moral monsters seek to persuade more and more children that all this is all well and good, therefore forcing the "prophesy" that in time honest people devoted to the Will of God and just plain common sense and truthful scientific understanding will die out leaving them to further despoil the culture.
So while I still breathe, I will proclaim the truth and speak against this evil in the strongest possible terms while the activists and heretics continue to lie.
ADDENDUM:
Here's something interesting:
https://washingtonstand.com/news/buyers-remorse-support-for-samesex-agenda-craters-among-republicans
And here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7E6FuOdLYA
Dan wants us to listen to only the LGBTQ++++ side of stories for all the facts regarding their many woes and encounters with oppression. Yeah. Sure. Are there true stories of such? I'd wager there are. The problem is how many of the many related to us are the true stories? No way to tell if we go by Dan and his claims of having heard hundreds of them.
Tuesday, June 03, 2025
Perv Pride
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216I don't know why everything is being italicized. It's not my intention.
June 20, 2025 at 9:51 AM
"To put in terms of a logical argument, it might look like this...
* The Bible contains rules that are universally moral
* the rule, "a man should only marry one woman in his lifetime "
* therefore, God's rule for marriage MUST BE a man can only marry a woman
And that is, at this point, a failed rational argument."
What you've presented, first of all contains two unrelated premises, the second of which doesn't require anything referencing universal or case specific rules.
The third point is an unnecessary repetition of the second point. Thus, it's not in any way an example of "logical" argument and less so an intelligent one. Furthermore, it's not an argument anyone here, nor Gagnon is making. This again points to you having serious problems with comprehension.
"He/you haven't proven the first, underlying premise AND, further, y'all haven't dealt with the "not all rules are universal " problem in the second premise."
So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws in Scripture. And keep in mind, if you're insisting there are no such universality of any moral law in Scripture, and/or we just can't know which is which, then how can you suggest it's wrong for someone to slap the crap out of you?
"Those aren't the only rational and biblical problems in your (lack of an) argument, but they are huge and insurmountable resulting in a fatally flawed theory."
But you haven't demonstrated any problems in our arguments or that they are in any way flawed. You only assert they are without actual arguments to support the assertion. Another example of how ironically hypocritical you are. And I know you love irony!
WHERE does he support the premise??
Marshal...
"So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws"
1. YES. There is NO DATA to support the human theory that the Bible contains rules that are intended to be taken as universal rules.
2. I've been quite consistently telling you all the problem of viewing the Bible as a universal rulings book, because the Bible makes no such claims like that, nor has God told you that, and the claim is irrational on the face of it and in many ways contra-biblical.
3. I HAVE noted that there are rules in the Bible, of course, but that the rules that are universal are universal NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying it, but because the behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive.
That is, the Bible is clearly NOT a rulings book OR a book that contains some universal rules given to us by God. But there are behaviors that are bad because they're just bad, and the Bible notes that reality.
But I don't think you're getting the distinction.
And he still hasn't proven the premise.
Marshal...
"if you're insisting there are no such universality of any moral law in Scripture, and/or we just can't know which is which, then how can you suggest it's wrong for someone to slap the crap out of you?"
Because, ENTIRELY APART from your little magic rule book of your mind, humans have the capacity for moral reasoning. It's innately wrong to abuse human rights, for instance.
AND, that is PRECISELY the premise you're failing to prove or even ATTEMPT to prove.
(Rolls eyes..)
Marshal...
"You only assert they are without actual arguments to support the assertion."
I'm noting quite clearly and definitively that neither Gagnon not you have proven his premises. Period. That is a fact claim. Now, ALL you have to do is provide the place where he's proven the premise.
Or, admit you can't. The ball is in your court.
Whatever you think was a relevant omission from your first submission, and that the addition here of what was unintentional omitted there you think makes a significant difference, results in nothing more than that point two and three are redundancies with no relation whatsoever to point one. So let's review:
The Bible does indeed contain rules we are still obliged to abide. That goes without saying. Do dispute this requires an explanation for why it isn't so, and specifically, if it is stated in an attempt to defend abomination, even more solid evidence must accompany the claim. You don't get to come here and refuse to do for us what you demand like a petulant little girl what we're required under penalty of deletion what you want us to do for you.
Next, it's absurd to pretend that any line in the Bible which states we must do A, B & C is not the same as God setting forth a rule we must abide...unless there's something specific absolving us from that obligation.
I neither know nor care what bringing up personal attacks has to do with the rest of it.
Marshal...
"What you've presented, first of all contains two unrelated premises, the second of which doesn't require anything referencing universal or case specific rules."
I don't know what in the world you're talking about. Or, more likely, you don't know what you're talking about.
A. IS it the point of Gagnon and gang that God only wants men marrying women, and one woman at that (and vice versa)?
B. IS that an objectively proven universal rule?
C. HOW does Gagnon "know" that?
D. IS it because (he thinks) there are lines in the Bible that objectively prove that?
E. If so, WHY does it matter if there are lines in the Bible that he personally thinks mean that this is what God wants?
F. Is it because the Bible has universal rules for morality and marriage?
G.SAYS WHO? PROVE THAT PREMISE.
Do you see why you must prove your human opinion about rule book Bible to build that case?
IF the Bible is not a universal rulings book, then what difference does it make that Gagnon thinks there's a universal rule from God about marriage? Who should care? Based on what?
No matter how I frame it, you appear to not recognize the rational/biblical problems you have.
Way up above, Marshal declared, with no support...
"The Bible does indeed contain rules we are still obliged to abide. That goes without saying."
No. It does NOT go without saying. THAT IS the unproven premise.
WHO SAYS it goes without saying?? Marshal? Who in the unholy hell is he to make that sort of wild declaration? Because the humans in Marshal's human traditions REALLLLLLY want it to be accepted without challenge?
Bullshit. We got no kings in the free world of the beloved community... no human dictator is going to decide for us what we must believe.
THAT is a premise - the same one Gagnon and other pharisee types keep declaring without supporting.
THAT is the premise that must be proven before you move on to your other logical fallacies and biblical heresies.
Marshal...
"To dispute this requires an explanation for why it isn't so, and specifically, if it is stated in an attempt to defend abomination..."
1. Because there is NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to make it so.
2. Because the biblical authors never once made that claim.
3. Because most, if not all the time, rules found in the Bible are specifically written to specific people and situations.
4. Because GOD has never told us to embrace this heresy.
5. Because it's neither rational nor biblically rational.
And, once again,
6. It's an unproven premise.
Craig, tell me you at least understand the rational failure here and that, based at least upon Gagnon's little opinion, he hasn't even tried to support the premise.
Y'all DO understand what a premise is, don't you??
This is so deeply weird.
June 20, 2025 at 3:38 PM
"That's not an "unproven human opinion" give all the commandments, prohibitions, restrictions and teachings regarding what constitutes obedience or disobedience to the Will of God."
"I think you just don't understand."
I most certainly do. The above quote from me is directly referencing the following moronic statement of yours:
""That is, he's operating from the unproven human opinion that the Bible is somehow a moral rulings book.""
" He's operating based upon a premise he hasn't proven. NO ONE is disputing that one can find rules in the biblical texts.
Where is the proof they're INTENDED to be universal?"
Ah...I see the issue here: you think you get to demand proof for that with which you disagree, rather than facing your obligation to provide evidence justifying your disagreement. You don't get to come here and demand we prove our claims, or to demand we prove your claims are untrue. Indeed, while you are visiting here, you are the only one obliged to prove anything with actual evidence drawn from where I demand you must. Whether you're making a fact claim or just rendering an opinion, you're required to provide evidence which justifies either to MY satisfaction, just as you make such a demand of us at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Given how stupid and false you are, no one is more required to do so here. Except your troll, but I don't allow his comment submissions to see the light of day, so it's just you. You're just that freakin' special.
"Where is the proof that these ARE universal?"
Where is the proof they aren't? Only YOU'RE required to prove your claims and your claim is that the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not a universal one for all time and in any context or scenario in which it might take place.
"What line in Gagnons little talk supports those claims?"
He's not required to present his case in a manner which satisfies your petulant and ever changing criteria. But YOU'RE required to provide evidence that his position is wrong or flawed, or that yours is worth more than the laughs it provokes.
"You don't have to come up with the answer. All you have to do is point to where he answers these problems OR admit he doesn't even try."
I don't have to do that, either. Especially since I don't see any problems at all with his brief explanation, much less his full career of comprehensively supported explanations. No problems with his dissertation exists just because you don't want to buy it. So ignore your bullshit claim problems actually exist in his presentation and get to providing evidence right here and now to support your ludicrous claims regarding God and SSM.
I had asked...
"Where is the proof that these ARE universal?"
Marshal did not answer, nor TRY to answer. Instead, he asked...
Where is the proof they aren't? Only YOU'RE required to prove your claims and your claim is that the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not a universal one for all time and in any context or scenario in which it might take place.
1. YOU all are the ones making an outlandish and unproven claim:
The Bible is a moral rulings book where we can somehow glean universal rules, approved/demanded by God. The one making the outlandish claim is beholden to support it.
2. My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book. The Bible and its authors make no such claims. God has not told you this. It is a premise held by a certain subset of religionists and it is an unproven premise. STILL.
If Ralph the mechanic came along and told us that the Bible is actually, in part, a car repair guide. Something the Bible never claims.
The ones is on Ralph to prove the premise, if he wants others to accept it.
We don't have to prove it's NOT a holy car manual.
We feel good enough knowing that both Gagnon and all of us argues our position far better than you and with actual evidence...not defaulting to "Nyuh uh" and "Prove it" when faced with that which is incontrovertible. Of course, you never present anything which is in the same universe as "incontrovertible", so you don't truly argue for or against anything at all. You assert abomination is cool if those eager to engage in it say "I love you" to each other. How childish! How Trabue-ish!
June 19, 2025 at 9:54 PM
"But go ahead and try to show where his case "falls apart"."
"It's not so much that his case falls apart... it just never starts."
Be honest. You didn't even watch the first ten minutes after all, did you. Only a lying enabler of perversion like you would pretend he wasn't making his case even that early in the video.
"Y'all DO understand what I'm saying about not even trying to prove his premises, right?"
Yeah. We understand that you're lying again because he was making a great case even within the first ten minutes you claim to have watched but probably didn't.
"I know I can't ask that question without sounding condescending, but you all respond to my points as if you're not grasping the problem."
Bullshit. We're responding to an asshole who hasn't shown there are any problems to grasp.
June 20, 2025 at 1:40 PM
"This has very little to do with theology, really, and so much to do with basic reasoning."
You've never presented anything remotely akin to true reasoning in any defense of perversion you've offered. Thus, for you to suppose you can identify where reason is or isn't is laughable.
"WHERE is the supporting data to support the Rulings Book Bibke that his opinions are loosely based upon?"
Where is your supporting data for criticizing or trying to rebut Gagnon or any of us? We're under no obligation here to respond to your petulant demands at this blog. Save that crap for your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Here, you provide evidence in support of your claims and opinions, be they for your positions or to argue against ours. Ours are backed by Scripture, as are Gagnon's. Yours are backed by your insistence they have Scriptural support or basis despite your refusal to provide it.
"I'm not saying I'm a genius or an expert theologian."
Is that supposed to be a gracious act of humility? You shouldn't dare say you're even casually familiar with Scripture. It's all I can do to keep from peeing myself with laughter at the very notion. What a condescending ass you are!
"I'm pointing to the complete absence of support for his first unspoken premise."
OK...this is confusing, Mr. Master (De)Bater. He's not supporting what he didn't say? WTF!!!
"By all means, point to the words where he tries to support that premise and I can apologize profusely for missing it."
You want me to point to unspoken words? WFT are you even doing?
"But failing that, y'all can't attack, belittle, demonize and otherwise bully adults into going along with unsupported premises."
What's with you "Rainbow" assholes pretending anyone is attacking, belittling, demonize or bullying anyone into agreement? Any demonizing of you is due to your being an asshole who lies supports that which God has called abomination, and then daring to "attack, belittle, demonize and otherwise bully" us for standing for the truth of Scripture.
"It doesn't take a genius to notice it's missing."
But it takes an honest man to point out evidence in support of his position. Not being such a person, you've refused to do that. Instead, you pretend better, more knowledgeable people haven't proven their position. "Nyuh uh" doesn't work here, Sally. You wouldn't know "Logic" if it kicked you in your lady parts.
Where have you ever supported any of yours? You're under the obligation to do so here...not to question the arguments of others. If you can't provide support for your claims or objections, you will not get satisfaction demanding ever more evidence for that which is well supported already.
June 20, 2025 at 5:57 PM
"So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws"
"1. YES. There is NO DATA to support the human theory that the Bible contains rules that are intended to be taken as universal rules."
This is childish bullshit. On what basis must Scripture make such a proclamation about God's laws, simply because you're too stupid to differentiate between ritual/purity/ceremonial laws and laws which remain in play? You only say this crap to provide you the loophole you need to celebrate, defend, support and enable perversions you find personally pleasing. This is the whole point of this long discussion: there's no Scriptural basis for presuming that God would ever bless an SSM. None whatsoever and certainly none that you've ever offered without perverting Scripture to do it.
"2. I've been quite consistently telling you all the problem of viewing the Bible as a universal rulings book, because the Bible makes no such claims like that, nor has God told you that, and the claim is irrational on the face of it and in many ways contra-biblical."
That's not an actual problem. That's a fiction you impose to allow you the ability to pretend your defense of your beloved perverts is acceptable to God. The real problem is that you refuse to defend your love of homosexual behavior despite God's unequivocal prohibition of it. Your a pervert and God's Will is inconvenient for you. When scholars like Gagnon get deep in the weeds of affirming what gives you the vapors, you lash out at him instead of providing a coherent, intelligent, honest and Scripture based counter argument...because no such thing exists.
"3. I HAVE noted that there are rules in the Bible, of course, but that the rules that are universal are universal NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying it, but because the behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive."
Says who? Where does it say anything like that in Scripture? Where is your support for your premise that behaviors you find personally disagreeable are universally immoral on the basis of your subjective criteria?
That is, the Bible is clearly NOT a rulings book OR a book that contains some universal rules given to us by God. But there are behaviors that are bad because they're just bad, and the Bible notes that reality. Why should anyone give a flying rats' ass that Dan Trabue believes a given "behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive"? How is your opinion binding on anyone, but God's Will is not? For actual Christians, harm and abuse is not a more serious and important factor than is God's prohibition of any such behavior. This is no more than you dictating morality and subordinating God's Will to your personal opinions about behaviors. Arguing against the universality of the prohibition against your homosexual desires because it doesn't fit the Dan Trabue standard for bad behavior is flipping off the God you pretend to revere and worship.
"But I don't think you're getting the distinction."
Yeah....sure. I get that you're making childish arguments to protect your favorite sin.
And he still hasn't proven the premise.
Post a Comment