The Gay Pride Month Thread

Gimlet

Kingfisher
As for the whole 'transgender' man exposing himself in that spa, that's the fault of feminist women (which includes all the 'non-feminist' women who stood by and did nothing to stop your sistas). You women wanted 'rights' that were unbiblical, and now the 'overton window' has caught up to you - no sympathy.
Black and Korean women (patrons of the spa) were not behind the tranny push. That was and is pushed by oppressed middle class white women and the simps who love them. Who showed up to fight the protestors? White women and their homo boyfriends.
 
Black and Korean women (patrons of the spa) were not behind the tranny push. That was and is pushed by oppressed middle class white women and the simps who love them. Who showed up to fight the protestors? White women and their homo boyfriends.

I understand where you're coming from, and agree with it to an extent. Remember that the "Black and Korean women" of whom you reference have, collectively, no problem benefitting themselves from the corrupt system (albeit in somewhat different ways). If I were to take advantage of a corrupt system, can I legitimately claim outrage when that corrupt system benefits someone else in ways I personally don't agree with?

'simps=homo boyfriends'? You may actually be onto something here.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
As for the whole 'transgender' man exposing himself in that spa, that's the fault of feminist women (which includes all the 'non-feminist' women who stood by and did nothing to stop your sistas). You women wanted 'rights' that were unbiblical, and now the 'overton window' has caught up to you - no sympathy.
Even if a woman has feminist ideas, she does not deserve to have a man expose himself to her in a woman's locker room.

A man exposing his privates to an unwilling woman (in a female locker room, no less) is a form of sexual violation. It is less severe than rape or sexual assault, but is a violation nonetheless.

I had a female family member (not overtly feminist but not Christian either) tell me how a man on a crowded subway platform stared at her while masturbating and exposing his privates to her. She felt violated. I sympathize with her. It made me angry to hear.
 

Gimlet

Kingfisher
I understand where you're coming from, and agree with it to an extent. Remember that the "Black and Korean women" of whom you reference have, collectively, no problem benefitting themselves from the corrupt system (albeit in somewhat different ways). If I were to take advantage of a corrupt system, can I legitimately claim outrage when that corrupt system benefits someone else in ways I personally don't agree with?

'simps=homo boyfriends'? You may actually be onto something here.
I do not know whether black women and or Korean women are benefitting from a corrupt system. (I don't think you know that either, and instead are reacting to my critique of your post out of pride.) I do know they aren't pushing trannyism. And therefore they do not deserve to stare at the cock of a deranged tranny. To say they brought it uopn themselves simply is not true.
 
Even if a woman has feminist ideas, she does not deserve to have a man expose himself to her in a woman's locker room.
I actually don't know about this, Rob, as it was "feminist ideas" that made it possible that, one day, "a woman's locker room" would no longer be reserved for 'women only'.
A man exposing his privates to an unwilling woman (in a female locker room, no less) is a form of sexual violation. It is less severe than rape or sexual assault, but is a violation nonetheless.

I had a female family member (not overtly feminist but not Christian either) tell me how a man on a crowded subway platform stared at her while masturbating and exposing his privates to her. She felt violated. I sympathize with her. It made me angry to hear.
Biblically, what you have described is a sexual violation, and the perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly; but since the country has declared itself "Secular" through years and years of democracy, then that is where the problem actually lay.

Revolting behavior, but what can we do? This planet has reached the 'liberated' point of no return. Most individuals (males included) want to take full advantage of the nonsense in their own way, and our "Brave New World" is going to clash internally on 'rights for me, but not for thee'. I sympathize with those who are victims of a system they completely reject, and there may have been individuals in that spa setting who fit that bill; I do not know. That is why my original comment said "collectively" - there are exceptions to generalities and a case-by-case basis is needed to seek out those individuals, hence the purpose behind command to 'make disciples by spreading the gospel'. Matthew 28:19, 20.
 
I do not know whether black women and or Korean women are benefitting from a corrupt system. (I don't think you know that either, and instead are reacting to my critique of your post out of pride.) I do know they aren't pushing trannyism. And therefore they do not deserve to stare at the cock of a deranged tranny. To say they brought it uopn themselves simply is not true.
That depends; have they pushed a civilization that has allowed/supported the pushing of trannyism?
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
Revolting behavior, but what can we do? This planet has reached the 'liberated' point of no return. Most individuals (males included) want to take full advantage of the nonsense in their own way, and our "Brave New World" is going to clash internally on 'rights for me, but not for thee'. I sympathize with those who are victims of a system they completely reject, and there may have been individuals in that spa setting who fit that bill; I do not know. That is why my original comment said "collectively" - there are exceptions to generalities and a case-by-case basis is needed to seek out those individuals, hence the purpose behind command to 'make disciples by spreading the gospel'. Matthew 28:19, 20.
OK, but even individuals who do not "completely reject" the system can still be victims of it.

You can't expect a woman brought up by normie boomers to become a devout Christian and reject feminism completely. That doesn't mean she deserves to be sexually violated.
 
@Rob Banks
I had seen your post here, just before logging-out earlier. I was going to respond to it tomorrow,
but reflecting on my failure to self-apply Ephesians 4:26, I need to respond to one part of it now.

That part of my response that you bolded was harsh; I got over-zealous there with some self-righteousness,
and should have humbled myself before hitting "post reply". Thanks for calling me out on that.

Goodnight, Mr Banks. You too, @Gimlet
 
Although disgusted by this "fag crap" myself, I must go against the gleeful responses to your post, MFTP.

The only message this^^ is sending, is an attempt to excuse willful destruction of another person's private property. If you are offended at globohomo material in a shop, then go somewhere else. How would you like it if some LGTBQ+ individuals entered your open home and started ripping your Bible apart?

If a man is truly convinced that he has justification in doing what you haved proposed, then said individual will stand behind his work, proudly and openly, in whatever establishment he's in. Instead of online chest-thumping, try shouting at the top of your lungs, in full sight and hearing of everyone else in that shop, "In the name of Jesus Christ, I do this!"; then proceed to act on your aspirations.

As this was not your store, you had no right to commit the vandalism you are boasting about.
A grocery store is not their home either. Yes the corporations have sold out, but who says we have to accept that? Everyone here has their own free will, all I know is that there are a lot of destroyed fag propaganda wherever I go AND only when I can do it subtly without anyone seeing me. There are many, many times I cannot do it because of cctv monitoring or just too many npcs in the area. I don't have time to waste to go around and assault the enemy in occupied territory, I am merely suggesting that the more destroyed fag propaganda there is, the more it will resonate with people who are against this crap (a majority, always). I do everything in His name that is righteous, I don't have to announce it. Why give myself away? There is no sin with attacking from the shadows. I could cheat the devil a million times of his earthly power and ability to arrest and kill me for my beliefs by remaining hidden and only acting in a guerilla fashion, and God would reward me for it. God does not want us to be stupid, yes he wants us to take a stand, but why blow it all on one thing when you can retreat back to the shadows and continue waging war on the enemy in a covert fashion? This is a long term spiritual battle, and I do not intend to do anything conventional while the enemy has the upper hand in the earthly systems.
 

Belgrano

Ostrich
Gold Member
"God curse all of you! You're an abomination!"
Says the male decked out in tattoos, dressed like a callejero thug. There was no self-defence in this instance;
the rosary-wielding male was the aggressor. His behaviour was no better then his opponents.

It's called "righteous anger".

Jesus: *grabs a whip and expels the money changers from the temple*

You: "There was no self-defence in this instance; the whip-wielding male was the aggressor. His behaviour was no better then his opponents."
 
Last edited:

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
It's called "righteous anger".

Jesus: *grabs a whip and expels the money changers from the temple*

You: "There was no self-defence in this instance; the whip-wielding male was the aggressor. His behaviour was no better then his opponents."
Apparently in his version of the Bible, the “whip” was figurative. Instead, Jesus gathered his disciples, formed a political action committee, and did his darndest to vote the money changers out of the temple.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Although disgusted by this "fag crap" myself, I must go against the gleeful responses to your post, MFTP.

The only message this^^ is sending, is an attempt to excuse willful destruction of another person's private property. If you are offended at globohomo material in a shop, then go somewhere else. How would you like it if some LGTBQ+ individuals entered your open home and started ripping your Bible apart?

If a man is truly convinced that he has justification in doing what you haved proposed, then said individual will stand behind his work, proudly and openly, in whatever establishment he's in. Instead of online chest-thumping, try shouting at the top of your lungs, in full sight and hearing of everyone else in that shop, "In the name of Jesus Christ, I do this!"; then proceed to act on your aspirations.

As this was not your store, you had no right to commit the vandalism you are boasting about.
And this, dear fellows, is why the right lost the culture war. Rather than taking the offensive, they'd rather just sit by and allow "LGBTQ+ individuals to enter your open home and start ripping your Bible apart." Because those individuals would have no qualms about doing something like that if it were permitted by Globohomo, but don't you even dare do anything about that because "turn the other cheek" so that we can openly subvert your society while you stand by idly and do nothing about it, and also because your state doesn't happen to have a Castle Doctrine law. Just sit down and be a good goy while we slowly and methodically turn everybody else into a zombie so that you eventually end up isolated and surrounded by a horde of mindless, immoral and bloodthirsty monsters who will gleefully tie you up, rape your wife and kids in your sight, and then kill all of you when we give the command, and we'll pardon them from any consequence in the legal system.

Because you'd rather lose nobly than go down fighting and seizing that even 0.00001% chance of victory.

"God curse all of you! You're an abomination!"
Says the male decked out in tattoos, dressed like a callejero thug. There was no self-defence in this instance;
the rosary-wielding male was the aggressor. His behaviour was no better then his opponents.
Now see, this is where you're wrong: yes, on an individual level, he was the aggressor, but what you're missing here is that on a societal level, he is not the aggressor. His society was invaded, molested, raped by those people and people like them. What he is experiencing here is righteous anger, even if he is expressing that in a less-than-optimal way. But nobody is blaming him for the anger he shows here because it is fully justified, and also, people are cheering on him because he is standing up, saying, and doing what so many are afraid to say and do. This is true courage, not the bullshit "bravery" the lavender zombies call it when they come out with the full support of the corpocracy, the vocal populace, the government, and even the armed forces of the government that hold the monopoly on violence.

Get over your worship of private property, libertarian man, and come home to nationalism.
 

Horus

Ostrich
Gold Member
"Rooftop Korean" guy did the right thing in defending himself afterwards; yes he was assaulted first. However, he also foolishly set himself up to be a victim to begin with, by deliberately placing himself in that scenario.

As for the whole 'transgender' man exposing himself in that spa, that's the fault of feminist women (which includes all the 'non-feminist' women who stood by and did nothing to stop your sistas). You women wanted 'rights' that were unbiblical, and now the 'overton window' has caught up to you - no sympathy.
Don't forget that although they wanted non biblical rights, it was us who granted it to them.
 
We must tailor our response to the people we are dealing with.

Rainbow signs in a shop are a symbol of open warfare against God, and it cannot be the correct response to just go to another shop and ignore it, as that amounts to letting the evil accrue. LGBT activists are in open warfare against God; they must be fought. With a person who is struggling privately with sin, a soft approach is good; but with those who are waging war and going about to spread the evil, that calls for a harsh response.

About the man with the rosary - were the people he was engaging with LGBT activists? I couldn't determine. If they were activists or paraders (paraders should be seen as activists), then his response to them was appropriate.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Rainbow signs in a shop are a symbol of open warfare against God, and it cannot be the correct response to just go to another shop and ignore it, as that amounts to letting the evil accrue. LGBT activists are in open warfare against God; they must be fought. With a person who is struggling privately with sin, a soft approach is good; but with those who are waging war and going about to spread the evil, that calls for a harsh response.
This. The cancer metastasizes, it doesn't just go away on its own if you ignore it. An immune cell that just floats around the toe because the cancer is in the lung and not in the toe doesn't mean that the cancer won't eventually metastasize to the toe and now it's too late for that immune cell to do anything about it.

Just because your toe (other shop) is safe doesn't mean that it will always be.
 
This. The cancer metastasizes, it doesn't just go away on its own if you ignore it. An immune cell that just floats around the toe because the cancer is in the lung and not in the toe doesn't mean that the cancer won't eventually metastasize to the toe and now it's too late for that immune cell to do anything about it.

Just because your toe (other shop) is safe doesn't mean that it will always be.
I am thinking just now about how, as Christians, we must be willing to lay down our very lives for the sake of Christ. How can we fulfil this if we are not willing even to suffer the consequences of taking down a sign in a shop?
 

Elipe

Pelican
I am thinking just now about how, as Christians, we must be willing to lay down our very lives for the sake of Christ. How can we fulfil this if we are not willing even to suffer the consequences of taking down a sign in a shop?
The problem is that everybody is looking at everybody else and going, "no, you do it."
Then somebody goes and does it, and then everybody goes, "why did you do it?"
 
We must tailor our response to the people we are dealing with.

Rainbow signs in a shop are a symbol of open warfare against God, and it cannot be the correct response to just go to another shop and ignore it, as that amounts to letting the evil accrue. LGBT activists are in open warfare against God; they must be fought. With a person who is struggling privately with sin, a soft approach is good; but with those who are waging war and going about to spread the evil, that calls for a harsh response.

About the man with the rosary - were the people he was engaging with LGBT activists? I couldn't determine. If they were activists or paraders (paraders should be seen as activists), then his response to them was appropriate.

The only violence we are called to as Christians is violent destruction of our own sin by the power of God.

Calling for violence against other human beings in the world is anti-Christian and shows a lack of knowledge, or lack of care about what Christ taught.

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Romans 2:1. I have never personally been to Sodom but I spent a lot of time in the "surrounding cities" of fornication and lust and regrettably still do, mentally, at times. Not just Sodom, but the surrounding cities also, were destroyed by fire. So when you wish for God's judgment to fall on sinners, and even hasten to bring it about by yourself in your ignorance, you may be calling down fire on your own head as well, since Christ commanded us to love our enemies and wait for the day of His wrathful judgment, not try to execute our own.

"Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God." James 1:19-20

"Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?'” Matthew 26:50b-54

"And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." Luke 22:49-51

I am not saying we should condone perversion or any other crime against God, but the place to begin fighting those is within ourselves. Unless the man with the rosary is without sin and thereby worthy to cast the first stone, he would be better off to follow the command of God: "Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent." Psalm 4:4

The kingdom of God is not of this world, and we are mistaken in trying to execute our own judgment and punishment, especially since we understand so little of what is actually going on.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Ephesians 6:12
 

MartyMcFly

Woodpecker
"God curse all of you! You're an abomination!"
Says the male decked out in tattoos, dressed like a callejero thug. There was no self-defence in this instance;
the rosary-wielding male was the aggressor. His behaviour was no better then his opponents.
I can't tell what his tattoos say. Some people get Christian tattoos. It is also possible that he got the tattoos when he was younger and later he became more religious. The growing degeneracy is pushing some people to become more religious and he could be one more person that is turning to faith as a refuge from the cultural degeneracy. People have different limits of what they can accept just like I am leaning towards believing it needs to be illegal because their constant push for 'tolerance' is pushing me the opposite way and making me feel anger towards them and not just disgust.

The people were antagonizing him. They were trying to get close to him and yelling at him. If just 1-2 people approached him and wanted to have a friendly debate or chat about their position, he might not have been aggressive. The other people also had their faces covered which shows they might have been planning to commit a violent act and wanted to hide their identity. Also, some were sticking their phones near his face trying to record him and I doubt they asked permission first. This is also pretty disrespectful. They were treating him like a wild animal, not a fellow human.
 
Top