NO to Homos!

http://antihomogays.tripod.com

It might well be that homoperverts who enter a business establishment in the near future might not know that the proprietor has previously become aware that those homoqueers are entering the premises and going to claim that they are "recently married," but might thus encounter such ["temporary"] posted signs as:

NO VACANCY
SOLD OUT
OUT OF ORDER

. . . and similar exclusionary notices:

This Christian/Jewish/Muslim-oriented Web-based or other entity, business, restaurant, prepay gas-n-groceries store, hardware store, worship center, realty, motel, bank, etc. - under present DOMA federal law - legally reserves the right to prohibit entrance by, and/or employment and/or affiliated association with, the following persons:

(1) Homosexual couples claiming to be "married" who have acquired State Sodomy-Union Licenses or Biblically-defined equivalents.

(2) Female humans publicly exposing loose long hair (longer than mouth-level), sleevesless naked arms, slacksless nude legs, and/or socksless bare feet in noisy/attention-getting flipflop sandals.

(3) Anyone who smokes and/or publicly exposes any non-earring body piercings and/or visible tattoos.

(4) Any male publicly wearing a ring or rings in either or both of their earlobes and/or utters profanity.

(5) Any adult human not carrying a concealed weapon, and a KJV plus RSV Bible.

And if the homofaggots become suspicious that they alone, as a pair, are being discriminated against, and voice disruptive objection(s) on the premises, the manager can easily and quickly phone 911 to summon the police to cite the homosexual pair with disorderly conduct, or being a public nuisance, or whatever.

But, let's backup to overview the entire problem of recent State-enacted Same-Gender Homosodomy-Unions Licensing (wrongly termed: 'same'-"sex" "marriages").

Yours truly continues his aggressive and relentless internet e-mail and webposts-hotlinks crusade in a ramped-up attempt to educate, inform, enlighten, and edify whoever the Lord allowed (and even Himself suggested) to benevolently assist for the well-being of everyone.

While we're on the subject, it is "a free country" in terms of free speech - as much and in whatever ways yet accepted or at least "legally" tolerated by those who thankfully refrain from despising Bible-oriented web preaching as "unsolicited bulk-mail spam".

'Harassment" (properly-defined) consists of repeated confrontation after being warned to stop, but everyone who everyone else initially encounters (anonymously and otherwise) automatically presents or imposes all sorts of stuff of and from themself, at others, for the first time - without being asked, then waits for a response of either "bring on more" or "please, no more from you ever again."

Along those lines, gals, please study, ponder upon, and apply such Scripture as RSV's and NASV's Numbers 5:18 (for public hairstyle), Second Samuel 13:18 (for public arms-cover), Proverbs 5:19 (for public breasts-cover), Song of Solomon 7:1-5 (for public hairstyle and more), Isaiah 3:17 (for public crotchwear) and 20:4 (for public buttocks-cover) and 47:1-4 (for public legs-cover), plus Jeremiah 2:25 (for public footwear) in close and more distant context. . . . especially during seasonably warm weather pertaining to non-sexually-harassing fashions and styles non-sadistically exhibited to the non-soliciting, visually-arousable, potentially-greatly-annoyed, superior gender!

"Legal" freedom of the press and freedom of religion (along with obvious sundry individual and group religious expressions of such) is still guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (dealt with in both the Non-Establishment Clause and the Non-Prohibition Clause), and by the Declaration of Independence (which does mention the Capitalized word "Creator").

To continue, my endeavor was based upon my intense reaction against the profuse plethoria of myriad mis-wordings and mis-semantics -- best described as dishonestly-deceptive and not-adequately-qualified satanspeak -- needlessly and senselessly imposing far-reaching diabolical and horrendous consequences) -- resulting in:

(1) my exposee against such needlessness and senselessness, plus
(2) my stating and giving rectification against such dastardly semantical deviance -- concordant with Scripture premises.

What follows is both morally and politically correct -- instead of politically-incorrect (as both the LORD and typical old-fashioned dictionaries accurately define correctness and incorrectness).

You will see by what is written below that I am not of the accursed who calls sweet bitter, bitter sweet, day night, night day, up down, down up, says "heads up" when people should instead duck down -- claiming that what is (in reality) politically "incorrect" is instead: politically "correct" (or vice-versa) . . . who turns things upside down or inside out with distorted buzzword and buzzphrase speech to suck up to Satan's hellbound agenda:

Isaiah 5:8 Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to reside alone within the land.
Isaiah 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 10:1 Woe to those [ judges and legislators ] who decree [ same-gender sodomy-unions-licensing and other deviant ] iniquitous decrees, and the [ network-news-media and educrat professors ] writers who keep writing [ pro-abortion, pro-homopervert, pro-evolution-mythology, pro-feminist-sexist, pro-indecent-exposure-pornography, anti-Israeli-settlements ] oppression

Micah 2:1 Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil upon their beds! When the morning dawns, they commit it, because it is in the power of their hand.

Dishonestly-deceptive and/or not-adequately-qualified satanspeak is not [simply] something new or recent.

As early as historically-recorded Adam and Eve in The Garden of Eden, the Talking Serpent concocted the first instance of dishonestly-deceptive, not-adequately-qualified, speech:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Verse one of chapter three above says that the serpent was "more subtle".

I do not know if our deplorably-limited English-words language conveys the thought intended sufficiently.

For example, why the word: "more" subtle in the sentence? Were there also other God-created lower "wild"-creature lifeforms also or almost-equally: "subtle?"

Moreover, is "subtle" a suitable word? How about: conniving or deceptive instead?

Whatever the case, The Tempter made the non-qualified proclamation of: "You will not die" after Eve herself corrected The Tempter on The Tempter's already-overbroad insinuating presumption (NOT "assumption") that NO trees were to be eaten of (similar to the statement that "NO sex is ever allowed").

The additional irrationalizations of: "your eyes will be opened (whatever that meant to Eve), and: you will be "like God" (whatever that meant to Eve), and: "knowing good and evil" (whatever that meant to Eve) were needless and senseless additional blurbs from Satan which were completely irrelevant and beside the point to the "you will not die" premise, and probably was imposed in the attempt to be more dishonestly and deceitfully persuasive to increasingly-confused-and-duressed Eve.

Notably, credit is to be given to Eve who insightfully mentioned "fruit" associated with the trees, to elaborate on the lacking [whatever] "of the trees" which The Tempter did not name.

However, Eve lamentably added the legalistic: "neither shall you touch it" made-up adiaphora -- euphemistically "putting words into God's mouth" which He Himself never actually said in the previous Text of Genesis.

Concerning The Tempter's proclamation: "You will not die" (whatever "die" meant to Eve, and Adam):

Was The Tempter correct or instead incorrect concerning (and not "regarding") his devious not-adequately-defined wording?

Yes, or No?

"Yes" WHAT? "No" WHAT?

Ultimately, and to a large extent, what Satan said to Eve was a devastating lie.

Sure, Eve did not completely die by dropping dead on the spot, but the moment she ate the Forbidden Fruit her body and her cells, neurons, blood, muscles, skin - everything inside her - began, for the first time, to start to irreparably deteriorate (thus: die), which got worse and worse until she finally did completely become a totally-lifeless corpse.

Attempting to logically analyze (with a brief-and-concise 'Yes' or 'No' it was a lie) the Tempter's weasel-worded satanspeak statement would make the answerer appear as a confused self-contradicting fool by stating:

"No, Eve did not die. Yes, Eve died."

. . . to which an irritated listener might retort: "Make up your mind. Which is it?"

That divisive confusion and woeful misunderstanding is what deceptive not-adequately-qualified satanspeak causes!

Clearly, Satan was being deceptively overbroad or failing to properly qualify his assertion to Eve. We have had modern equivalents:

"Minnesotans voted for Al Franken, and Barack Obama."

Wrong, or instead right?

Did all Minnesotans vote for Al Franken, and Barack Obama? Were not those who did not vote for Franken and Obama also Minnesotans? Crucial qualification is needed!

"Are you "pro-life? Do you believe that ALL life is sacred?"

Yes, or no?

If 'yes', does that mean that you are both anti-abortion-homicide and against righteous capital punishment? Or 'no', do you then support abortion-homicide?

Is the Devil's life "sacred?" The life of Judas Iscariot? The lives of the Boston-marathon mass-murderers, Trade-Towers-demolitionist Atta, bin Laden, and Timothy McVeigh "sacred?" I'm sure that you can think of hundreds of other examples where human life was obviously not "sacred!"

Note another example of non-qualified deceptive satanspeak recorded in Holy Writ:

First Samuel 15:1 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore respond to the words of the LORD.
2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"
4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah.
7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

[ NOTE: ". . . defeated the Amalekites?" Really? " . . . utterly destroyed all the people?" Really?

Why does the Text state that lie as fact - in view of what follows ???

Reminds me of the Text also stating that Samuel came back to life at the behest of the Medium at Endor. ]

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.
10 The word of the LORD came to Samuel:
11 "I regret that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry; and he cried to the LORD all night.
12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning [ Oh oh! ]; and it was told Samuel, "Saul came to Carmel, and hey, he set up a monument for himself and turned, and passed on, and went down to Gilgal."
13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, "Blessed be you to the LORD [ trying to patronize Samuel with tongue-in-cheek flattery ] ; I have performed the commandment of the LORD."
14 And Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"
15 Saul said, "They [ pass the buck and the blame on to others ] have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people [ I did not decide it, but rather 'the committee' or 'the group' decided it ] spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God [ self-justifying some end by the means to the end ] ; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."
16 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Stop! I will tell you what the LORD said to me this night." And he said to him, "Say on."
17 And Samuel said, "Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.
18 And the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.'
19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the LORD?"
20 And Saul said to Samuel, "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites [ a deceitful not-adequately-qualified half-lie, not half-"truth" ].
21 But the people [ pass the buck again - transferring the blame and the decision to "the courts" decided or "the legislature" decided ] took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal [ self-justifying some end by the means to the end - again repeated]."
22 And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Hey, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to respond than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king."
24 And Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned [ Oh, now you admit that! ]; for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words [ Oh, now you admit that! ], because I feared the people and obeyed their voice [ Oh, now you admit that! And is THAT supposed to now exonerate you??? ].
25 Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD [ And is that now supposed to exonerate you and make up for what you've done ??? ]."
26 And Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD [ it's too late now! ], and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel."

Job 34:31 For has any one said to God, 'I have borne chastisement; I will not offend any more;
Job 34:32 teach me what I do not see; if I have done iniquity, I will do it no more'?
Job 34:33 Will He then make requital to suit you, because you reject it? For you must choose, and not I; therefore declare what you know.

"I have my hair in a ponytail." Hanging down seductively on your chest instead of hidden in back of your head, with your hair in front erotically slanting across your face at an angle.
"My breasts are covered." Not entirely, with that low-cut gown you're wearing.
"My legs are covered." No, they are not completely covered, but only the top half is covered.
"I'm wearing flipflop shoes." Shoes without socks, so that your naked toes and ankles are pornographically exposed..

A further example of satanspeak:

"Do you support the freedom to marry?"

That is currently one of the most egregious utterances of deceptive not-adequately-qualified satanspeak we are presently besieged with.

At face value, the immediate answer is: "Of course I support the freedom to marry!" What do you think I am - a sadistic prude?"

But, upon closer inspection and further evaluation, what "freedom" is being asked about? Is that supposed to be contrasted with "slavery" to permanent abstinence?

And what is meant by: "to marry?" What does "marry" mean, involve, and traditionally imply?

Does not Scripture clearly and without-one-exception indicate (from Genesis to Revelation) that marriage is a deliberate and willful expressed commitment of a MALE human with a FEMALE human to bond themselves to each other for HETEROSEXUAL sexual fulfilment and reproductive purposes?

According to the totality of the entire Holy Bible, to "marry" has never involved, is not now ever involving, and never will involve, same-gender-pairing additions, manifestations, or substitutions against the [obvious] heterosexual nature of "marriage!"

So, to answer the question "Do you support the freedom to marry?" necessitates that repeatedly-confusing, make-the-respondant-look-like-a-self-contradictory-nut, dual response of:

"No, I do not support the freedom to marry. Yes, I do support the freedom to marry."

So, to reiterate, let me again - for the next wearisome time - put forth certain anti-satanspeak corrections are which I have in mind regarding (and not "concerning") the previously-mentioned crusade:

(1) "Abortion" is not women's health, reproductive freedom, removal of surgical tissue nor choice.

It is instead: ["convenience"] murder - pure and simple. Promiscuity-based infanticide. Irresponsible parent-less child-sacrifice-reminiscent bloody homicide.

(2) "Sexism" is not abusing women, suppressing women, forcing modest dress of women in general public view, nor requiring submissiveness or subordination to men.

It generally is instead: arrogant and adversarial competition against men and hostile insubordination and non-submissive non-cooperation against men.

(3) "Gay" is not being effeminate nor homosexual nor supporting/advocating equality.

It is instead being: yippie-skippie carefree with childlike innocent happiness and even joy - sometimes expressed by a toddler not merely walking along like normal adults, but skipping and/or jumping up and down as they move onward.

(4) Homosexual erotica is not love, and the desire to license sodomy unions is not the desire to marry.

Homosexual erotica and contact (anywhere on each other's body doing whatever) is instead: lurid lust, and the desire to license sodomy unions as "legal" or equivalent to [heterosexual] "marriage" is instead: the craving to legitimatize, legalize, and equate sinful, non-healthful, and extinction-headed antisocial homorotic wickedness with Biblically-advocated heterosexual marriage.

There is absolutely NO instance of any named persons in the entirety of the Revised Standard Version of The Holy Bible united with, going into, lying with, married to . . . anyone of the same gender.

None at all. Whatsoever!

If "legal" homosodomy [mis-called: "marriage" ] continues to be legislated and/or adjudicated . . . and maintained . . . self-implosive anarchy and self-destructive annihilation will soon uncontrollably escalate across the nation to disasterous proportions.

That is not a prediction to be flippantly tossed off nor taken lightly. No laughing matter - to put it mildly.

The far-reaching ramifications and consequences would not simply be "silly," or "a joke," but instead indescribably and extensively diabolical.

WHO would be considered the "husband" and who would be considered the "wife" if homosexual sodomy unions were equivalent with heterosexual marriage?

How would sexual-organs gender be differentiated where and when such differentiation was not simply an option, but crucial in all sorts of scenarios and situations?

Gratefully, the option of committing (and not "performing") abortion homicide is not a possibility for a sodomy union of male with male or female with female.

But adopting children is a lamentable potential deviance - especially for the hapless-victim baby or toddler.

One honestly wonders why any conscientious person would subject their adopted child to the horrible and destructive stigma of having to respond to confused peers and classmates of their own age that: "My daddy is a mommy" or "My mommy is a daddy" and hear the consternation-based logical utterance of: "You're really weird! What a goof! Stay away from me!" in response.

It would be unusual enough for a boy or girl of a polygamous father to tell his or her playmates: "My daddy lives with my mommy and his maid."

In innumerable cases where restrooms are designed for the two genders (Male or Female, Men or Women), which restroom or lavatory would the alleged "husband" enter? Which restroom or lavatory would the alleged "wife" enter?

WHO would be the "husband" on legal federal and state, county and city documents of all sorts? WHO would be the "wife" on such documents?

Would a majority of American citizens (especially Christian, Jewish, and Islamic ones) refuse to acknowledge such purported "husbands" (who are obviously not male) and purported "wives" (who are obviously not female)?

Would there not only be expensive and time-consuming lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, job losses,vengeful vandalism, and even furious retributional bodily assaults on the part of both heterosexuals and homosexuals - bickering about the newly-imputed homo-kooky "rights" - quickly escalating into increasingly-intense objection, counter-objection, reaction and counter-reaction (not to mention even dangerous confusion and bloody retaliation in myriad situations) - transpiring because of deliberately-deviant homosexual "husbands" and equally-deviant homosexual "wives" [clearly not "born that way" but rather rebelliously and defiantly choosing that way] insisting upon imposing their obnoxiously-disgusting and sickening perversion against a majority of others who simply would grow more and more passionate and even violent (yes: violent) in mutually-disruptive confrontations?

The police and sheriffs simply do not have the time nor the manpower to handle such non-necessary, needless, and senseless massive chaos.

True love, as with true lust (like sunlight, gravity, lightning, and urination and/or seminal emission) cannot be legislated in the sense that neither generally is either demanded or forced on anyone. However, both can and should be regulated for the well-being of society in general. Love should be rewarded, and lust should be punished. Urination (not to mention frequency and duration of such) should be performed instead of committed at the proper times and places under proper conditions in whatever sensual positions one finds most satisfying.

Even though most people nowadays do not admit it nor cite the Sacred Source of their anti-homosexual preferences and beliefs when it comes right down to it in everyday life (even though they claim "tolerance" and appreciation of "diversity"), the following is (believe it or not) still engrained in most people, and is something that cannot and will not be legislated nor adjudicated out of them:

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Deuteronomy 23:18 You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Who says that such ancient admonitions are now invalid? WHO is the so-called "god" or group of them who supposedly abrogated them? And when was that supposed to have happened (if at all)?

Do not modern current orthodox, conservative, and even reformed Jews yet adhere to these precepts of their anti-homosexuals Torah?

Do not present-day bonafide genuine Christians (be they Catholic or Protestant) likewise vehemently and fervently embrace them also?

Must I even mention fundamentalist, radical-extremist muslims and islamic united in their fierce and violent opposition to same-gender licensed-sodomy-unions? They have the swords, WMDs, and more ready, and decapitation against pervert infidels is not, nor has been, nor should be, shocking to them.

Even Lenin's and Stalin's communists, as with Hitler's Nazis, saw no problem rightly and understandably incarcerating homoqueers and homofaggots in gulags and concentration camps, with enraged military commanders frequently taking activist pro-homopervert dissidents out to firing squads who rapidly inserted fatal bullets into the back of the accursed heads and/or despicable chests of the vile homogay/homosodomite vermin.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty [like AIDS, car accidents, and suicide] for their error [not for their "equality" or "equal rites" or "equal rights"].

First Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the non-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [homo-"gay"] effeminate, nor sodomites,
First Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

What part of "will not inherit" does one not understand?

First Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully [not done by warped heretics who twist and misapply Scripture out of context, relentlessly going off on rapid-fire conclusion-less cultic tangents and concoct irrationalizations who, again, do NOT use it lawfully!] ,
9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the [homopervert homogay and homosodomite] dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

Someone might blatter: "There are other types of sins to get hung up over!"

Impertinent! Read John 21:20-23, First Corinthians 6:18, and First John 5:16.

Is and should "equality" be given to antisocial criminals who cause disruptive and even lethal problems against others in neighborhoods and communities and government? Should murderers, bank robbers, car thieves, graffiti vandalizers, embezzlers, identity thieves, noise-makers in movie theaters, trash-on-the-road tossers, rapists, child molesters, terrorist bombers, etc be treated "equally" compared to decent and respectful law-abiding citizens?

Of course NOT!

What happens in God-viewed-and-analyzed "private" or "in the bedroom" behavior or misbehavior does eventually (and more often than not, significantly) affect interdependent others outside private bedrooms or wherever!

Would you like someone with homosexuality-caused AIDS contaminating your food at some fast-food restaurant? Brainwashing and enticing your children to homoperversion? Would you like someone preoccupied with the guilt or questioning conscience of a secret OR open homosexual liaison carelessly goofing around putting together your vehicle on the automobile assembly line?

Due Process (rather than haphazard and random lynching) is obviously expedient and necessary - but those who sexually irritate, pollute, defile, and painfully harm others physically or mentally with wayward exhibitions of lewd and obscene erotica should obviously NOT be treated "equally."

THAT should be obvious to any sane person with common sense. "Religious" or not.

And if it is not, it will become so.

PHOBOHOMIA

Contemplated homo lust
Heard them say it was a must
Cannot tell if I should trust
Looks to me like pure disgust;

Saw this dude, let's call him Duke
Kissing mouth would make me puke
Where on earth to stick my prick?
Screwing him would be some trick!

Entrance into frontal crotch
Would result in one big botch
Not a hairy hole in sight down there
Nix but stiffened cock all bare;

Looking to the other side
Stinky anus - had I tried
Fecal contact no delight
That would be a real blight;

As I thought how he would taste
Sucking on his noxious waste
Made me vomit in the pot
Do fellatio? I think NOT!

Lick his gooey smelly sperm?
Ingest syph or lethal germ?
Probe with rigid turgid tool
Into his venereal stool?

Give me breasted woman, please!
Shapely buttocks I can squeeze!
Penis in where it should rest:
Cozy nest is Nature's best!


Homogays are the ultimate expression of hatred against women.

Well, it finally passed in the State . . . and what is alluded to is not the Defense of Marriage Proposition (which proposition would merely have reaffirmed the legitimacy of legal heterosexual marriage without specifically disallowing the inclusion of homosexual unions as "marriages" with government benefits allocated for such).

No, what was passed was the so-called Marriage Equality Act, and now this State is the next in an excruciatingly long line of States to have passed such...although this one passed is somewhat different, in that it is much more extensive in scope of both who and what can now be considered "sodomarried."

Not only are all of any age group and either gender (except breast-feeding infants up to one year old) allowed to sodomarry each other, but spouses can now be mammals also - if the owners (excuse me: spouses) of such mammals of either or both genders meet certain standards, such as providing proof of being of sound mind and concurrently not already married.

Also, prospective sodomarital-partner mammals must be alive, or reasonably alive, when the sodomarriage license is issued, and it only takes one partner of the sodomarriage to be able to legibly sign the Sodomarriage License Certificate, although the instances of having a mute spouse being unable to talk must be registered with a notorized waiver.

Another stipulation is that the sodomarrying mammal must be of more-or-less equal height and weight in relation to the other spouse, and at least one of the spouses must be human.

For example, bears and cat-like mammals (e.g. lions, tigers, etc.), horses, gorillas, and kangaroos should be of equal height and weight compared to their human spouse of either gender.

The bill awaited the governor's signature as to whether or not reptiles, birds, and fish can soon become acceptable as sodomarried partners accruing State benefits and inheritance provisions.

Weddings of sodomarriages between human and pissy/poopy animals in religious buildings should be made in consultation with the City Zoo.

Wedding gowns or tuxedos for sodomarrying mammals can be white, although scarlet is recommended, and should reflect the opposite gender of the mammal for maximum thrill.

Cages in sanctuaries for rock or mammal sodomarried partners creating a disturbance are to be provided by the human spouse. Case in point would be for spontaneously-igniting phosphorus.

Pictures of kissing by mammal-with-human sodomarried partners at the end of the ceremonies should be done by at least one professional photographer, and buckets should be provided for congregants who consequently vomit while observing such.

Being that some mammals do not have fingers on which to put gold wedding bands indicating that they are sodomarried, pierced rings can be inserted into the equivalent of the mammal's left earlobe or tail.

Branding of mammal spouses during sodomarriage ceremonies is prohibited by State statute.

Clergy are not required to have mammal spouses-to-be recite sodomarriage vows during church, synagogue, or mosque ceremonies.

It is strongly recommended that wedding receptions for all mammal/human sodomarriages occur outside the city limits of the major metropolitan cities proper within the State and all other major State cities, and instead be celebrated on suitable farmland.

It is expected that all non-human mammals joined in sodomarriage to a human spouse should be leashed while out in the general public to avoid being impounded, and large dog-type mammal spouses are advised to limit the lifting of their back leg to hydrants exclusively marked for such purposes.

Petition is being made to alter IRS 1040 Forms to accommodate the new category of Sodomarital Partner for Marital Status Classification, and mammal spouses are not eligible to be prosecuted for income tax evasion, except if they celebrate with a Tea Party.

In-law relatives of sodomarried mammals can attend court to determine custody of any adopted offspring.

Whichever of the sodomarried partners, be they human or animal, can be claimed or claim themself "Daddy" or "Mommy," and free psychiatric counseling and treatment is available by State social workers for confused and disoriented adopted whatevers of mammal/human families of whatever gender(s).

Drivers Licenses can be issued to either spouse in a mammal-with-human sodomarriage at the discretion of the State Department of Public Safety and Vehicle Services.

Mammal/human Sodomarriage Licenses last only two years, but can be renewed if at least one spouse takes and passes the Sodomarriage License Renewal Test, unless either annulment or divorce is instead desired.

In accord with State Law, all mammal/human sodomarried partners must have some plaque or other written display of Job 11:12 posted somewhere within their residences.

It gets worse.

The other day, Mary and Linda angrily trotted into the local service station in a huff, after the manager noticed that both of them had parked their cars parallel between a row of gas pumps so close together on the driver's sides that they both had to get out of their vehicles through the passenger doors. "We want to know why there either is no gasoline in your underground reservoir, or the gas pumps are not working, and why we can't get any gas into our cars," they bellered. "We both flipped our gas tank covers open and took off the caps, but no fuel was transferred to the tank. What's going on?" Mike, the station manger, quickly realized the problem, and told the enraged lesbians he would check it out and get right back to them. After a quick 911 call to the sheriff and psychiatric paramedics of the nearest hospital, he came back and informed them: "You both have to select a gas pump, and stick the male nozzle into your respective female gas tank holes, then each squeeze her nozzle's lever. Try it, and if that doesn't work, something else will be suggested."

Jack and Tom barged into the neighborhood hardware store, each carrying a box with an electrical fan inside. Jack blurted out: "Both me and my wife, Tom here, tried to get the fans which we bought yesterday at this store, working - but they don't work. We want an exchange, or our money back." Jerry, the manager, replied: "What was the voltage in the wall socket you plugged your fans into? Was it 220 or 110 volts?" Jack retorted: What? We tried to attach the male prongs of our electric fan cords to each other, but no juice came out to energize the fans, so they must be defective." Jerry then answered, "Just a minute. Let me go in the back room and talk to my associate. He's working here part-time during his off-hours while studying for his Ph.D. in dangerously-antisocial types of unusual mental illness." The associate returned with Jerry, and calmly advised both Jack and Tom to take their fans back home, and insert the male prongs of their fan cords into the female holes of their respective wall-socket receptacles, then immediately report back to them.

Lenny came in, sobbing, to the clinic, and the nurse asked him what was wrong. "I am a transsexual who intensely despises the Lord for creating me a male human, and I think I am bleeding to death after cutting off my private parts to leave a big cut for my new vagina. Please help me! I'm getting weaker and weaker, while leaving a bloody trail behind me all the way from my car to where I'm now standing."

Transsexual Jenny then came in, crying like a baby, and the nurse asked her what her problem was. "In arrogantly-defiant hatred against God who gave me my female gender at birth, I have tried everything to get my sex-store-purchased foam-plastic penis and scrotum to stick to me between my legs.....even Crazy Glue......nothing works. I've thought about sewing it on a jock strap, but I'm afraid that that would hurt too much if I stitched it right into my skin down there."

Finally, sodomarried Jim and John came in at the same time sodomarried Cathy and Patty entered. They all lamented to the nurse that they had tried and tried, over and over, to get children -- but so far it had been hopelessly futile. "Describe your sexual hardware and procedures, and let's see if I can help you people," the nurse said, while trying to contain herself from losing it in uncontrollable laughter. "Well," Jim started, "John has two holes, and I have tried both. No kids." Then John chimed in: "And Jim has two holes, and I - like him - have tried both of his, to no avail." "And how about you two," the nurse asked lesbians Cathy and Patty. Patty began with: "Cathy has three holes, one to breath through, one to urinate from, and one to defecate from, as I do, but neither one of us can figure out why we don't get pregnant and where babies would emerge from...whether the mouth, the vagina, or the rectum." Cathy then agreed: "Yeah, I agree about the three holes, but no babies. Can you help us figure out what to do?"

The nurse told both Jim and John: "To get offspring, you have to utilize a human being who has three holes to stick your pricks into, and you both have to experiment to discover which of the three holes gives the best results." The nurse then turned to Cathy and Patty, and declared: "And you each have to utilize a human being who has only two holes, which respective two-holed human will stick his prick into at least the best respective hole of each of yours."

"Tell you what," the nurse continued. "Jim, John, Cathy, and Patty, I will flip a coin. Jim, you call it while it's tossed in the air. If you call it heads, and the coin lands heads, I want you to go into that lockable exam room over there with Cathy, and engage in some prick sticking into her for about two hours, with plenty of prep foreplay and afterplay on the exam table together. However, if the coin lands tails instead, take Patty into the room and do the same as described for Cathy. And John, you take either Cathy or Patty - whoever Jim does not take - and do the same thing as described for Jim in the other exam room involving the same previously-detailed parameters. You all agree?"

It was one of the better days for the nurse. They also concurred, the nurse then flipped the coin, and guess who got who and who got the other?

One homopervert apologist, in her own words, said this:

"There are those who object to this change for religious reasons, articulating religious doctrine as a basis for opposing the new law. It is clear in the language of the bill that no church will be required to perform same sex marriages."

Analysis:

It is significant that "religious" doctrine is mentioned as basis for those who object to not "performing" "same-sex" "marriages" - but instead rely on Christian (Biblical Protestant and Biblical Catholic), (Scriptural-Torah-etc.) Jewish, and (Qur'anic/Koranic) Muslim religious doctrine - to refuse to not commit what they consider the sin and abomination of same-gender sodomy-unions pairing (NOT "marriage") nor acknowledge as "legal" the State licensing thereof.

What is currently considered "legal" by the homodeviant and pro-homodeviant (in this case) is always in flux and can quickly be changed. A federal judge with a stroke of their pen can promptly rule same-gender sodomy-unions-licensing unconstitutional . . . which starts the whole demonic homopervert crusade all over again.

Even new anti-homosodomy-licensing legislation can be introduced, voted upon, and enacted as of this writing.

Moreover, the Same-Gender Sodomy-Unions-Licensing Bill (which some erroneously refer to as the Same-"Sex" "Marriage" Bill) religious exclusion will in fact and in effect not merely apply to sundry OFFICIALS of not only "churches" plus synagogues and mosques, but logically ALSO congregants within those churches, synagogues, and mosques - not simply when they are within the very restricted and narrow confines of when inside their respective church or synagogue or mosque buildings, but relating to their anti-homosodomy intentions, speech, and actions as sundry taxpayer-involved business owners and neighborhood residents of metro-area and suburban homes.

The more such innocent victims are forced by State legislative, judicial, and law-enforcement personnel to mis-consider and mis-call homoperversion acceptable outside church and synagogue and mosque buildings, the more predictable it is that reactionary confusion, resentment, and potential retributional vendetta of mass violence will surely happen.

Government documents allow masseuse and escort prostitution licensing and same-gender sodomy-unions liicensing - but that licensing does not justify anti-Biblical antisocial misbehaviors as legitimate, and the morally acceptable thus have a Divine right to exclude association with, righteously and understandably discriminate against, plus refuse public-business employment against those who - imposing their noxious homoperversion and satanspeak semantics revisionism - defy the Higher Law from the Higher Authority spoken of in the United States Declaration of Independence who owns planet Earth and has set immutable and non-changeable sexual rules of engagement for his worldwide creatures.

So, let's review both the past and present situation;

H.F. NO. 1054 (Same-Gender Homosodomy-Unions-Licensing Bill)

MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY
Date: 5/9/2013

Vote Tally: 75 YEA and 59 Nay

Those who voted in the affirmative were:

Allen, Anzelc, Atkins, Benson, J., Bernardy
Bly, Brynaert, Carlson, Clark, Davnie
Dehn, R., Dill, Dorholt, Erhardt, Erickson, R
. Falk, Faust, Fischer, FitzSimmons, Freiberg
Garofalo, Halverson, Hansen, Hausman, Hilstrom
Hornstein, Hortman, Huntley, Isaacson, Johnson, C.
Johnson, S., Kahn, Kieffer, Laine, Lenczewski
Lesch, Liebling, Lien, Lillie, Loeffler
Loon, Mahoney, Mariani, Marquart, Masin
McNamar, Melin, Metsa, Moran, Morgan
Mullery, Murphy, E., Murphy, M., Nelson, Newton
Norton, Paymar, Pelowski, Persell, Poppe
Radinovich, Rosenthal, Savick, Schoen, Selcer
Simon, Simonson, Slocum, Sundin, Thissen
Wagenius, Ward, J.A., Ward, J.E., Winkler, Yarusso

Those who voted in the negative were:

Abeler, Albright, Anderson, M., Anderson, P., Anderson, S.
Barrett, Beard, Benson, M., Cornish, Daudt
Davids, Dean, M., Dettmer, Drazkowski, Erickson, S.
Fabian, Franson, Fritz, Green, Gruenhagen
Gunther, Hackbarth, Hamilton, Hertaus, Holberg
Hoppe, Howe, Johnson, B., Kelly, Kiel
Kresha, Leidiger, Lohmer, Mack, McDonald
McNamara, Myhra, Newberger, Nornes, O'Driscoll
O'Neill, Peppin, Petersburg, Pugh, Quam
Runbeck, Sanders, Sawatzky, Schomacker, Scott
Swedzinski, Theis, Torkelson, Uglem, Urdahl
Wills, Woodard, Zellers, Zerwas

On May 9th the MN House of Representatives passed the so called "same-sex" "marriage" bill, followed by the MN Senate on May 13th. Governor Dayton then signed "same-sex" "marriage" into law on May 14th, and "same-sex" "marriage" will begin in August.

IF our interdependent society (both locally and nationally) consisted only of homoqueers who wanted to pair with and screw each other resulting in inevitable well-deserved VD and extinction, the allowance of same-gender homosodomy-unions licensing would not only be understandable, but welcomed with open arms. But, as it realistically is, such is NOT the case, and heterosexuals RIGHTLY insist on their respectable rights and their non-disrespectable freedom even more.

It is imperative to note the mis-semantics of the named legislation. The Bill put into effect is actually the Same-Gender Homosodomy-Unions-Licensing Bill.

The actions of the Legislature and Governor were in direct opposition to you—the majority of Minnesotans who support Biblical marriage and did not send your legislators to St. Paul to mis-define marriage. Twin Cities perverts, heretics, and the divisive same-sex “marriage” lobby forced a mis-definition of marriage on our state that we did not want.

For the record, the new law redefines marriage as genderless and erases the terms “husband” and “wife” from our state’s policy and declares that “mother” and “father” are genderless terms. Apparently the majority of legislators and Governor Dayton believe that traditional marriage—the only institution we had that specifically connected children with their parents—is unnecessary. They believe that government should be involved not to encourage commitment between a man and woman for the sake of potential children—but simply because two people love each other. According to the debate that took place before legislators passed the bill, government is involved in marriage because of alleged “love” (actually: vile lust) and “freedom to marry” (actually: enslavement to sodomy).

An over-50% majority of the Minnesota legislature passed the same-gender homosodomy-unions-licensing bill with no implicitly stated nor directly or indirectly-implied individual religious liberty and rights of conscience protections. This means that while "churches" and "pastors" (with no specific mention of synogague rabbis nor mosque imams) and some "religious" "organizations" will not be forced to participate in nor acknowledge the validity of homosexual "marriages" (i.e. same-gender homosodomy-unions licensing) congregants belonging to those churches and synagogues and mosques will have to use somewhat-marginalizing and polarizing anti-discrimination precautions using novel techniques similar to the posted signs on building and businesses declaring the anti-homosodomy-unions statement similar to the frequently-visible sings of "Guns are banned on these premises."

If such warning signs are not posted:

- Businesses involved in the wedding industry (florists, caterers, photographers, etc.) are liable to be fined as “discriminators” if they decline providing their services to a same-sex “wedding”—regardless of their religious beliefs.
- Licensed professionals risk losing their license from the state if they do not recognize same-sex “marriages” as the moral, legal, and social equivalent of traditional marriages—regardless of their religious beliefs.
- Businesses that offer employee spousal benefits will be forced to offer those benefits to homosodomite "spouses" (pardon the wording) also —regardless of the owner’s religious beliefs.

But IF such warning sign are posted, and homoperverts attempt to sue business proprietors, those lawsuits will be contramanded as frivolous (especially in view of current federal DOMA law overriding such lawsuits), and those sued can counter-sue for religious-discrimination mental-anguish intimidation and illegal harassment.

It is chilling that the legislators who voted for the same-gender homosodomy-unions-licensing bill cowardly and deviantly figure that it was politically worth it run roughshod over millions Minnesotans’ deeply held beliefs in order to force same-gender homosodomy-unions-licensing on us all.

That was not about “equality” as same-"sex" “marriage” proponents claimed—this was a forced acceptance of homosexuality and pseudo-legitimacy of same-gender homosodomy unions concerning which there is not one instance of any named couple in the entirety of the Old and New Testament Holy Bible ever being in such a relationship.

What’s Next?

Despite the actions of the majority of legislators and the Governor, our convictions that marriage is only the union of man and woman does not change simply because they passed a law.

1. We encourage you all to continue to stay involved, continue the conversation about the goodness of God’s design for marriage, and to actively promote and support Scriptural marriages in your homes, churches, and communities.

2. In the days ahead, we will begin to see the consequences of mis-defining marriage as a genderless, children-aversive institution. We hope all of you will continue to stay involved as a coalition of individuals, churches, pastors, and organizations dedicated to promoting God’s design for marriage. We must continue to educate our communities and our government about why traditional marriage is the best public policy.

3. As has happened in every other state to mis-define marriage, people of faith here in Minnesota might be sued as “discriminators” for standing up for their beliefs and not offering their business or professional services to perpetuate a same-gender homosodomy “wedding.” We stand ready to help you countersue in court (and appeals court if necessary) on grounds of suffering religious-discrimination mental-anguish intimidation and illegal harassment.

4. The legislators who turned their backs on you to force same-gender homosodomy-unions licensing deserve to hereafter be opposed at every turn, campaigned against, and voted out of office at soon as possible.

The saints of Christ Jesus are disappointed that a destined-to-be-ousted majority of the Minnesota House of Representatives has voted to mis-define the legal definition of marriage as the union of man and woman.

In doing so, they have set in motion a transformation of Minnesota law that will focus on accommodating the lust of noxiously-perverted adults instead of protecting the best interest of children. This action is an injustice that tears at the fabric of society and will be remembered as such well into the future.

The bill poses a serious threat to the religious liberty and conscience rights of Minnesotans.

Although some accommodations for clergy and religious organizations were included in the bill, they fail to protect the people in the pew: individuals, non-religious non-profits, and small business owners who maintain the time-honored belief that marriage is a heterosexually-intentioned union of man and woman.

As legal experts on both sides of this debate have stated, the failure to accommodate the deeply held beliefs of a majority of Minnesotans will result in numerous conflicts that will have to be adjudicated by our courts - and compensated against by novel, innovative, and imaginative presently-non-disclosable techniques.

It is disappointing that same-gender homosodomy-unions licensing proponents have vigorously refused to protect the majority of Minnesotans, some of whom will be targeted with lawsuits and complaints, then countersued for various Protestant/Catholic-Christian and Jewish and Islamic religious-discrimination-related issues, with homosexuals both subtly and openly, righteously and rightly, suppressed in sundry ways by surprising legal and other Divinely-assisted means pertaining to public business services owned and operated by opponents against anti-Biblical homosexuality.

The saints are thankful for those Representatives who demonstrated great courage in supporting marriage as only between man and woman, as well as the thousands of Minnesotans of all backgrounds who have prayed vigorously and put their lives and hard-earned dollars at work over the last two years to preserve Scriptural heterosexual-only marriage as a foundational unit of civilized and non-extinct society.

Both male homosexuals and male Christians consider women the inferior gender.

Similarly, both female homosexuals (i.e. lesbians) and female Christians consider male humans as the superior gender.

However, the innate attitudes and actions of homosexuals of either gender are completely opposite and diametrically opposed against those of Christians of either gender pertaining to inferiority and superiority.

The male-Christian husband sensually cherishes his beautiful inferior-gender female wife - not with hateful and derogatory disgust and disdain - but with humble and benevolently-protective affection to satisfy his own compatible-counterpart companion as to what is lacking to fulfill her longings.

In stark contrast, the proud and defiant selfish homosexual man is not capable of nor exercises such erotic respect and patient kindness toward a woman, perhaps even one he has conveniently or reputationally married for purposes of ambitious self-aggrandizement.

The female Christian wife views the superiority of her own male Christian husband NOT with spiteful and non-compliant feminist-sexist adversarial competitiveness, but humbly and submissively wanting to fulfill his desire and need to aggressively and imaginatively love her (especially physically and sexually) for his pleasure and enjoyment as she respects him with appreciative quickly-adjustable urgent responsiveness.