Man Smashes Gay Advertisement (video)

[JimBowie1958]

Since when is porn allowed on outdoor signs?

How is the poster 'porn?'

Two naked guys embracing? If that's not porn to you, then you must watch snuff films or worse.

Naked? I see more at the pool. Perhaps you're having penis envy.

roflmao, everything comes down to comparative dick sizes to you libtards.

Do you think the day might come when you grow the **** up?

I am grown up....I'm not homophobic.

Lol, that is all that 'growing up' means to you?

lol, typical ideologue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, thanks. I'm straight. But I'm sure the homeless guy in the video would be down with some man-on-man butt slam. You're both obviously in extreme denial about your sexuality. Don't hide it. Just go suck some dick and be proud of who you are. I bet you make a fine sissy boy bottom

Shit, that video turned you on, keep your ****** fantasy to yourself

The point is civil disobedience against a cult advancing on our society using the club of the courts and without the People's permission.

Just thought I'd point out that the ad was additionally predatorial in that most people using bus stops are down and outers and runaway homeless youth. Those are their targets: the stressed, unfortunate and vulnerable.

Folks, if you don't think this animal is behaving exactly like a cult, you need your head examined..

Ultimately there's no winning this argument on solid ground because destruction of property is wrong and tolerance of destructive behavior is dangerous. I hope this guy gets arrested and put through the ringer because if we lose our respect for the rule of law, civilization begins to unravel.

IMO, some vandalism is morally justifiable, and in this case, since the property is advancing moral degeneracy and sleaze, I say give the man a medal and a full pension the rest of his life.

Then we disagree. If it were pro abortionists tearing down a pro life sign, then we'd all agree it was wrong and that tearing down a sign shows an ineptitude to refute the message. If we feel justified in damaging private property, then we shouldn't be taken aback when our foes feel the same.

I don't see why we have to agree on everything.
You put the law of the land above God's law, and I don't. I think both of our viewpoints are respectable within Western cultural norms, though, honestly, I don't really care about meeting 'norms', lol.

I don't think God's law commands us to break man's law, particularly laws conducive to peace and the protection of property.

Tolerating fagotry is not conducive to peace, but only strife and self destruction.

[You might want to leave God out of this, He isn't an advocate of what this guy did.

I think God engaged in quite a bit of property destruction when He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, don't you?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Shit, that video turned you on, keep your ****** fantasy to yourself

Ultimately there's no winning this argument on solid ground because destruction of property is wrong and tolerance of destructive behavior is dangerous. I hope this guy gets arrested and put through the ringer because if we lose our respect for the rule of law, civilization begins to unravel.

IMO, some vandalism is morally justifiable, and in this case, since the property is advancing moral degeneracy and sleaze, I say give the man a medal and a full pension the rest of his life.

Then we disagree. If it were pro abortionists tearing down a pro life sign, then we'd all agree it was wrong and that tearing down a sign shows an ineptitude to refute the message. If we feel justified in damaging private property, then we shouldn't be taken aback when our foes feel the same.

I don't see why we have to agree on everything.
You put the law of the land above God's law, and I don't. I think both of our viewpoints are respectable within Western cultural norms, though, honestly, I don't really care about meeting 'norms', lol.

I don't think God's law commands us to break man's law, particularly laws conducive to peace and the protection of property.

Tolerating fagotry is not conducive to peace, but only strife and self destruction.

[You might want to leave God out of this, He isn't an advocate of what this guy did.

I think God engaged in quite a bit of property destruction when He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, don't you?

Not even remotely comparable. Those cities were overtaken by violent homosexual mobs that raided outlying towns and cities. It was for that specific reason, the outcry of their neighbors, that the angels said God would destroy the cities.

A sign in the street isn't Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Two naked guys embracing? If that's not porn to you, then you must watch snuff films or worse.

Naked? I see more at the pool. Perhaps you're having penis envy.

roflmao, everything comes down to comparative dick sizes to you libtards.

Do you think the day might come when you grow the **** up?

I am grown up....I'm not homophobic.

I've never met anyone who is. Only a jackass completely unfamiliar with Greek actually thinks that's a word.

Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. You're that jackass.

Homophobic might be a stupid word, a word that doesn't make sense when broken down, but like ain't, at this point it's pretty much accepted.

Ain't is a contraction for 'Am I not' and is so often misused it became an indicator of poor education.

Homophobe means 'fear of ones own kind' which is stupidly misused and a joke on all you faggotry advocates.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IMO, some vandalism is morally justifiable, and in this case, since the property is advancing moral degeneracy and sleaze, I say give the man a medal and a full pension the rest of his life.

Then we disagree. If it were pro abortionists tearing down a pro life sign, then we'd all agree it was wrong and that tearing down a sign shows an ineptitude to refute the message. If we feel justified in damaging private property, then we shouldn't be taken aback when our foes feel the same.

I don't see why we have to agree on everything.
You put the law of the land above God's law, and I don't. I think both of our viewpoints are respectable within Western cultural norms, though, honestly, I don't really care about meeting 'norms', lol.

I don't think God's law commands us to break man's law, particularly laws conducive to peace and the protection of property.

Tolerating fagotry is not conducive to peace, but only strife and self destruction.

[You might want to leave God out of this, He isn't an advocate of what this guy did.

I think God engaged in quite a bit of property destruction when He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, don't you?

Not even remotely comparable. Those cities were overtaken by violent homosexual mobs that raided outlying towns and cities. It was for that specific reason, the outcry of their neighbors, that the angels said God would destroy the cities.

That is supposition on your part, as the Bible simply states God did it to punish their wickedness. The wickedness that the account show cases is fagotry and rape. You want to convince yourself that it was something else that's your choice, but the plain reading of the text is clear.

A sign in the street isn't Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, it was much more and set an example for those who want to be like Him.

 

[Montrovant]

I am grown up....I'm not homophobic.

I've never met anyone who is. Only a jackass completely unfamiliar with Greek actually thinks that's a word.

Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. You're that jackass.

Homophobic might be a stupid word, a word that doesn't make sense when broken down, but like ain't, at this point it's pretty much accepted.

It's accepted among the illiterate, among whose ranks you belong. For those of us who know English and its Latin and Greek roots, it isn't a word at all. There's no such thing as a homophobe. But you twats also believe in other mythical things like global warming.

What is or is not a word is entirely based on the society where the word is used. You may think there are some sorts of unbreakable rules regarding language, but that is demonstrably false. You don't have to use the word or like it, but when it finds common enough use, it becomes a word. Again I give you the example of ain't. Call them colloquialisms if it makes you feel better. In both cases you know what is meant and the words are in common use.

It's not as though English is always the most sensible language.

Wrong. Because you're illiterate this has to be explained to you. Words based on Latin or Greek have specific definitions because the ancient roots incorporated in them are fixed and therefore intransigent in meaning. Ignorant vernacular cannot make this fact go away.

"Homophobe" means fear of likeness. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and certainly nothing to do with those whose moral objections to it are not seated in fear. In fact it's not even a type of fear that is a recognized psychiatric disorder because nobody fears objects of similarity.

Clearly you're a victim of public education. The rest of us can read.

You don't need to explain anything to me. I understand exactly what homophobe should mean based on the roots of the word. What you seem unwilling or unable to accept is the fact that language is not some sort of static, unchangeable thing. Common usage will often add meanings to words that do not make sense based on the roots. You can deny it all you like, it does not change the fact that in common usage homophobe means a person who is bigoted against homosexuals. It's silly, I don't know why someone decided to use that particular word with that meaning nor why it caught on. I don't know why we bother with the letter c either, since the sounds it makes are already made by other letters, yet there it is.

You are arguing about what should be. I agree, but am pointing out that what should be is not always what is. Don't use the word if you don't want to, you still know exactly what people mean when they do use it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Since when is porn allowed on outdoor signs?

How is the poster 'porn?'

Two naked guys embracing? If that's not porn to you, then you must watch snuff films or worse.

Again, not naked.

If that sign constitutes porn, you must feel like you are surrounded by porn constantly. Or is it only porn because of the gay theme?

Those guys are dressed in leather, right? Leather is a fetish to some gays. ( Refer to the Village People singing group.) Gay leather men wear chaps with no jeans because they want to show their ass to other men, so it's likely those chaps have the ass exposed. That's porn because that's what gay men are turned on to. Normal sexed people don't want to see that on the street because we have children who ask questions. I would think you'd want to save your children's eyes from that too.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[
Naked? I see more at the pool. Perhaps you're having penis envy.

Hardly. Conservatives are well endowed.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

These types of advertising is promoting homosexual hookups, which is another way of saying that it is promoting sexual immorality. These are two naked men on the poster. Anyone knows what is being promoted and it's not an eHarmony type date.

I call upon all decent American men to destroy such signs whereever they are found. Protect our children from viewing this filth and depravity.

I think your children need to be protected from you.

I believe bringing up for comment my kids is forbidden. Hopefully a mod will deal with you.

My comment is that as a responsible parent you should be protecting your children from people that promote hate because others are different than they are, but I can see how you didn't get that.

. Gunny wasn't promoting hate toward gays, he didn't want the poster out on the street. Stop with the hate card. Just because we disagree with something, doesn't mean hate is involved. (With the exception of liberals).

 

[Montrovant]

Since when is porn allowed on outdoor signs?

How is the poster 'porn?'

Two naked guys embracing? If that's not porn to you, then you must watch snuff films or worse.

Again, not naked.

If that sign constitutes porn, you must feel like you are surrounded by porn constantly. Or is it only porn because of the gay theme?

Those guys are dressed in leather, right? Leather is a fetish to some gays. ( Refer to the Village People singing group.) Gay leather men wear chaps with no jeans because they want to show their ass to other men, so it's likely those chaps have the ass exposed. That's porn because that's what gay men are turned on to. Normal sexed people don't want to see that on the street because we have children who ask questions. I would think you'd want to save your children's eyes from that too.

Many, many, many advertisements use sex to sell. Some are more blatant than others. Are any ads of a sexual nature pornographic?

I have no idea if the men are wearing leather. I can't even tell what the one on the left might be wearing, if anything, while the one on the right I can only say has some sort of dark colored clothing at his waist, I would guess some sort of shorts or pants. Could be leather, but who knows? Both men are wearing chain necklaces, that's the only clear thing I can see them wearing.

It's odd that you would go from saying they are naked to saying they are wearing leather. It seems clear to me that your real issue is that they are gay men in a sexually provocative picture. I doubt you care much about sexually provocative ads which feature women or heterosexual couples.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then we disagree. If it were pro abortionists tearing down a pro life sign, then we'd all agree it was wrong and that tearing down a sign shows an ineptitude to refute the message. If we feel justified in damaging private property, then we shouldn't be taken aback when our foes feel the same.

I don't see why we have to agree on everything.
You put the law of the land above God's law, and I don't. I think both of our viewpoints are respectable within Western cultural norms, though, honestly, I don't really care about meeting 'norms', lol.

I don't think God's law commands us to break man's law, particularly laws conducive to peace and the protection of property.

Tolerating fagotry is not conducive to peace, but only strife and self destruction.

[You might want to leave God out of this, He isn't an advocate of what this guy did.

I think God engaged in quite a bit of property destruction when He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, don't you?

Not even remotely comparable. Those cities were overtaken by violent homosexual mobs that raided outlying towns and cities. It was for that specific reason, the outcry of their neighbors, that the angels said God would destroy the cities.

That is supposition on your part, as the Bible simply states God did it to punish their wickedness. The wickedness that the account show cases is fagotry and rape. You want to convince yourself that it was something else that's your choice, but the plain reading of the text is clear.

A sign in the street isn't Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, it was much more and set an example for those who want to be like Him.

The text is very clear, right from the mouths of angels who said God would destroy the cities because of the outcry of their neighbors. It seems like it's been several years since you ever read the account in Genesis and you're guessing. Instead, read it, because it dispels the popular notion that God killed them just for having gay butt sex. They were hurting people and that's what moved the hand of the Almighty to intervene.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The text is very clear, right from the mouths of angels who said God would destroy the cities because of the outcry of their neighbors. It seems like it's been several years since you ever read the account in Genesis and you're guessing. Instead, read it, because it dispels the popular notion that God killed them just for having gay butt sex. They were hurting people and that's what moved the hand of the Almighty to intervene.

I didn't say it was only for butt ******* each other. I also included rape as part of that. But there is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah got nuked for being a bunch of fags.

In Genesis chapter 19 the two angels sent to test Sodom and Gomorrah were threatened with *** rape.
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."

"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 "But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

So they failed the test, and they failed it because they were violent *** rapists. It has only been in the last 40 years or so that this ridiculous notion that the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with fagotry has had anyone buying it and that is to go with the secular flow, of moral sewage.

And Jude 1:7 makes it plain how the church has interpreted this passage for thousands of years.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

And finally St Paul himself explains why God's loathing for perverts is unquenched, because they not only delight in doing evil but also corrupt and seduce others into sin as well.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.



So don't give me that 'it wasn't about fagotry' bullshit. You want to swallow that crap, go ahead, but you are not passing it off on me, dear.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

. ...snip...It's odd that you would go from saying they are naked to saying they are wearing leather. It seems clear to me that your real issue is that they are gay men in a sexually provocative picture. I doubt you care much about sexually provocative ads which feature women or heterosexual couples.

A man and woman embracing on a poster depicts something we want our children to see as normal and healthy. Men depicting this is not good for a healthy Society. Keep that shit in gay bars or gay rodeos where it belongs.

 

[J.E.D]

. ...snip...It's odd that you would go from saying they are naked to saying they are wearing leather. It seems clear to me that your real issue is that they are gay men in a sexually provocative picture. I doubt you care much about sexually provocative ads which feature women or heterosexual couples.

A man and woman embracing on a poster depicts something we want our children to see as normal and healthy. Men depicting this is not good for a healthy Society. Keep that shit in gay bars or gay rodeos where it belongs.

Yeah. Or on your bedroom wall

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The text is very clear, right from the mouths of angels who said God would destroy the cities because of the outcry of their neighbors. It seems like it's been several years since you ever read the account in Genesis and you're guessing. Instead, read it, because it dispels the popular notion that God killed them just for having gay butt sex. They were hurting people and that's what moved the hand of the Almighty to intervene.

I didn't say it was only for butt ******* each other. I also included rape as part of that. But there is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah got nuked for being a bunch of fags.

In Genesis chapter 19 the two angels sent to test Sodom and Gomorrah were threatened with *** rape.
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."

"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 "But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

So they failed the test, and they failed it because they were violent *** rapists. It has only been in the last 40 years or so that this ridiculous notion that the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with fagotry has had anyone buying it and that is to go with the secular flow, of moral sewage.

And Jude 1:7 makes it plain how the church has interpreted this passage for thousands of years.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

And finally St Paul himself explains why God's loathing for perverts is unquenched, because they not only delight in doing evil but also corrupt and seduce others into sin as well.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.



So don't give me that 'it wasn't about fagotry' bullshit. You want to swallow that crap, go ahead, but you are not passing it off on me, dear.

You neatly stepped around Genesis 19:13, the only verse in the entire Bible that explains why God destroyed the cities. Everything else you posted is irrelevant. You're a typical Protestant only seeing what you want to see in Scripture. The truth is, God is merciful and slow to anger, tolerating waywardness and giving ample opportunity for repentance. God did not destroy those cities because of homosexuality alone. This he tolerated. But he was moved to intervene when they brought violence against their neighbors and caused them to cry out; this could not be tolerated.

You're like Peter, wishing God would call fire from the sky to consume his enemies, but Peter was rebuked by Jesus. God is reticent to bring punishment in that age and every other.