Sodomite Suppression Act of California

T'was not homosexuality that destroyed Rome.

Rome destroyed itself when the people found they could vote themselves largess.

Look around you and see it happening again.....

Well you say that it wasn't homosexuality, but the perversion of human reasoning that produces homosexuality, also causes the overriding subjectivity that causes one to 'vote oneself largess'.
 
Penal Code section 39 a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

...the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?
 
Those who accept and encourage such abnormal behavior are subjectivist hedonists who do not follow any morality. Society will collapse from the excessive weight such behavior requires to justify itself.

Which is the 'abnormal behavior'?

homosexuality?

Or going out and shooting homosexuals- like this law proposes?
 
Penal Code section 39 a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

...the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?

A ludicrous question. Be serious OK.
 
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?

A ludicrous question. Be serious OK.

Are you even aware of what this thread is about?

Someone who thinks that homosexuals are 'undesirables, perverts, freaks' thinks that Californians should be able to shoot homosexuals- and is trying to get the law passed to do so.

So yes- my question is serious- you are in agreement with the guy about who homosexuals are- are you in agreement with him as to the proper final solution?
 
.

"Buggery"

:laugh:

Probably a fundraising tactic.

It'll probably raise money on BOTH sides.

.

I'd be a little more smiley at its absurdity if the proposed initiative didn't call for so many bullets to the head. As a fund raising strategy, this one is a bit grim.
 
Penal Code section 39 a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

...the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.

Wow...

And I'm an 'extremist' for noting that the perverse reasoning that causes sexual abnormality, is not Normal.

But, at the end of the day, THAT is the fate of the homosexual cult.

They have spent most of humanity IN THE CLOSET... for a reason. The chaos and calamity that they're presently causing, will inevitably lead ... ONCE AGAIN, to the catastrophe that will just as inevitably get THE above noted 'bill'... pushed into 'just another Tuesday'. Which of course, is the means by which humanity slams the obligatory closet door... SHUT!

Some of us are patiently waiting for you to tell us what harm homosexuals do to society that heterosexuals don't do,...

LOL! No you're not. What you're pretending is that you haven't been told ad nauseum that treating deceit as truth, is axiomatically harmful... .

BUT! In fairness... you only do so because you've no means to do anything else.

Oh, accusations and predictions of doom you've got in spades. Credible links to reality from the melodramatic mascara smearing of your posts is what is generally lacking.

Is this the part where you demonstrate you don't understand the concept of causation by talking about why civilizations collapse?
 
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?

A ludicrous question. Be serious OK.

Are you even aware of what this thread is about?

Someone who thinks that homosexuals are 'undesirables, perverts, freaks' thinks that Californians should be able to shoot homosexuals- and is trying to get the law passed to do so.

So yes- my question is serious- you are in agreement with the guy about who homosexuals are- are you in agreement with him as to the proper final solution?

It is clearly a publicity stunt that could not even be put on the ballot as it violates the Constitution on it's face. No I don't support shooting people. It is a silly question.
 
Penal Code section 39 a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

...the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?
Didn't say any such thing.

Didn't imply any such thing.

Didn't even think any such thing.

Your juvenile attempt to put words into my mouth, notwithstanding.
 
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?

A ludicrous question. Be serious OK.

Are you even aware of what this thread is about?

Someone who thinks that homosexuals are 'undesirables, perverts, freaks' thinks that Californians should be able to shoot homosexuals- and is trying to get the law passed to do so.

So yes- my question is serious- you are in agreement with the guy about who homosexuals are- are you in agreement with him as to the proper final solution?
Do you understand that one can believe that a particular range of sexual practices is perverse and undesirable and freakish, but not advocate violence against such practitioners? Doubtful, given your one-trick-pony tone, but, perhaps I'm wrong.
 
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy).pdf

Filed by a bona fide lawyer of Sodom California.

It will be interesting to see how many signatures this American Taliban whackjob guy gets on his ballot initiative.
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?
Didn't say any such thing.

Didn't imply any such thing.

Didn't even think any such thing.

Your juvenile attempt to put words into my mouth, notwithstanding.
You responded to the statement "His values are antithetical to the...Constitution" with "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact."

So, yes, you DID say such a thing.
 
One must admire his values if not his penalties.
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?
Didn't say any such thing.

Didn't imply any such thing.

Didn't even think any such thing.

Your juvenile attempt to put words into my mouth, notwithstanding.
You responded to the statement "His values are antithetical to the...Constitution" with "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact."

So, yes, you DID say such a thing.
His values in judging homosexuality to be a perversion?

Absolutely.

His resolution, in suggesting that homosexuals be shot?

Nope.

Regardless of how many illogical hoops you jump through, trying to make something out of nothing.

Better luck next time.
 
Actually not.

His 'values' are anathema to the fundamental tenets of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It allows us to censure a great many kinds of 'undesirables', perverts and freaks.

We've just lost our way for a little while, in connection with one of those sub-categories.

We'll get it sorted, sooner or later.

So you are in favor of people going out and shooting homosexuals as this law proposes?
Didn't say any such thing.

Didn't imply any such thing.

Didn't even think any such thing.

Your juvenile attempt to put words into my mouth, notwithstanding.
You responded to the statement "His values are antithetical to the...Constitution" with "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact."

So, yes, you DID say such a thing.
His values in judging homosexuality to be a perversion?

Absolutely.

His resolution, in suggesting that homosexuals be shot?

Nope.

Regardless of how many illogical hoops you jump through, trying to make something out of nothing.

Better luck next time.

Okay- so you are only half in agreement with the nut who wants to be able to shoot homosexuals.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
"...by bullets to the head".

That's my favorite part.
 
"...or by any other convenient method."

Like, say, a bonfire, a burning cross, some rope, some white hoods, and a tall tree.
 
...Okay- so you are only half in agreement with the nut who wants to be able to shoot homosexuals. Thanks for the clarification.
Correct.

I am in agreement with the half of his proposition that agrees with 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings with respect to homosexuality.

I am not in agreement with the half of his proposition calling for the summary execution of those found to be thus afflicted.
 
"...or by any other convenient method."

Like, say, a bonfire, a burning cross, some rope, some white hoods, and a tall tree.
Lends a whole new implication to the old maxim: "Put another faggot on the fire" - doesn't it?
wink_smile.gif


Faggot unit - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
"...or by any other convenient method."

Like, say, a bonfire, a burning cross, some rope, some white hoods, and a tall tree.
Lends a whole new implication to the old maxim: "Put another faggot on the fire" - doesn't it?
wink_smile.gif


Faggot unit - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That's actually how they came to be called faggots. They used to be used as kindling when heretics were burned.

As usual, you got things backwards.
Doesn't matter...
 
...Okay- so you are only half in agreement with the nut who wants to be able to shoot homosexuals. Thanks for the clarification.
Correct.

I am in agreement with the half of his proposition that agrees with 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings with respect to homosexuality.

I am not in agreement with the half of his proposition calling for the summary execution of those found to be thus afflicted.

hmmmm you do know that 'judeo Christian teaching with respect to homosexuality call for execution of homosexuals- right?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
 
Online Etymology Dictionary

"male homosexual," 1914, American English slang, probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1590s), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (n.1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (compare baggage "worthless woman," 1590s). It may also be reinforced by Yiddishfaygele "homosexual" (n.), literally "little bird." It also may have roots in British public school slang noun fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This also spun off a verb (see fag (v.2).
 

Forum List

Back
Top