V.R.S.
Yeah - zero tolerance for the Douay-Rheims Bible translation!
----

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth"

"None of these topics include "Homosexual Marriage"
---

"Homosexual Marriage" and "humankind…More
Yeah - zero tolerance for the Douay-Rheims Bible translation!
----

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth"

"None of these topics include "Homosexual Marriage"
---

"Homosexual Marriage" and "humankind" are products of the same semantic Revolution. PS "HM" is an oxymoron for a modern moron.
Ultraviolet
You should read the Douay-Rheims a bit more closely, @Lambchop..

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness...

Entirely irrelevant to homosexuality. God created man first. The passage you quote simply describes that happening. Your fallacy is Red Herring.

Note: Genesis Chapter 2 21- 23: "Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one …More
You should read the Douay-Rheims a bit more closely, @Lambchop..

"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness...

Entirely irrelevant to homosexuality. God created man first. The passage you quote simply describes that happening. Your fallacy is Red Herring.

Note: Genesis Chapter 2 21- 23: "Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

"Homosexual Marriage" and "humankind" are products of the same semantic Revolution.

Wrong..

You are an undereducated fool infatuated with "semantics" particularly concerning a language you barely understand.

The word "humankind" has existed in English since the 1640s and in Middle English since the mid 15th century. Thus, the term isn't a product of any so-called "semantic Revolution".

etymonline.com/word/humankind

Likewise "homosexual marriage" was used by the author Havelock Ellis as early as 1927 which was decades before any organized political restructuring of Western languages began.

"It may be mentioned here that among the Tschuktsches, Kamschatdals, and allied peoples (according to a Russian anthropological journal quoted in Sexual-Probleme, January, 1913, p. 41) there are homosexual marriages among the men, and occasionally among the women, ritually consecrated and openly recognized. "

gutenberg.org/…iles/13611/13611-h/13611-h.htm

Your claim fails on both points. the phrase "Homosexual Marriage" and "humankind" are not products of the same anything. The term "humankind" existed for at least five hundred years BEFORE the phrase "homosexual marriage" was first used in any context.

Second, neither term was the product of any "semantic Revolution" and for the sake of completeness, "Revolution" does not need a capital "R". Your capitalization is as incorrect as the statement containing it.

"PS "HM" is an oxymoron for a modern moron."

History shows just the opposite. The term was being used in a clinical sense before World War II, before Vatican Council II, before the "civil rights" activists started campaigning for minorities, and long before the "modern" reforms to language. .

Simply put, you speak out of your usual ignorance.

People like you are the reason the world makes "Polish jokes" about not only ignorant people, but especially morons. ;-)
Ultraviolet
The title "Homosex politics At the Expense of Children is not an excuse for you to wallow your favorite paedophile fantasies while pretending moral outrage. @Paedo John

This post does not contain any of the sexually deviant topics YOU brought up..

The article referenced is about a U.S. Supreme Court case over religious liberty vs. secular non-discrimination laws. Now let's review what More
The title "Homosex politics At the Expense of Children is not an excuse for you to wallow your favorite paedophile fantasies while pretending moral outrage. @Paedo John

This post does not contain any of the sexually deviant topics YOU brought up..

The article referenced is about a U.S. Supreme Court case over religious liberty vs. secular non-discrimination laws. Now let's review what your twisted paedophile perception read into that subject:

"Homosexual Marriage and Their Right to Adopting Boys, Transvestites' & Children's Library Story Time"

Quite a difference there!

"Homosex politics" is not "Homosexual Marriage"
The phrase "homosexual marriage" does NOT appear in the article ANYWHERE.

"Homosex Politics" is not "Their Right to Adopting Boys"
There is no mention of homosexuals "adopting boys". That's a fantasy you child-molestors can't stop dreaming about.

"Homosex Politics is not "Transvestites' & Children's Library Story Time"
Again, no reference to transvetites or children's storytime at all anywhere.

In your previously deleted accounts, you've shown strong and recurring fascination with transsexuals/ transvestites/ cross-dressers etc.

This is, again, a perfect example of you bringing up your sick obsessions where it does not belong.

These are subjects YOU introduced. They do not appear in the article. YOU like talking about these forms of sexual deviancey because they excite YOU.
"His misdirected hostility is often at Catholics speaking out against the evil ones"

First, you're not a Catholic. You're a schismatic. All the pretend pious remarks about Jesus don't change that.

Second, there's nothing "misdirected" about accurately pointing out your sexually perverted obsessions are not in any way mentioned or part of this post.

Third, that's a very well directed hostility. It's based on a dislike for your inevitable topic-shifting posts onto your homosexual deviancies. Go post on a board dedicated to sexual fantasies if you want to fantasize about sex.

"Misdirected hostility, very peculiar why it doesn't direct the anger at the ongoing exceptionally destructive perpetrators."

It isn't peculiar at all. It should be self-evident. For you "deeply disordered" types, I'll have to explain it. The people you mentioned....

1.) don't post on GTV
2.) don't hijack other people's posts onto sexually deviant topics
3.) don't play the victim when they get caught doing 2.)
4.) don't try to self-righteously justify their sick compulsions.

YOU do all of these because you're a latent paedo and talking about such unpleasant subjects fuels your fantasies.
Ultraviolet
None of these topics include "Homosexual Marriage", or pederasty (i.e. choosing boys), or sexual deviants reading children stories. @Paedo John You want to talk about that because you are a sick creep obsessed with paedophilia. No matter how many new accounts you start, no matter how many old accounts you delete, sooner or later your paedo-obsession always gets the better of you …More
None of these topics include "Homosexual Marriage", or pederasty (i.e. choosing boys), or sexual deviants reading children stories. @Paedo John You want to talk about that because you are a sick creep obsessed with paedophilia. No matter how many new accounts you start, no matter how many old accounts you delete, sooner or later your paedo-obsession always gets the better of you and you start hijacking posts.

I think this is the first time it's happened under your new name. It won't be the last. Sooner or later your child-molestor fantasies rise to the surface just like pond scum.

"The Masonic Disunited States is crumbling..." idiots like you have been claiming that since the sixties. Funny how you're happy staying here, eh? All those freebies from Obama and Biden were just too good to pass up. ;-)

"In God We Trust." Who's God? If you don't know, go ask your Baptist pastor, @Baptist John
Unlike you Baptists, Catholics can turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically Part One, Section Two, Chapter One
.
"In God We Trust," a clever, ambiguous Masonic lie.

There isn't anything "ambiguous" about the noun "God" unless a person accepts YOUR interpretation of how supposedly Masons define the word "God".

And YOUR interpretation, like all of your garbage, is entirely unsupported by anything at all.

"George Washington and his fellow Masonics hate Jesus and His One True Apostolic Catholic Church."

Can you quote Washington verbatim stating a hatred for Jesus? No? Then you defame the man with your falsehood. Or are you exercising the same idiotic psychic powers Uncle Jimmy in Ohio always resorted to under these same circumstances.

By contrast, there is ample historical evidence Washington was a devout Christian

.Stick to your fantasies about homosexuals molesting little boys, you sick creep. History contradicts you at every turn..
Holy Cannoli
Student Gets Zero for Using Normal English