Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Ok I will readily admit that this is a thread. But hear me out. This is dark and malevolent but so are marxists and fascists.

Why do we fight gun registration attempts by ANY party in power? Because we know that one of the first things gov't does when it turns socialist is attempt to grab the guns, and we don't trust even our "allies" to do what is right.

What is also known but less thought about is that in Germany, Russia, and today in fascist Islamic countries gays were/are rooted out and either oppressed and executed or murdered on the spot. Our leftists here in America are cozying up to the Islamic forces around the world.

Now in America gay marriage becomes legal by hook and by crook, now you have a virtual registry of most gay persons in the US. You have also used that same bat to beat the church into a bloody mess thus rendering it nearly unable to give aid or stand up to the gov't on moral grounds.

So not Hillary Clinton, but the next one in line comes into power and decides the gays are no longer a useful ally and they need to divest themselves of them. Then out come the stories of why gay sex is damaging and how it spreads disease.....etc etc etc. A sustained 3 to 5 year campaign to vilify them. Our civil rights have already been horribly degraded and are now nonexistant and our rights to dissent are degraded in part because of the gay rights movement. Gays have argued for 40 years that it is genetic and that they cannot change and that they must behave in that way, so they cannot just say I have changed my mind and no longer live that way.

All they would need to do to round them up (only 2-5%) of the population is to go the courthouse and open the marriage registration books and you have a ready made list. A list they would have fought tooth and nail to create. And no one is now permitted to have a moral outrage against the gov't so those who would fight the Islamofacists or the Socialists in their quest have either been beat down or incarcerated. So no one stops the gov't from taking them out.


Oh so scary. But I am not sure it is far fetched at all. Look at who else the leftists in America are cuddled up to.....Islam. I think it is entirely possible that, like the story of the frog and the scorpion, the gays in this country are being played and deceived into digging their own grave with great delight and damaging those who would be the most likely to help them if a gov't started to take action against them.

I know this is a book thanks for reading it. What do yall think? Have I lost my mind?

I think the left courts gay support because they're a wealthy and easily captured demographic. IE its basic political expediency.

The doublethink required to embrace gays and Islam may appear nonsensical at first but remember who you're dealing with.

Also gay sex is rather common in Islamic countries.

Sharia law does not look favorably on gays. If that's where we're headed in the West, then this could be a possibility.

Well there is solution to this, for the right to embrace gays and make them allies. This removes them from the list of government allies, you know the old proverb the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now gays are fighting the government for their rights so now would be a good time to turn them to your side.

I've already stated in another post I'm gay, yet I am pro-gun and anti-government. It is my lack of trust in the government and fear of hate is why I carry a gun. As a matter of fact I am not a democrat and vote for conservatives. The problem lies where the right has lashed out at homosexuals and demonized them, without that I'd imagine they would be willing to side with the right. I mean I can't be the only one willing to!

OakRidgeStars wrote:Sharia law does not look favorably on gays. If that's where we're headed in the West, then this could be a possibility.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statis ... ornography

Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay sex.”

Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay man.” The countries that most search for this is currently Malaysia (#1) and Indonesia (#2). For “gay girl,” Arabic is also the 2nd most common language.

They sure love them some gay sex though.

I have a problem with legislating fantasies, whether it is "gun control saves the children", "equal rights" that become more equal for a segment of the population, or gay procreation. Any time such a law is enacted, one must wonder,"What's next?" if progressives are planning on progressing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

gay procreation is an oxymoron

Meh, I guess I am a social liberal to this extent. I believe homosexuality is complicated in being genetic, and possibly epigenetic. I have no problems with them, or recognized gay marriage. As long as they aren't infringing my right to attempt to achieve happiness, it's fine.

Tin foil is always required when the government wants to butt in.

Hope one day we can past this BS, it really is annoying that it keeps going on.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

My take... although I do not condone homosexuality, I am completely fine with civil unions giving gay couples all of the rights and privileges of a straight couple. What I have a problem with is the actual use of the word "marriage".

I am not a good practicing Christian, but I was brought up Roman Catholic. During my life, most all religions I have either studied or at least dug into for curiosity all say that marriage is a union between a man and a women before God (whoever your God may be). In Christianity it is not only a union where two become one and promises are made to live life in God's light, but it is also a Blessed Sacrament.

Since many main stream religions clearly state homosexuality is a sin, how can you say two gay people are married? Gay marriage is an oxymoron at at minimum, erroneous and immoral based on religious teachings, and counterintuitive at very best. The Good Lord is not going to bless you and celebrate you living in sin against his teachings.

Not to mention, I have both a civil union with my wife and a marriage to my wife. The civil union was all paperwork done at the courthouse 3 days before our spiritual union. The civil union is what gave us the legal benefits of being a committed couple. The spiritual union was strictly a ceremonial display.

So... give them their civil unions and fall victim or reap rewards as they come, but don't defile the word and meaning of marriage and its religious significance. Our country is trying to extinguish a tradition and meaning that has existed almost since the beginning of man (definitely since the beginning of religion) to appease a small group of spoiled brats stomping their feet.

I'm not a liberal/Progressive/communists whatsoever.

You know why I cannot stand the "redefinition" of "marriage"? Because it should NEVER been a GOVERNMENT item in the FIRST DAMNED PLACE!

The only reason the Guv'mint got involved was TAX AND CENSUS REASONS!
If they had just left well enough alone, let the CHURCH continue with the "marriage" definition, then whatever CHURCH married you, recognizes you.

Marriage was originally designed to end wars, prosper lands, and put allies together. It had NOTHING to do with "love", that's a MODERN invention! Let people become their OWN worst enemy, and stop being "Patriarchal"!

Hell! One Man-One Woman was a MODERN invention as well, because PLURAL marriage was the norm for quite awhile. Telling you! Get the freakin' Guv'mint back to just being an admin purposed for services, and defense. No more social engineering, and it would straighten all this sh't out.

Guv'mint's been getting into places it has no business. Pardon the pun.

MarcSpaz wrote: Since many main stream religions clearly state homosexuality is a sin...

I don't care what religion says. Not one bit. Some of the sexual things that men and women do is considered a sin by some religions, especially the roman catholic religion. My family was catholic too, and they have some goofy marriage laws regarding divorce (used to not be officially recognized, which makes a lot of my relatives on my mothers side sinners). Pre-marital sex is a sin. Birth control used to be forbidden by the catholic church. So when it comes to their views on gays, I do not care. It's irrelevant. I'm not gay, but I don't think it's immoral, just as I don't think threesomes are immoral, or whatever kind of fun consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own. In other words, moral arguments against gay marriage mean nothing to me.

This issue really should be discussed on secular grounds. Should there be legal standing for same-sex unions? If that, then why not polygamous unions? Really, why not? These questions I truly have not yet settled on an opinion.

I am with MarcSpaz on this. I think it would be as bloodless solution to let the state handle civil unions and the churches handle marriage. But that does not do what the leftist want which is to create another special class of people, and does not give the leftist a bat to beat down people of faith.

But my point was that homosexuals have been persecuted by the state in times past and present. Knowing this why would you put yourself on a state registry. That (to me) seems like asking for trouble.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

trailrunner wrote:This issue really should be discussed on secular grounds. Should there be legal standing for same-sex unions? If that, then why not polygamous unions? Really, why not? These questions I truly have not yet settled on an opinion.

I don't think the government should expressly allow or restrict it. Its between the private citizens involved. But that is not the question or the debate for me. Civil unions have been allowed for some time, but that wasn't good enough for some people and they started up a new argument stating that civil unions aren't the same as marriage.

For many people who oppose laws affecting the legalization it, the argument is specifically around the word marriage and religious belief. Therefore, it can't be a secular debate. It is actually the root of the debate, otherwise there would be no debate...

See what I am getting too?

And yes mamabearCali, as a reasonable thinking person, I would say I don't want to be documented and tracked by the government for any reason. Unfortunately we all subject ourselves to it in one form or another.

The greatest deterrent to polygamy is common sense.

What man or woman wants more than one mother in law?

KREUTZ...FOR THE FREAKING WIN!

It's why at 44 I have never been married! Yes, I love The Woman dearly, but I feel no overwhelming desire to bring the Guv'mint,or Church into my relationship!

Again, GUV'MINT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CUPID BID'NESS! Let people luv up on whomever they wish! Just stop with the "officiating" of relationships.

It's happening now in Nigeria, off of a few peoples (members of a gay organization) statements so you can imagine what a registry could do, people being rounded up and arrested. Further in the bush, homosexuals are burned alive in ditches and hacked with machetes, saw a clip of one once and almost vomited. When I hear talk of fags being unnatural and disgusting sinners I feel inclined to tell them the end result of such an attitude, beyond just losing an election.

1) There are reasons that true marriage between male and female parents exists. One of those reasons is to protect and train children.

2) There are also reasons why "gay marriage" should not exist, and the story in this link is one of those reasons.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael ... child-porn

Let them call it a "junction", "life-partner", "home-mate" or whatever but never should it be treated called a marriage.

Holy Christ dude! That story is horrifying!

MarcSpaz wrote:Holy Christ dude! That story is horrifying!

It would horrify any humane person, especially those who have or want to have children. I remember two relatives (one is a long term Federal LEO and the other an official in a large city PD) being horrifed at sex crimes committed against children. I think they would tell you that this is more common than is generally known.

We should remember that abuse of a child often causes them to become an abuser.

Now I need to read something happy and stop thinking about this for a time.

Think I'll go hug my wife and talk about our grandchildren.

OleMan wrote:2) There are also reasons why "gay marriage" should not exist, and the story in this link is one of those reasons.

That is a truly awful story, but I don't see where it is any metric for prohibiting gay marriage, when those same events are perpetrated by married heterosexuals as well.