Queers Against Israeli Apartheid Banned from Pride Parade
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
You were doing so well untill you decided to throw in the part in red. Tell me, what the hell does the human rights atrocities of one country, or group of countries, have to do with another? What?, because the other middle eastern countries are so backward that means Isreal shouldn't or can't be critisized?
Not at all.
I was simply pointing out that the morons of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid would be put to death in many of the countries they are defending against Israel......that strikes me as completely blind, stupid, self-defeating...........etc.
Seems like they have moved into the 21st century all right. Look how well allowing sex between men and boys has worked out for the RCC, even with full knowledge of their 'obviously not a crime in their eyes' raping children has had zero backlash.
"[SIZE=+1]Conservative rabbis, who lead 33 percent of religious Jews, announce they will soon ordain gay rabbis and encourage homosexuality for Jewish men and women who are so inclined.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Orthodox Judaism, 21 percent of American religious Jews, has not yet outwardly endorsed homosexuality. In fact, it officially forbids homosexual relations between adults.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]But in the Talmud, the highest religious, ethical and legal authority for Orthodox Jews, we find a very different, shocking reality: little boys under the age of nine (delectable objects of homosexual lust) are repeatedly described as incapable of "throwing guilt" on the adult who rapes them![/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How does the Talmud reach such a perverted conclusion? The Talmud considers in depth the question: "What disqualifies a woman from eligibility to marry a Jewish priest?" The Old Testament says sexual immorality does. Yet the Talmud repeatedly asserts that a grown-up woman can have sex with boys under the age of nine. There is a difference of opinion among the most eminent rabbis about whether this disqualifies her from being the wife of a priest. Yet all agree that such intercourse is not sexual activity, and neither she nor the little boy have done anything wrong.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The precedent of women being encouraged into pederasty creates deep moral reverberations: a little boy is without moral protection. His rape is not even a moral issue. It is consequently not hard to imagine how Jewish homosexuals, already lusting after little boys (chickens, in their vocabulary), could find justification in the Talmud's rationalization.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Here's what the Talmud says. The Talmud teaches that since little boys aren't sexually mature, molesting them has no moral implications. Because such a minor isn't a "man" in the mature sense, the boy and his sexual predator are exempted from the Mosaic ban on homosexuality. It says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind." (Lev. 18:29) 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Sanhedrin 69b summarizes: "All agree that the connection of a boy age nine years and a day is a real connection; while that of one less than eight years is not." 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] The majority opinion in Sanh. 55a states: "Rab. said: pederasty with a child below 9 years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that" "Rab. maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty, throw guilt [upon the active offender]; while he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot" 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The rabbis agreed that a woman could have sexual relations with a young boy without it even being considered a sexual act: "A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood" (Kethuboth 11b). The footnote to this passage says, "Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood" (i.e. she has not sinned, but is perhaps disqualified from marrying a priest). 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] The Talmud discusses such female pederasty ostensibly to determine if a woman, by such intercourse, becomes disqualified to marry a priest. Yet the Talmud opens a wide gate for all Jewish child molesters, male or female, to indulge in sex with boys under nine, free from blame. After all, the Talmud nullifies the Mosaic ban on same-sex with "mankind," teaching that a sexually immature boy is not a "man." Is this not a green light for Jewish homosexuals?[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Such teaching is not accidental. The ancient rabbis, sexual perverts, made careful provision for their deviant sexual indulgences. They repeatedly made the Talmud's text crystal-clear: boys of eight, as minors, can't "throw guilt" on the Jewish adult who is the active offender against them.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Jewish apologists absurdly argue that these passages, affirming the moral neutrality of sex with little boys, are expressions of concern to maintain the innocence of the eight year old boy who has been raped. The truth is, they mean to preserve pedophiles from guilt![/SIZE]"
[SIZE=+1]
Perhaps God will arrange a 100% conversion.
[/SIZE]
"[SIZE=+1]Conservative rabbis, who lead 33 percent of religious Jews, announce they will soon ordain gay rabbis and encourage homosexuality for Jewish men and women who are so inclined.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Orthodox Judaism, 21 percent of American religious Jews, has not yet outwardly endorsed homosexuality. In fact, it officially forbids homosexual relations between adults.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]But in the Talmud, the highest religious, ethical and legal authority for Orthodox Jews, we find a very different, shocking reality: little boys under the age of nine (delectable objects of homosexual lust) are repeatedly described as incapable of "throwing guilt" on the adult who rapes them![/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How does the Talmud reach such a perverted conclusion? The Talmud considers in depth the question: "What disqualifies a woman from eligibility to marry a Jewish priest?" The Old Testament says sexual immorality does. Yet the Talmud repeatedly asserts that a grown-up woman can have sex with boys under the age of nine. There is a difference of opinion among the most eminent rabbis about whether this disqualifies her from being the wife of a priest. Yet all agree that such intercourse is not sexual activity, and neither she nor the little boy have done anything wrong.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The precedent of women being encouraged into pederasty creates deep moral reverberations: a little boy is without moral protection. His rape is not even a moral issue. It is consequently not hard to imagine how Jewish homosexuals, already lusting after little boys (chickens, in their vocabulary), could find justification in the Talmud's rationalization.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Here's what the Talmud says. The Talmud teaches that since little boys aren't sexually mature, molesting them has no moral implications. Because such a minor isn't a "man" in the mature sense, the boy and his sexual predator are exempted from the Mosaic ban on homosexuality. It says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind." (Lev. 18:29) 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Sanhedrin 69b summarizes: "All agree that the connection of a boy age nine years and a day is a real connection; while that of one less than eight years is not." 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] The majority opinion in Sanh. 55a states: "Rab. said: pederasty with a child below 9 years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that" "Rab. maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty, throw guilt [upon the active offender]; while he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot" 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The rabbis agreed that a woman could have sexual relations with a young boy without it even being considered a sexual act: "A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood" (Kethuboth 11b). The footnote to this passage says, "Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood" (i.e. she has not sinned, but is perhaps disqualified from marrying a priest). 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] The Talmud discusses such female pederasty ostensibly to determine if a woman, by such intercourse, becomes disqualified to marry a priest. Yet the Talmud opens a wide gate for all Jewish child molesters, male or female, to indulge in sex with boys under nine, free from blame. After all, the Talmud nullifies the Mosaic ban on same-sex with "mankind," teaching that a sexually immature boy is not a "man." Is this not a green light for Jewish homosexuals?[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Such teaching is not accidental. The ancient rabbis, sexual perverts, made careful provision for their deviant sexual indulgences. They repeatedly made the Talmud's text crystal-clear: boys of eight, as minors, can't "throw guilt" on the Jewish adult who is the active offender against them.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Jewish apologists absurdly argue that these passages, affirming the moral neutrality of sex with little boys, are expressions of concern to maintain the innocence of the eight year old boy who has been raped. The truth is, they mean to preserve pedophiles from guilt![/SIZE]"
[SIZE=+1]
Perhaps God will arrange a 100% conversion.
[/SIZE]
Perhaps a survey of the child brothels in the far east would show which ethnic group(s) is most involved in visiting/prompoting/owning of such practices wher it will not be prosecuted by the local authorities. I somehow doubt Arabs are their best customers.
and again, that does not, or should not, preclude Isreal from condemnation for their wrongs.
More from The Real Jew News, MHz???
Keep talking, with you proving all my points about Jew-hatred, I hardly have to enter the debate.......
Keep talking, with you proving all my points about Jew-hatred, I hardly have to enter the debate.......
Perhaps you did not notice my comdemnation of 'Christians' both in the RCC way of doing things and as to who would be the most frequebt visiter to a child brothel, Christians, or the pretend kind, the same one who justify israel no matter what their action is. In this case if they are promoting same-gender sex, I couldn't be happier for them, which I also stated.More from The Real Jew News, MHz???
Keep talking, with you proving all my points about Jew-hatred, I hardly have to enter the debate.......
That is their book of moral codes, not mine. You may notice that Jews get away with literal murder (especially if it is a Gentile) and it would appear it isn't to hard to get away from crimes that are under the 10 commandments. So is hiring a sames sex prostitute the same as having a 'long-term affair' or is sex at any time a sin if they do not get married first. If not then that would seem to be two Laws that were repealed and not just the one. Not a good idea to slap God in the face, let alone two slaps at the same time.
The men from all ethnic groups that visit far east brothels expressly so they can have sex with minors (boys and girls) should be held in their native countries for those crimes. Come to think of it there is an act that takes care of just that very thing, wonder why nobody is enforcing it. Kind of pot/kettle thing to denounce sex between men when the sex between men and children is a much more serious issue which isn't covered to the extent that anything will really change.
Last edited by a moderator:
Violence by idiots only counts if state sanctioned? Question was asked "are there Orthodox going around stoning people to death" although they fell shiort of death stonings and beats are happening.
So people whose one and only defining characteristic is their predilection to sodomy, are trying to define a 'tolerant' version of such. Asbsurdity on absurdity.
I guess you could apply the words Gross Indecency instead, but up until recently, that was deemed to be sodomy in legal definition. No matter what you call it, it is still caustic to the soul.
And it’s not your job to condemn people for homosexuality, coldstream.
I think it’s absolutely fantastic that this Pride Parade banned this organisation from making an unrelated political display; Pride is about demonstrating that everyone should be free to be who they are, with the knowledge that the world readily accepts one another’s differences. It would do no good for this parade to become a platform for other unrelated issues; it is supposed to be a celebration.
I think it’s absolutely fantastic that this Pride Parade banned this organisation from making an unrelated political display; Pride is about demonstrating that everyone should be free to be who they are, with the knowledge that the world readily accepts one another’s differences. It would do no good for this parade to become a platform for other unrelated issues; it is supposed to be a celebration.