Legacy Fan Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Just don't go telling other people, who don't blindly accept whatever unsubstantiated stories they're told, that they deserve to die because they do something your books say shouldn't be done. Not saying that you personally do, but people all over the world use various religions as a stick to beat people with - and mostly when it suits them, I might add.I only know of one "religion" that does this (i don't include westboro baptist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryfine Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Heaven to me would be all the balls I could suck, especially Diehard Stewie and Cyscko's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 I can't believe they haven't banned little fag boy Larry yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I can't believe they haven't banned little fag boy Larry yet. Liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I only know of one "religion" that does this (i don't include westboro baptist). Seriously? OK, assuming you meant islam, you have christians going on about gays, how it's against god's will, they need to die or just not be gay because it's so obviously a choice. Before that, it was slaves, the bible says it's all good to have slaves etc. (even though I'm fairly sure that was old testament and so should have been thrown out by Jesus). Before that it was women. In hindu women have fewer rights than men according to scripture, and the traditional caste system is used to keep people from different backgrounds in their places. I'm not saying these are all equal, or all extant. What I'm saying is that depending on how you interpret your scripture, and how dumb the people following you are, you can use religion as a stick to beat people with, when it suits your need. Right now, christians are using it against gays. But where are all the people protesting divorce? Surely that's more an affront to the institution of marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Of course its a ruling practice. Everything has rules. Where you work have rules. Religion and god have rules also. So what exactly is your point? You don't like the rules? Tough shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Seriously? OK, assuming you meant islam, you have christians going on about gays, how it's against god's will, they need to die or just not be gay because it's so obviously a choice. Before that, it was slaves, the bible says it's all good to have slaves etc. (even though I'm fairly sure that was old testament and so should have been thrown out by Jesus). Before that it was women. In hindu women have fewer rights than men according to scripture, and the traditional caste system is used to keep people from different backgrounds in their places. I'm not saying these are all equal, or all extant. What I'm saying is that depending on how you interpret your scripture, and how dumb the people following you are, you can use religion as a stick to beat people with, when it suits your need. Right now, christians are using it against gays. But where are all the people protesting divorce? Surely that's more an affront to the institution of marriage? So we can "broad brush" Christians, just not Muslims? Noted. But instead of whatever straw man *this* post was, let's go back to the part of your post I first quoted (follow our ways/book or die) - still only one "religion" that is proclaiming that. Unless not baking wedding cakes = murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Edit: Just realized I quoted more of your post than I thought I did. Highlighting /deleting text on an iPhone is a pain. But my point is, if you go back and read all of the articles cal/diehard/whomever have posted on the "attacks against Christianity" (I don't recommend it unless you want a nosebleed), you'll find that after removing all of the sensationalist editorial clickbait bullshit and stick to the quotes from the Christians the stories are covering not one of them is even remotely suggesting someone be put to death over their sexuality. The wedding cake stuff has just been the recent clickbait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 So we can "broad brush" Christians, just not Muslims? Noted. But instead of whatever straw man *this* post was, let's go back to the part of your post I first quoted (follow our ways/book or die) - still only one "religion" that is proclaiming that. Unless not baking wedding cakes = murder. Well that was kind of the opposite of what I was saying - that it's *possible* for people to do that and people have done that in the past when it suits them. It's not as prevalent in developed countries any more, but you still do have the WBC you choose to ignore, and others, proclaiming that gays must be killed because they're a scourge on the planet, that they can't get married, have kids, or do things everyone else does because the bible says so. It's fine to disapprove, but people don't need your permission to live their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Edit: Just realized I quoted more of your post than I thought I did. Highlighting /deleting text on an iPhone is a pain. But my point is, if you go back and read all of the articles cal/diehard/whomever have posted on the "attacks against Christianity" (I don't recommend it unless you want a nosebleed), you'll find that after removing all of the sensationalist editorial clickbait bullshit and stick to the quotes from the Christians the stories are covering not one of them is even remotely suggesting someone be put to death over their sexuality. The wedding cake stuff has just been the recent clickbait. It's highly infrequent in America these days, I agree. Perhaps I was unintentionally sensationalising. Instead of 'deserve to die' I should have said about being second class citizens because of their sexuality and someone's scripture being apparently against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Yes I'm choosing to ignore WBC. They have 39 members. Thirty nine. That's not even a statistically significant amount of people on their street much less a representation of any religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Yes I'm choosing to ignore WBC. They have 39 members. Thirty nine. That's not even a statistically significant amount of people on their street much less a representation of any religion. That small? Must be the same people every time protesting, they must have a lot of money somewhere. I wonder how many people are not members but agree with the views? Maybe not many. But it wasn't the point. As I said, unintentional sensationalising, and I apologise for that. Though, this guy... The point was about using religion to keep people down. In the middle east it's women and gays, in the west it's not women any more - though that's not been the law until relatively recently, only in 1993 did marital rape become just rape in the last states for example - but it's still gays. On the other hand, you have for example divorce, which seems like the biggest 'danger' to the institution of marriage as it had been for however long, but although I'm sure some people somewhere are protesting, where's the media coverage? Where are the groups going around 'divorcee-bashing' like the gay-bashing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 There's a proverb (unsure of its origin) that states something to the effect of "the shallowest water makes the most noise" I'm sure there was "divorce bashing" when the nuclear family began to unravel. But there wasn't a 25 hour/day news cycle like today. Plus at that time, there were commies, hippies, & marijuana to be terrified over. That likely occupied most traditionalists' anxiety thresholds and the subsequent news coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 True, but if people were truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they should presumably be more worried about divorce than two people who love each other getting married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Also, I don't think there were any "single mom / single dad / divorcee" parades with rainbow colored unicorn shaped dildo-floats that would have allowed traditionalists something to point at and say "look this is wrong/ ruining marriage/children/future" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 True, but if people were truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they should presumably be more worried about divorce than two people who love each other getting married.Personally, I agree totally. However it's much easier to point at extreme differences and say "this is wrong / not normal" and seek to stop "it" The visual cues/ differences between a "flamboyant homosexual" and a "flamboyant divorcee" are pretty stark. Meaning, I don't think you can call a divorcee flamboyant. They're not attracting the same level of attention to themselves. Edit: Qualifier: yes I know all gays aren't flamboyant either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 That's what it comes down to - one of them makes some people uncomfortable, and one doesn't, and so they use the 'sanctity of marriage' argument to prevent the uncomfortable one becoming acceptable. I do agree about the dildo floats though, gay pride marches can sometimes be a bit in your face...literally. Divorce, on the other hand, was basically eradicated in the first millennium AD (because of religion?), but then brought back by Henry VIII because his wife was to ugly and he wanted to fuck the handmaiden or some such, and so it was forced on the population as a normal thing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 No. gay marriage is perversion of real marriage. divorce is where the marriage didn't work, it's really sad when there are kids involved. But at least it was a REAL MARRIAGE that failed. Strange that you don't get it, Chris. Just...strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 No. gay marriage is perversion of real marriage. divorce is where the marriage didn't work, it's really sad when there are kids involved. But at least it was a REAL MARRIAGE that failed. Strange that you don't get it, Chris. Just...strange. Jesus tends to not think too highly of divorce. Jesus then answers, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9). There is clarification that "immorality" applies to "marital unfaithfulness". So there are a lot of adulterers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Actually anyone who has slept with more than one woman or ever been divorced should probably just shut up about the sanctity of biblical marriage. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Actually anyone who has slept with more than one woman or ever been divorced should probably just shut up about the sanctity of biblical marriage. WSS Yes indeedy, that was basically my point. So many things happening that are 'un-christian' within marriage and elsewhere, that making such a big deal out of one particular subject seems disproportionate - that was basically what I was getting at, by suggesting some people use religion as a means to suit their own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Actually anyone who has slept with more than one woman or ever been divorced should probably just shut up about the sanctity of biblical marriage. WSS finally something rational out of you. Did you skip breakfast or something? Was your mind free from simple insulin spiking carbohydrates yesterday morning? You should do that more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Actually anyone who has slept with more than one woman or ever been divorced should probably just shut up about the sanctity of biblical marriage. WSS I have never been divorced, but DAMN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to hell, for the sleeping with more than one women See you all there!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 finally something rational out of you. Did you skip breakfast or something? Was your mind free from simple insulin spiking carbohydrates yesterday morning? You should do that more often. Love the irony in that you were able to recognize something rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yes indeedy, that was basically my point. So many things happening that are 'un-christian' within marriage and elsewhere, that making such a big deal out of one particular subject seems disproportionate - that was basically what I was getting at, by suggesting some people use religion as a means to suit their own ends. True, but that doesn't validate or give a free pass to the idea of gay marriage...all you and Steve are saying is those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 True, but that doesn't validate or give a free pass to the idea of gay marriage...all you and Steve are saying is those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. To me, divorce and gay marriage are both perfectly fine, no issue with either of them. But if one's going to protest only on one issue, and so heavily, and not the other, then maybe it's no longer about the sanctity of marriage, it's about one not being able to cope with people being gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Catholics believe in Purgatory. Hell is reserved for the worst. Most of us will stay in Purgatory for a few thousands of years. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 To me, divorce and gay marriage are both perfectly fine, no issue with either of them. But if one's going to protest only on one issue, and so heavily, and not the other, then maybe it's no longer about the sanctity of marriage, it's about one not being able to cope with people being gay. No. Why must you people always resort to the "hate" or "cant cope with gays" mantras? That's old and tired. I would say the majority view is simply that gays don't qualify, just as legally blind people don't qualify in obtaining a drivers license...it's too bad about their afflictions. Yes, I understand the analogy is not exact simply because a blind driver can cause harm to others, but you must understand the feeling or idea of not being qualified IS exact, has nothing to with hating or being intolerant of gays. How exactly do you protest divorce? How do you predict it? That is as idiotic as granting drivers licenses TO THOSE QUALIFIED and predicting who will end up becoming reckless drivers. The "sanctity" so to speak of granting drivers licenses ie...age requirements, drivers tests, must still be maintained. No one knows who will turn out to be a killer behind the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 if in fact someone wanted to focus on the divorce rate the logical option would be to make it illegal. after all we are talking about marriage as a legal contract, providing for survivor benefits spousal insurance etc etc which apparently gays want to benefit from. So if someone out there has a problem bloom with the sanctity of marriage just make divorce nearly impossible to get. maybe that would force people to at least think about it before they make a binding contract. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 if in fact someone wanted to focus on the divorce rate the logical option would be to make it illegal. after all we are talking about marriage as a legal contract, providing for survivor benefits spousal insurance etc etc which apparently gays want to benefit from. So if someone out there has a problem bloom with the sanctity of marriage just make divorce nearly impossible to get. maybe that would force people to at least think about it before they make a binding contract. WSS Good point. If you're lucky you may get Cleves approval on this one as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.