| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
BaceFook - Pretty accurate
- Title
- fuck my eyes
- Coke Vanilla Is Awe-
- Next gen consoles i-
- I love my dog.
- Tumblr fruit
- Yahoo
- Hilarious and Crazy-
- lol just seen on fa-
- White man puts a bo-
- Well that settles t-
- Fucking OUCH
- Bang on glass
- a deep physiologica-
- Thumbing a post fro-
- telling my fj famil-
- ....the darnest thi-
- Kids name changed t-
#286
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
I'll try to keep this short, but doubt that will work. Marriage is an institution born of religious beliefs, the problem that everyone has with gay marriage isn't that it allows tax benefits or for a proper legal liability to a relationship, it's that their religious beliefs are what dictate the terms of marriage. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Now, to everyone who will not understand and therefore hate my argument - I love all people, as I believe God has commanded me to, I work with homosexuals, I have had homosexual friends, and I love homosexuals as much as I love straight people. This does not however give anyone the right to ask me to compromise my religious beliefs in the area of marriage for any reason. I don't believe that marriage is an institute of secular origins, and therefore is not for a court separate from the church, or a congress separate from the church to change the terms of. There is a difference between love and tolerance, and there is a difference between hate and preservation of beliefs. There are many religious beliefs in the US, as there are all over the world. My religious beliefs dictate the terms of my marriage, as I believe they should to all others, and therefore must exist between a man and a woman. For years and years now, homosexuals have been given equal rights as married couples, only under different names, such as domestic partnership. Is it so wrong that I ask that my personal beliefs be respected the same as theirs are, and that they can still have the same thing, but that we should call it by another name? Am I unworthy of their love even though they demand mine? Isn't it only fair that I be given equal rights to them?
#320 to #286
-
Blasphemer (05/12/2012) [-]
Well, here's my point. Who you marry is your fucking choice, no one but you and your partner should have saying in this. HOW you marry though, is a whole different matter, church shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if that is against their beliefs. That is all.
#307 to #286
-
jimthehellhog (05/12/2012) [-] one cannot follow one part of the bible without following all of them
if this is the case
interracial marriages should be banned right
and clothes stitched together from two different fabrics
and do you leave any women on her period alone for a week afterward so as not to become impure in the eyes of god
have you ever had an impure thought?
do you have both of your eyes as the bible says to cast out your left eye
the bible says all sorts of things that are considered batshit crazy
i mean at one point it mentions the ability to beat your slaves and the logistics of buying and selling them
do you believe that women are less than men as the bible points out on several occasions as they should have no voice and are to remain silent with no authority over any man
you cannot claim that one part of the bible is right and ignore other parts to do so is to spit in the face of god...right
you also believe cows are sacred correct or do not eat pork
even though they are other religions (beliefs) they are considered married right
so why is that only your religion seems to have the market cornered on marriage?
if this is the case
interracial marriages should be banned right
and clothes stitched together from two different fabrics
and do you leave any women on her period alone for a week afterward so as not to become impure in the eyes of god
have you ever had an impure thought?
do you have both of your eyes as the bible says to cast out your left eye
the bible says all sorts of things that are considered batshit crazy
i mean at one point it mentions the ability to beat your slaves and the logistics of buying and selling them
do you believe that women are less than men as the bible points out on several occasions as they should have no voice and are to remain silent with no authority over any man
you cannot claim that one part of the bible is right and ignore other parts to do so is to spit in the face of god...right
you also believe cows are sacred correct or do not eat pork
even though they are other religions (beliefs) they are considered married right
so why is that only your religion seems to have the market cornered on marriage?
#313 to #307
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
You should really make a point to study something before you claim to understand it, rather than just spout out random things you think are facts, especially when it comes to an issue as deep and complex as biblical principles. What you have stated is the equivalent as saying that the second amendment protects our right to wear short sleeve shirts, and I feel nothing but pity for you if this is all the more you wish to invest in yourself, that you would belittle the beliefs of another with no true understanding of what they are.
#379 to #313
-
lodisboeg ONLINE (05/12/2012) [-] "Deep" and "complex" my arse. It is a fact that a lot of the stuff in the bible is, by todays standars, crazy. It is also a fact that various religious leaders have chosen arbitrarily between the different verses and picked out suitable ones for keeping, while naming others "symbolic" or "allegorical". It is, all in all, nothing "deep" or "complex" about the bibels messages, its just random shit that have made the scrap-book over the course of judaeisms and and christendoms history.
#322 to #315
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
Leviticus is speaking about being "unequally yoked" which means to be in an inter-religious marriage, which makes absolute sense, if your core beliefs run contradictory to those of your spouse, your marriage will be troubled for sure. The terminology interracial is relevant for the time of writing, as it is an Old Testament passage, and at the time, race/religion went hand in hand.
#329 to #322
-
jimthehellhog (05/12/2012) [-] it makes sense to not allow two people of different faiths to marry
i don't think that makes any sense
now about women having no authority over men
and the cloth thing
those are all there
and you can beat your slave as hard as you want as long as it doesn't die
i don't think that makes any sense
now about women having no authority over men
and the cloth thing
those are all there
and you can beat your slave as hard as you want as long as it doesn't die
#335 to #329
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
Tell you what, give me actual scripture references (i.e. Genesis 1:1) and I'll give you actual understanding, I'm not just going to go round and round with someone making unfounded claims that aren't even close to any actual interpretation of scripture.
#346 to #335
-
jimthehellhog (05/12/2012) [-] well what about the cloth thing thats the same passage
go for it explain that all powerful wisdom
and the women thing timothy 2:12
unclean until evening sorry about the period thing leviticus 15:19
the slave beatings exodus 21:26-27
go for it explain that all powerful wisdom
and the women thing timothy 2:12
unclean until evening sorry about the period thing leviticus 15:19
the slave beatings exodus 21:26-27
#306 to #286
-
gameandwatched (05/12/2012) [-] Marriage has never just been a christian thing though, in fact it has been in almost countless religions and cultures some of which allowed gay marriage.
Thanks for not being an asshole about it though, it's good to see a christian who sticks to the true beliefs.
Thanks for not being an asshole about it though, it's good to see a christian who sticks to the true beliefs.
#370 to #349
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, I got that, really, if you're going to keep going with this, invest in it, rather than just making a fool of yourself by barely glancing at my responses and then babbling about w/e pops into your head first. The ancient greeks were not the dawn of mankind or even civilization and Christianity has been around before either of those things occurred.
#371 to #370
-
jimthehellhog (05/12/2012) [-] so when are you offering those two birds to the priest or are you going to admit that you don't follow the entire bible to the letter yet that is all i want
for you to admit that you don't and can't follow the bible to the letter it is slightly rediculous at times
and you know what else i can't really even remember what the content was about at this point it is like 4 in the morning here and i'm fucking tired
for you to admit that you don't and can't follow the bible to the letter it is slightly rediculous at times
and you know what else i can't really even remember what the content was about at this point it is like 4 in the morning here and i'm fucking tired
#374 to #371
-
N. Korean citizen (05/12/2012) [-]
Tell you what, you pick an actual foundation for your argument and stick to it, and I'll tell you what I believe in regard to that argument, this back and forth garbage is getting old. I'm in CST as well, so if you want to pick this up after we've both slept I'm all for that as well.
