Homosexuality is a sin

Get cursed at by passersby
Someone pulls out a glock
'Holy shit'
Run for your life
Shot in the appendix
Pray it away, man

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205306/Russel-Brandi-Bellew-Faith-heale r-parents-avoid-jail-Austin-Sprout-16-dies.html

Get shot in the appendix
Don't really need one anyways
Get it removed
Spared pain of appendicitis
and watch girls make out
sounds like a profit to me.

Watch out, man. Might get some gay guys too.

you have a good point

...That's actually a good point...

Thats from a hentai...

Yes. it also means that nobody that has watched lesbian porn can oppose gay marriage unless they're hypocrites.

Ohhh..... shit.

Yes. Then you just have to be specific about it.

Yes, why wouldn't it?

yes, lesbian is a turn of phrase used for gay women since gay men are phanny bandits

I was there. It was in Austin two(?) weeks ago. After a while, I bought a 3'x5' flag and held in front of their signs. I saw these two. They were pretty whorish.

MFW Christian Hate Groups.

MFW Hate groups.

MFW Christian Hate Groups

MFW Lesbians making out

Dat username

That's what I thought here until I looked at the second right's "citation" and found something that said it.... Although it said men on men, not female on female :)

1 Corinthians 6:9

This is the direct translation from the original Greek, not the Vatican's flawed over-translation.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Anyone who has premarital sex, masturbates, worships those other than God (as many Christians actually do; they may not see it, but many actually worship the saints they pray to), any man who takes on some responsibilities that used to be purely associated with women (ie, taking care of a child, cooking, cleaning), men who treat other men as inferior, and anyone who drinks.

This verse does not actually condemn homosexuality at all. And it's also not the words of Jesus. It's the beliefs of Paul, written in a letter.

Then.... no fapping? :(

most things people do are outlawed by the Bible. it doesn't mean that they're still considered bad in today's society.

so no, no fapping.

well shit

How so?

By posing in front of a camera for the sake of attention.
Maybe.

They're making a point, and how do you know someone didn't just take their picture while they were doing this? Awful lot of assumptions you have to make to come to your conclusion.

"and sluts"
Don't even get me started on this. I'd love to hear your thought process of how you came to this conclusion.

How would you know they're making a point? That's just another assumption.
Practice what you preach, hypocrite.

Love is something very personal and intimate. It's not unthinkable to argue that using/instrumentalising it for either attention or political leverage is highly unethical.

They're a lesbian couple kissing in front of a group of anti-gay protesters. My assumption is based on evidence. Now if you can kindly show me the evidence you see in this photo of your assumptions I guess I'd be a hypocrite. If not, I recommend not using words you don't understand friend.

"It's not unthinkable to argue that using/instrumentalising it for either attention or political leverage is highly unethical."
Once again all based on no evidence.

You've got it all wrong.
It's you who has to put forward evidence of them being an actual couple.
You're not doing this whole logic thing terribly often, do you?

Yes, exactly. Good luck finding any absolute in ethics.
Are you even thinking about what you're writing in here?

You made the first claim, to which I simply asked your reasoning. Then you gave another claim, based on no evidence, as a reason for the first. I then made a claim based on the only evidence we are presented with, and then simply stated that you're making assumptions based on no evidence and asked for you to either provide actual evidence or reveal your logical thought process. You have yet to do either. I simply challenged your claim, the burden of proof is obviously on those who make initial claims. Which, in this case, was you. You can't just make a baseless claim and expect someone to prove it wrong. I simply don't have to because you haven't even proven your claim was a legit one yet. Logic, arguing, and burden of proof 101.

Tl;dr I really wouldn't go down the "you don't know how to argue or use logic" path anymore.

That's not at all what happened.
TO voiced an opinion, an observation to be exact.
You asked for his reasons to come to this conclusion.
At that point, I named a possible reason.
You completely dismissed it with absolutely no evidence as to why.
Upon my inquiry on how you could know that, you put forward a completely baseless claim, no evidence, no reasoning, no nothing.
Then I told you to stick to your own standards, which you failed to do, as well as providing another possible explanation for TO's interpretation of this picture.

Notice how I have not at all claimed any knowledge or even voiced my own opinion yet? No, of course you didn't. That's why I have to spoon-feed this to you.

tl;dr: You're possibly the biggest failure I've met all week. You'd be terribly offended if you knew what that actually means for you.

Damn I thought you were the same as the first guy, but that still wouldn't change anything since you took up his argument for him.

"At that point, I named a possible reason.
You completely dismissed it with absolutely no evidence as to why."

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."-- Christopher Hitchens

If you've never heard that quote I'd suggest learning it. It's critical to actual arguing.

"Upon my inquiry on how you could know that, you put forward a completely baseless claim, no evidence, no reasoning, no nothing."

I gave you evidence, based on the photo. If you want to blatantly ignore it to make yourself seem reasonable then you've already forfeited this argument. They're a lesbian couple kissing in front of a group of anti-gay protesters. My assumption is based on evidence. That's what I said just so you don't forget again.

**"By posing in front of a camera for the sake of attention.
Maybe."
"Notice how I have not at all claimed any knowledge or even voiced my own opinion yet? No, of course you didn't. That's why I have to spoon-feed this to you."
**
You contradicted yourself. In your first post you clearly make a claim of knowledge. Explain this if you would or you've already lost.

You can keep attacking my person. It's actually a logical fallacy in itself, which is odd since you claim I don't know how to use logic as well as yourself. Ad hominem at it's finest. I won't stoop to your level, I'm just letting you know.

>I listed possibilities advocatus diaboli-style. That changes the matter fundamentally, wouldn't you agree?

>Do you seriously not understand the difference between "to assert" and "to suggest"?
Also, I suggest you apply that quote to itself to uncover its fallacy.

>You made an assumption based on the photo. There is no way of knowing whether we are looking at a legit couple here from looking at the photo alone.
Even if, my argument of abusing romance for attention or political leverage still stands, so I don't understand your obsession with this point in the first place.

>What exactly do you not understand about the word "maybe"?
I suggest you look it up, it's of pivotal importance here.

>Silly kid, one does not stoop to a higher level. That is called "ascend".

You can say Devil's advocate, I don't see why you're trying to switch to SAT vocab and Latin. Layman's terms will do just fine for an unsophisticated internet argument. While some confusion comes from the fact that I assumed you were the original guy until this point, it doesn't change the matter. A Devil's advocate still has to provide grounds for his claims.

A suggestion and an assertion still need evidence. And as the quote stands, there's nothing wrong with it. You'll have to explain how it's fallacious.

You choose to take up the original argument, which was essentially "These girls being sluts and attention whores, make gay people look like sluts and attention whores." That is what we are arguing. I said there wasn't any evidence that these girls are sluts or trying to gain attention and I've yet to be proven wrong. Any other point is meaningless to me because that's not what I'm arguing.

You said maybe, I asked for evidence of your claim. You still haven't provided any.

Again, I have not made a single claim anywhere. I was cautious not to.
You might want to read up on what a hypothesis is and how the word "maybe" relates to it.

This is getting very dull very quickly.
And no, we're doing this chronologically.
It's your turn to provide evidence for "They're making a point". How do you know?

<--- MFW your a fucking narrow minded idiot who doesn't know how to see any point of view but his own.

Well that certainly proved me wrong

I don't need to prove you wrong moron.
You are like high ranking politicians, you shove what you believe down our throats. But when we present alternatives, you blatantly deny them as blasphemy.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were a homophobic prick who is just trying to get some attention on FJ by claiming to be pro gay.

Ad hominem and baseless assumptions at their finest.

Baseless? Check your fucking comments you fucking imbecile. Everything you have said up to this point is my base. I've been going through all the comments in this page and for some reason I keep seeing your name? And under your name is some speech about people not hating on gay couples? Yeah totally baseless. As far as ad hominem, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your jaded opinion. Being so close minded that even though you say your pro gay, you shove shit down people's throats isn't any better than being a gay-hater. You should be more open minded and accept that not everyone shares your beliefs and stop being a pretentious cunt.


Also the fact that FJ is a breeding ground for hypocrites.

Well you seem to be getting a tad angry my man, I'm going to take my leave because you don't seem to be making a coherent point. You call me a homophobic prick that wants attention then prove that by saying all my comments are pro gay? Not really following the logic. Then you also say that's not attacking me, it's attacking my views? Still not following. Anyways you can't seem to make a logical argument, and I really should give you a chance to get that blood pressure down. Good day.

I ain't mad bro. Your just not listening to what I have to say.
I said it wouldn't surprise me if you were thumbwhoring by attacking people who weren't saying pro gay things, but in fact in real life be against the gay community.
Also my logic is sound, as I am not attacking you as a person. I'm saying I believe that despite your allegedly good intentions, the message you are trying to get across to people is being polluted by your negative attitude.
Comprende?

Yeah.. so baseless claims like I said. Got it.

Are you trolling or just that stupid?

Is there a reason you're still talking to me? Anyways this is my last reply, feel free to comment but know I won't read it. Peace.

I....I really don't know. It was fun?

I had that same feeling when pictures of people of the same sex kissing in front of Chik-Fil-A were circulating the internet.

You're right! I should trust you, who has no actual information on these people, rather than the evidence the photo presents! It makes perfect sense!

that's because to society, lesbian women aren't considered people; they're a fetish. the patriarchy defines worth by whatever gives it a boner. It sucks.

Exactly!