Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Im going to chill with my wife toodles!
-
Christians have already altered their concept of marriage by allowing divorcees to remarry. Kind of blows your whole "redefining the meaning of marriage" argument when you've already done exactly the same thing. Societies change and evolve, that's why no one actually follows the bible's dietary, clothing, or slavery guidelines. Gay marriage is just another example of society's evolution, one which more in line with current reality.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Tonight you've compared homosexuality to incest, bestiality and now pedophilia? for the trifecta of slippery slope fallacies. Pretty hateful and vulgar stuff no matter how you slice it. Glass houses, dude. Go hang out with your family before you descend completely into madness and start ranting about throats and the cramming of things down them.★fnord★ wrote: ✂️
Have you heard of the intergenerational marriage? Yup a lot of dudes support this along with your wild eye foaming at the mouth agenda to destroy marriage. You still want "equallity"? -
★fnord★ wrote:
Oh so you dont want "equal" rights then. Ok case close good night fnord☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Tonight you've compared homosexuality to incest, bestiality and now pedophilia? for the trifecta of slippery slope fallacies. Pretty hateful and vulgar stuff no matter how you slice it. Glass houses, dude. Go hang out with your family before you descend completely into madness and start ranting about throats and the cramming of things down them.★fnord★ wrote: ✂️
Have you heard of the intergenerational marriage? Yup a lot of dudes support this along with your wild eye foaming at the mouth agenda to destroy marriage. You still want "equallity"? -
So Jesus didn't specifically outlaw homosexuality so it's ok right? Now the logical conclusion; he didn't outlaw beastiality or pediphelia either so......
-
Back to the point: he was fired for his religious opinion. If he had said Jesus was a fake and Alla is the only god, would he have still been fired?
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I think there is a consent issue to deal with there.So Jesus didn't specifically outlaw homosexuality so it's ok right? Now the logical conclusion; he didn't outlaw beastiality or pediphelia either so......
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
That's not a logical conclusion, it's a fallacy of composition. Also as BJ points out, non-consensual relations would fall under biblical law against theft (taking what doesn't belong to you) at the very least.So Jesus didn't specifically outlaw homosexuality so it's ok right? Now the logical conclusion; he didn't outlaw beastiality or pediphelia either so......
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Again, do you really believe that Constitutional rights are group rights?Let's hear it, Augustine. Use your vast theological training to explain (using logic) why homosexuality is immoral. Bonus points for making a logical case that gays should be denied equal protection and due process under the Constitution, i.e the basic human right to be legally joined with the person they love.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Lying comes easy for you I guess.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
This is you I'm talking to not God. You claim to be God or speak for Him now? Using your logical abilities again? What's the matter, couldn't answer any of the questions directly without showing yourself as the bigot that you are?★Λddi★ wrote:
Addi you know God. And you hate Him so.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
✂️★fnord★ wrote:
This is a very shallow...I love God, and I choose to believe he loves, accepts and supports all of his creations, including his gay children that are indeed born that way. You don't have to think exactly like the fundie to know and love God nor do you have to buy into the man made perversion we call religion to know him.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
How many times do you need to be told NOT to do something before you listen?and this isnt the movie Se7en. Do you read what you type at all?ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
If homosexuality is such a serious transgression against God, why is it so rarely mentioned in the bible relative to other sins? 7 times in the entire bible to be exact. Homosexuality does not appear in the Ten Commandments and it's not one of the 7 deadly sins. Jesus never once mentions it, even when preaching against a smorgasbord of other sexual sins. Where are the parables in which the unrepentant gay couple is punished for their sins, like the parables associated with all the other sins?...More importantly, Romans 1: 26-27.
Also 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-11 -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
I'm not sure how you got that from anything I said. The rights to equal protection and due process are by definition individual rights. That is precisely why it is unconstitutional to extend certain rights to some individuals and not to others as gay marriage bans do. A discriminated against group such as gays can collectively seek their individual rights, perhaps that's where your confusion lies?★fnord★ wrote:
Again, do you really believe that Constitutional rights are group rights?Let's hear it, Augustine. Use your vast theological training to explain (using logic) why homosexuality is immoral. Bonus points for making a logical case that gays should be denied equal protection and due process under the Constitution, i.e the basic human right to be legally joined with the person they love.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
That's precious. You think the seven deadly sins originated in Hollywood.★fnord★ wrote:
How many times do you need to be told NOT to do something before you listen?and this isnt the movie Se7en. Do you read what you type at all?ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
If homosexuality is such a serious transgression against God, why is it so rarely mentioned in the bible relative to other sins? 7 times in the entire bible to be exact. Homosexuality does not appear in the Ten Commandments and it's not one of the 7 deadly sins. Jesus never once mentions it, even when preaching against a smorgasbord of other sexual sins. ✂️More importantly, Romans 1: 26-27.
Also 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-11 -
ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
Thx lex and seeker honestly if anything your the on bringin the nation down a notch by being an ass to someone who has done nothing to you as a person or player at all so good job and being the top in my class huh didn't know that made me pathetic oh well how will I ever live with myself lmao way to change the topic seeker either stay on topic which is our opinions about what's happening on duck dynasty or stfu〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
👆good example of a douche bag.boots069 wrote:
Great, that's what the world needs. Another pathetic lawyer. 😒 and you're Canadian too? 😔 I'm ashamed to be in the same country as you. You just brought Canada down a notch.Freedom of speach does actually cause they unlawfully fired him he could sue them for that trust me your talking to a guy who's going through law school
-
★fnord★ wrote:
The confusion is on your part: you site "gays" being that of a group. Not - gay person. Liberals, as you and Addi are, typically ignore individual rights in furthence of group rights. Hence you twist the two to sound like individual rights are group rights. If you mean the rights of an individual then state that don't reference a group.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
The rights to equal protection and due process are by definition individual rights. That is precisely why it is unconstitutional to extend certain rights to some individuals and not to others as gay marriage bans do. A discriminated against group such as gays can collectively seek their individual rights.★fnord★ wrote:
Again, do you really believe that Constitutional rights are group rights?Let's hear it, Augustine.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Have I ever once tried to prove my religion? Are you even aware of what I have stated? I simply game my opinion and supported my reason for believing what I do. I haven't attempted to defend my beliefs or push them on anyone else I'm only using them as my reasoning for not supporting same sex marriage. I would suggest stepping back for a moment and then trying again because if you can't respect my opinion what in good gods names makes you think I will even remotely care about yours?🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
✂️I love how a lack of support from myself and others in this post is considered bigotry.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Was just opening it up for Addi to jump in with at Shawshank Redemption line was all.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
That's precious. You think the seven deadly sins originated in Hollywood.★fnord★ wrote:
How many times do you need to be told NOT to do something before you listen?and this isnt the movie Se7en. Do you read what you type at all?ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
If homosexuality is such a serious transgression against God, why is it so rarely mentioned in the bible relative to other sins? 7 times in the entire bible to be exact. Homosexuality does not appear in the Ten Commandments and it's not one of the 7 deadly sins. ✂️More importantly, Romans 1: 26-27.
Also 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-11 -
Ojibwe wrote:
Augustine has already explained this. I assume you are at least mostly coherent when you post in this thread and also have a basic comprehension of English language correct. Go back to the last page and find the post stating the difference between moral and holy codes.Christians have already altered their concept of marriage by allowing divorcees to remarry. Kind of blows your whole "redefining the meaning of marriage" argument when you've already done exactly the same thing. Societies change and evolve, that's why no one actually follows the bible's dietary, clothing, or slavery guidelines. Gay marriage is just another example of society's evolution, one which more in line with current reality.
-
DarkM,
You're picking from the "big book of multiple choice" again. This is what is written, look it up."Now, for those who are married I have a command, not just a suggestion..."
-
I have an explanation as to why it doesn't say in red "gay is bad". Where in our law does it say that if your robot goes to the store and wrecks, you're responsible? It doesn't cause that whole scinario is so far out of our realm we don't need to make it a law. The same way for homosexuality 2000 years ago. I bet that if the bible was written in 2013 it would be in the red words.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Yea I'm not asking you to pick and choose. There's a moral code and holy code. Some commands refer only to the holy code and others to the moral code. He did a very good job of explaining this already so I implore you to check it outDarkM,
You're picking from the "big book of multiple choice" again. This is what is written, look it up."Now, for those who are married I have a command, not just a suggestion..."
-
Another point that this has to do with intolerance of Christians; if there was another entertainer that used derogatory terms for gays and repeatedly talk of beating them up and killing them what would we do? If the minority was sympathetic to gays, we would never reward that behavior right? We wouldn't make that entertainer one if the highest grossing rappers of all time. Nor would we watch a halftime commercial of theirs. And we sure wouldn't let them host the Super Bowl halftime show right?
-
It's fine for a rapper to cuss and put down gays but as soon as a preacher mentions it with any reference to Jesus, he's a bigot or whatever. So double standard it makes me sick to my stomach. Call it what you want, this whole thing is an assault on Christians.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
So you're saying that was never a thing, that divorced people who remarried were never considered to be committing adultery? Christian churches could perform marriages for divorced people all the time? Or is it that the remarriage issue has been reconsidered and it was a mistake to previously ban it? I'm confused about this.Ojibwe wrote:
Yea I'm not asking you to pick and choose. There's a moral code and holy code. Some commands refer only to the holy code and others to the moral code. He did a very good job of explaining this already so I implore you to check it outDarkM,
You're picking from the "big book of multiple choice" again. This is what is written, look it up."Now, for those who are married I have a command, not just a suggestion..."
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Sorry Mack but homosexuality is as old as the human race, probably older. It's not a new development like robots.I have an explanation as to why it doesn't say in red "gay is bad". Where in our law does it say that if your robot goes to the store and wrecks, you're responsible? It doesn't cause that whole scinario is so far out of our realm we don't need to make it a law. The same way for homosexuality 2000 years ago. I bet that if the bible was written in 2013 it would be in the red words.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Let me ask you something. When did I ever state that I wasn't against divorce? I'm completely against getting a divorce, which is why I feel people shouldn't simply rush into marriage.Ojibwe wrote:
So you're saying that was never a thing, that divorced people who remarried were never considered to be committing adultery? Christian churches could perform marriages for divorced people all the time? Or is it that the remarriage issue has been reconsidered and it was a mistake to previously ban it? I'm confused about this.DarkM,
You're picking from the "big book of multiple choice" again. This is what is written, look it up."Now, for those who are married I have a command, not just a suggestion..."✂️
-
Ojibwe wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Sorry Mack but homosexuality is as old as the human race, probably older. It's not a new development like robots.I have an explanation as to why it doesn't say in red "gay is bad". Where in our law does it say that if your robot goes to the store and wrecks, you're responsible? It doesn't cause that whole scinario is so far out of our realm we don't need to make it a law. The same way for homosexuality 2000 years ago. I bet that if the bible was written in 2013 it would be in the red words.
Won't be able to convince me of that....
-
I never made a claim that you were for or against divorce. I don't know where you got that idea.
I did make the claim that Christianity in general has changed the definition of marriage by allowing divorced people to remarry. That's what I'm curious about, not your personal opinion of divorce.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
So when do you think homosexuality came into existence? 1995 or so? Earlier? Later than that?Ojibwe wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Sorry Mack but homosexuality is as old as the human race, probably older. It's not a new development like robots.I have an explanation as to why it doesn't say in red "gay is bad". Where in our law does it say that if your robot goes to the store and wrecks, you're responsible? It doesn't cause that whole scinario is so far out of our realm we don't need to make it a law. The same way for homosexuality 2000 years ago. I bet that if the bible was written in 2013 it would be in the red words.
Won't be able to convince me of that....
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Your exact words were, and I quote, "so you're saying that was never a thing, that divorced people who remarried were never considered to be commiting adultery?" I would say that is asking if I feel like divorced people getting remarried is ok in my book, which it isn't.I never made a claim that you were for or against divorce. I don't know where you got that idea.
I did make the claim that Christianity in general has changed the definition of marriage by allowing divorced people to remarry. That's what I'm curious about, not your personal opinion of divorce.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC