Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Ojibwe wrote:
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 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 do believe it became more popular with the "free love" movement. I think if it was discovered 2000 years ago, they would be put to death and we don't hear of that happening.
-
YOU wrote:
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.
?????????
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote: He needs to give detail of what he means by "equal". I would beg to differ that he wants true equal rights or "protection". There is two lovely brothers a the moment who want to get married. Who is fnord to tell them they cant have equal rights. Im sure he wouldnt defend fathers marrying their daughters.
Slippery slope. Kinda Straw man, too. "What's next? Boys marrying goats?" -
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote: Well you dont get the right to re define marriage. Your creator has defined it for you already and you hate it so much. If you dont care then just be gay and lie with another man but that doesnt make you any more married than two dudes and a horse. Christianity didnt create marriage, God did. Why are these strawman arguments so easily refuted?
You can't just say "God did." Just because you know it and feel it doesn't make it true. How would you prove God made marriage without the biblical fiction? -
The point is that it is morally and (mostly) legally wrong for the government to discriminate based only on gender. Your government can not say that two persons may enter into a legal contract, as long as they are not both women.
Marriage by and recognized by the state is a legal and civil arrangement that has nothing to do with religion.
Your particular religion may be against it. But your religion has no say in legal and civil contracts, like marriage, even now. At least in this state, a marriage must be licensed by the state. Records are kept by the state. The ceremony can be done by almost anyone.
Your opinions on same-gender, mixed-race, mixed-faith, etc. marriage contracts do not matter. You are free to be arbitrarily discriminatory, but the state is not, thank Zeus.
-
Gay people are awesome, enough said. Merry Christmas 🎊🎁🎁
-
boots069 wrote:
It was on topic. I just went further with my reasoning and showed you were an idiot. No rights were broken yet you as an individual going through "law school" said otherwise? Hence my comment you quoted.ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
〓 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
So how about you "stfu" -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Lol really?Ojibwe wrote:
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 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 do believe it became more popular with the "free love" movement..
-
What is the "free love" movement? Is that where we are newly allowed to choose our marriage partner in our recent history rather than be sold to the highest bidder for a goat and a piece of gold?
-
Mack, earlier you cited some Bible verses which you claimed proved that God is agains gay marriage, specifically Romans and Corinthians in Paul's writings. You may not have read those in context or realized it, but Paul is railing against widespread homosexuality in those two cities. Rome was like Manhattan and Corinthia was like Vegas at the time, where a traveller could find any vice their heart desired for the right coin. I frankly think Paul comes across like a closeted old gay man, either bitter that he can't join in the fun or ashamed that he did. Sodom and Gamorrah in Genesis tells a similar tale of debauchery. The point is that widespread open homosexuality is mentioned repeatedly in the bible, yet directly condemned as a sin only a few times. They were much more concerned with the relatively innocuous sin of idolatry, that is abundantly clear.
-
Also, no one is holding you to a double standard. Most of us in this country respect the rights of Muslims to openly express their faith, but as soon as they start talking on the internet about how Americans are evil oppressors of the Muslim world we shove a drone up their ass. It's not the expression of religion that pisses people off, it's the expression of hate. I know you don't see it as hateful to call an entire group of strangers morally defective, but a lot of us do. Also, the context, the venue, and the speaker who says it has an effect the meaning. Statements are not just black and white, right or wrong. It depends. The bottom line is that a person does not get to dictate to others what their reaction should be. People are free to interpret your words however they choose. If enough of them agree in their interpretation, as appartly the A&E management did, there may be consequences.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Those that judge for God will be burning in the depths of hell too. You'd do good to remember that before you presume to know my relationship with God. How disgustingly offensive of you.★Λddi★ wrote:
Lying comes easy for you I guess.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
★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...
Here, I can do that too. You are not Christ like, you act more like the son of Satan, the father of Lies.
Also, only you get your movie references. That must mean it's you spending your days drooling over the boobtube. 👍
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
What if it is truly an assault on Christians? You're type don't mind assaulting others choices and views so why would you get a free pass from it?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.
-
You want to see assault google "First Nations boarding school." Then come back and tell me how persecuted Christians are.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
How disgustingly hypocritical of you. You're so obtuse. Bwahhahahah !!Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Those that judge for God will be burning in the depths of hell too. How disgustingly offensive of you.★Λddi★ wrote:
Lying comes easy for you I guess.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
★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...
Also, only you get your movie references. That must mean it's you spending your days drooling over the boobtube. 👍
-
Exactly. It's a satirical eye for an eye bright one. Nothing like showing a hypocrites' true form with hypocrisy. Great job representing Jesus, btw. He would be so proud of your passage of teaching with love rather than spite and hate. You're like the faith's own worst enemy. Lol
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZml10S1hk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
I hate to say it, but for many Christianity is a choice while being gay is clearly not. Which is worse, to criticize a chosen belief system or to criticize someone's innate human nature? In the bible the word hypocrite had a different meaning than it does today. It means one who practices their faith in public for all to see, or one who puts their religion on display. The Bible calls this a sin. Then, as now, there were many faiths and many lifestyle choices. They knew that the hypocrites did more harm than good in aggressively spreading the word of God. This remains true today, as we are seeing. You have to give respect to get it.
-
Really the mods delete legit threads and leave this politically and religious atom bomb up?!? Who in the hell are the mods?
-
Baptist469 wrote:
LolReally the mods delete legit threads and leave this politically and religious atom bomb up?!? Who in the hell are the mods?
-
I think he was done wrong There is such a thing called
Freedom of Speech
I believe a Christian channel should take them -
bionic woman wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't apply in this situation. I'm flabbergasted how many times that needs to be explained to people.I think he was done wrong There is such a thing called
Freedom of Speech
I believe a Christian channel should take them -
Lol. It's the 1st Amendment people! The very first one! It's only one sentence in plain English, have a 5th grader explain it to you if need be, it's your patriotic duty to comprehend at least that one sentence if you want to call yourself an American.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
👆again, good example of a douche bag.boots069 wrote:
It was on topic. I just went further with my reasoning and showed you were an idiot. No rights were broken yet you as an individual going through "law school" said otherwise? Hence my comment you quoted.ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
〓 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.l
So how about you "stfu" -
C'mon lex, the guy changed his name to his invite code, he can't spell or punctuate, and he doesn't understand the first amendment yet he's going to law school. That's just making it too easy to ridicule.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
It is old, but that want the point of his comment.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.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
It was exactly the point of his comment. He even reiterates it a couple posts later.Ojibwe wrote:
It is old, but that want the point of his comment.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.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
Murders will murder, thieves will steal and adulterers will cheat. You prove nothing about your "i done what i want" philosophy. And it was the point of ROMANS 1 that it was your nature to disbelieve and sin.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Of course I follow rules. Rules set forth by MANKIND, called judge not god.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
God〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I love how a lack of byHow did man create marriage? Umm they used their
I thought you would have learnt by now. You will NEVER change someone's mind by using bible versus to prove the b.
Answer me seeker, how do you get truth without God?
-
I looks like people who are upset about this whole thing have amazing assumptions on those who dont agree with them. Ive seen this fallacy over and over again, the fallacy of equivocation, the confusion of two issues and putting them in the same category when they are separated in nature. We have given the answer to the many rhetorical questions to the "anti theists", that the two codes known in the new and old testaments are namely the holiness code (For the jews only) and the natural code which refers too all man kind (people can follow after the goodness of God without belief). If you want to talk about burnt offerings to not wearing fabrics you are speaking about the holiness code. God does speak the natural code within the holiness code of course to keep his people "holy" but the natural applies to all man in which all will be judged on judgement day.
-
ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
Lol how so? You have yet to explain. Did Phil have his rights taken away? Come on explain yourself.〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
👆again, good example of a douche bag.boots069 wrote:
It was on topic. I just went further with my reasoning and showed you were an idiot. No rights were broken yet you as an individual going through "law school" said otherwise? Hence my comment you quoted.ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
👆good example of a douche bag.boots069 wrote:
l
So how about you "stfu"
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC