Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Also to everyone I won't be on for a while. I have a busy day from this point forward and to too the day off I've got a party. I'll get back with you all tomorrow ok 👍.
-
I guess GQ, the Robertsons, and A&E have made all the headlines and money they need. Phil has been reinstated.
-
oh i'm sure the money is still gonna be rolling in, more interviews and specials and book deals ... i don't think it will stop any time soon.
-
The whole Duck Dynasty deal was a huge scam in my opinion. All these Duck Dynasty products came out and a short time after they can the old man. The others said if he's gone, they're gone. All the products flew through the doors thinking they'll become collectors items. And then , A&E decide to reverse their decision. The old man was never actually going to get "canned" for good IMO.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Why do you give a fuck if they get married or not? They're not trying to marry you.Haha so which part of when I said I have no hatred towards anyone I just simply don't support their right for marriage are you incapable of comprehending. You tell me I'm hateful and a bad guy but just like Phil I'm simply stating my beliefs. I don't have hatred towards homosexuals or anyone for that matter. I don't have to hate my neighbor in order to disagree with the fact that he is a nudist. I don't think that's right, I still love the guy but I don't agree with his morals on that topic. I offer you a legitimate rebuttal to your statements and you get flustered and begin to pull out the intolerant/hateful Christian rant. You're incredible, anyone ever told you that?
-
Can't we all just be friends? All this negative talk is giving me bad vibes man...
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Woo woo woo HillBilly. Stop with all the logic and shit. It affects those people because 1. They allow it to and may possibly be somewhat gay themselves so they need to hate it.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
2. "god" says its wrong somewhere, still not sure where. Bible says you cannot lay with man as you lay with women. But gay men don't lay with women, and gay women don't lay with men. So the only true sinners are bisexuals. As they lay with both genders. Tsk tsk haha
And 3. They feel the need to shove their nose into other people's lives. For some unknown reason. I don't go running around saying churches should be burnt to the ground. To pray in your own home. Or religion marriages should be illegal. Yet they feel their CHOSEN BELIEFS are somehow superior to everyone else and should run all our lives. Ummm NO. -
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Right about what exactly? Full scale assault of what ifs and slippery slopes? That can be very frustrating when you are on the reality side of the debate. Whoosh. 💤💤💤★fnord★ wrote:
Does the fact that I'm right anger you that much? Yet I'm the child? Plus how is you telling me something I already know a waste of time and my fault? I'm sorry I know what I'm talking about fnord. We're having a healthy discussion here don't get so flustered.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Thanks for wasting my time explaining something to you that you already knew. I'm sure you'll understand why I will no longer be responding to anything you say. I don't like playing childish games, especially not with a topic this important. Grow up. -
Just to clarify this is the pertinent portion of the majority Supreme Court decision, written by Chief Justice Warren in 1967 Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-
Seeker you must have disregarded my statement where I said that I have never supported gay marriage even when I was atheist. My viewpoint isn't derived from my religion. I don't see homosexuality as a humane practice because its impractical to human survival. You want to have a scientific standpoint. If we were all homosexuals the world would die off which is why I do not support the idea of homosexuality. People defend it by saying animals partake in it, the same creatures that can't consent so the argument for beastiality is thrown out, yet somehow the people in this forum have the right to pick and choose facts as they see fit.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
As soon as homosexuality is seen as a race then this court case can be seen as relevant.Just to clarify this is the pertinent portion of the majority Supreme Court decision, written by Chief Justice Warren in 1967 Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-
Also addi if you quote me, and then turn around and ask what I'm right about you must care very little about what I'm actually correct about. If you would simply care enough to read what I've written this is a very easy conversation to follow. If not then what exactly is the point in chiming in?
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
HAHAHA oh the good old "if everyone was gay mankind would die out". Really? It's estimated 10% of 7 BILLION people are gay. Born that way mind you. How is that bad for the survival of mankind? You really believe I woke up one day an said "hey, I feel like falling in love with the same gender, man in man just seems like it could be fun. I'll go gay now"? No, we are born with our sexualities hard wired into our brains. If you can go gay for a day, then I'll maybe take your responses on here as anything but filler on this thread. If not, your "end of mankind" "argument" means nothing and you have no backing to support your no gay marriage opinion.
Oh and animals can't consent so even them having gay sex means nothing? Umm I'm pretty sure the one can walk away and not have sex? But if they don't it means they want to have sex. So yes, homosexuality in animals further proves humans are born gay too. -
Hey DM. I do find it funny as hell that you seem to think once equality is give it will some how convince millions to turn gay. Lol comical really. Growing up I would have given EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to be straight. Yet you believe if society fully accepts gays as equals people will run out into the streets and start having gay sex everywhere and the human race will slowly die out? Lol oh god that's funny.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You are a little bit uneducated. Loving vs. Virginia is central to the overturn of gay marriage bans in California and Utah. You're thinking is terribly oversimplified.★fnord★ wrote:
As soon as homosexuality is seen as a race then this court case can be seen as relevant.Just to clarify this is the pertinent portion of the majority Supreme Court decision, written by Chief Justice Warren in 1967 Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, cannot be infringed by the State."
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I guess you must think elderly and infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either.Seeker you must have disregarded my statement where I said that I have never supported gay marriage even when I was atheist. My viewpoint isn't derived from my religion. I don't see homosexuality as a humane practice because its impractical to human survival. You want to have a scientific standpoint. If we were all homosexuals the world would die off which is why I do not support the idea of homosexuality. People defend it by saying animals partake in it, the same creatures that can't consent so the argument for beastiality is thrown out, yet somehow the people in this forum have the right to pick and choose facts as they see fit.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
If everyone was old or infertile then the human race would die out. I don't agree with people being allowed to be old or infertile. It's against my moral code and should be banned.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I guess you must think elderly and infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either..
Oh and DM. Your side is the only ones "picking and choosing stuff to follow" though you have yet to provide facts to backup your claims and opinions. -
Have you seen the number of bastards born? Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction of the species. Pretty sure people were procreating and having gay sex before marriage.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You see, I already learned from the first 15 pages that your arguments are in no way cited fact based devoid of personal emotion. I no longer need to read the same dribble in the last 5 pages to know your pattern of "information". Like your "facts" on the survival of humankind if we run wild with homosexuality. No grasp of statistical reality. It's a shame.Also addi if you quote me, and then turn around and ask what I'm right about you must care very little about what I'm actually correct about. If you would simply care enough to read what I've written this is a very easy conversation to follow. If not then what exactly is the point in chiming in?
-
On the subject of science, plenty of species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. The only logical explanation based on this discourse is that they were exposed in early adulthood to copious amounts of the Village People.
-
gunstreet grrl wrote:
On the subject of science, plenty of species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. The only logical explanation based on this discourse is that they were exposed in early adulthood to copious amounts of the Village People.
Vote for best post yet🐴🐮🐷🐍🐸🐢🙀🙀🙀
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC