Am I the only one seeing this about Hillary and the attack in Orlando?

Hillary Clinton Meme | SAYS SHE SUPPORTS LGBT MEMBERS IN TIME OF NEED AFTER TIME OF VIOLENCE SET UP WEAPONS SALES AND ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM SAUDI ARABIA WHO KILL | image tagged in hillaryclinton,scumbag,AdviceAnimals | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
206,040 views, 166 upvotes, Made by a Redditor 24 months ago hillaryclintonscumbag
Hillary Clinton memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
16 ups
Batman Slapping Robin Meme | THEY FORGOT THE SCUMBAG HAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS SHE'S A SCUMBAG | image tagged in memes,batman slapping robin | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
17 ups, 1 reply
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | NOT TO MENTION THE 65,000 REFUGEES SHE WANTS TO BRING OVER IN WHICH SOME OF THOSE PRACTICE CUTTING OFF THE HEADS OF HOMOSEXUALS | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Ah yes, the old IM NOT TEH HOMOPHOBIAS SEE CUZ I DUN DO TEH DECAPITATIONS!!!111 while you sat back and put your fingers in your ears while the most sweeping Anti-LGBTQI laws the United States has seen in a while were Implemented (re: North Caorlina & Mississippi) but keep shouting but but but SAUDI ARABIA!!!!1111 and pretending like you give a f**k about queer people.
reply
[deleted]
13 ups
Learn how to f**king spell and just shut the f**k up. I don't give a f**k about where you are from, or at this point what your f**king opinion is on anything. You missed the entire point of what was said and decided to blow things way out of proportion. So f**k off and don't ever f**king comment on my memes or reply to me again asshole.
reply
[deleted]
13 ups, 2 replies
Instead of calling those laws Anit-LGBTQI (who knows what the f**k you are calling Q and I), how about you call the laws exactly what they are. They are banning anti-discrimination protections. What was passed in Mississippi was to allow churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people if doing so would VIOLATE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on marriage and gender. This doesn't keep the LGBT community from getting married or anything else in Mississippi, it just keeps them from suing religious organizations for wanting to keep their religious practices in tact. Equal rights for all does not mean to force someone to change their religious beliefs and practices just to make someone else more comfortable. A church building is not required in order to get married. A bakery/photography studio/wedding planner/ect is not required in order to get married. But yet the LGBT community seems to want to go after these groups first in order to file lawsuits to push their beliefs onto everyone. An individual should be allowed to say that because of their religious beliefs they don't want to perform certain services, and then the other party could just leave and find another company that would perform their services. Think about it this way. If a plumbing company advertises that they do residential repairs, should I be allowed to sue them if they say that they will not change out my ceiling fan because it is not something they do? They could very easily change out a ceiling fan, and it would be considered a residential repair, but do I have the right to sue a plumbing company for not wanting to do electrical work, just because their work practices only involves plumbing? If not, why should a gay couple be allowed to sue a religious organization that provides services based off of their religious beliefs? Why should a church body be forced to drop everything they believe to do something they believe their God has told them is a sin? Just because you or the gay couple doesn't see it as a sin doesn't mean that church shouldn't.
reply
15 ups, 2 replies
And everybody loses their minds Meme | A MUSLIM KILLS 49 GAY PEOPLE AND NOBODY BATS AN EYE A CHRISTIAN DECLINES BAKING A CAKE FOR A GAY COUPLE AND EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR MINDS!!! | image tagged in memes,and everybody loses their minds | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | PERHAPS NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM. EVERYONES BUSINESS | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
While all that sounds cute, it's still discrimination. It's still anti-LGBT, and it still makes them bigots. It all boils down to you can't get services for who you are. Tolerance means you don't act differently even though you don't like something. And they are clearly acting differently. That's intolerance. No one can change your religious beliefs or should. However when people and government officials are talking about running out and shooting transgender people, trying to passing a bill to let gay people be shot in the head on sight, churches having big rallies to murder people of the LGBT community; and your stance is too ban them from your church? This is literally why there are so many problems right now, people look at themselves instead of the whole.

And the plumbing ceiling fan thing is silly and shows how little you get it. You're talking about jobs, inanimate objects and money to describe peoples lives? That's a psychopaths thinking.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Where the f**k are you getting your information that the government is making laws to make it legal to kill gay people. Start sighting all credible sources, otherwise everthing you stated is null and void.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
I have already done my research and my research for Mississippi and North Carolina only showed laws being made to take away disgrimination laws out of effect when religious views are in play. Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, has stated anything about making laws to make it legal to kill anyone. There are always going to be radicals out there, but those few are not the majority nor share the same views as the majority. There are some radicals out there that hate Obama and would like to see him dead, but does that mean all haters of Obama want to see that? No.

You want to talk about "while you sat back and put your fingers in your ears", how about when Christians stated that poligomy was going to be next on the fight to make legal, or even old marrying underage, and people like you stated that would never happen. Well it did take place. In fact the very arguments we said would be used (using the same claims that homosexuals used in the 70s and 80s about being born that way) has been used in arguments to try to make it legal. Or how about how we stated that allowing men who claim the identify as a woman to use the women's restroom and locker rooms would result in attacks on innocent women and girls, but people like you stated we are only trying to use fear to discriminate against another group that makes up less than 1% of the population. I stated back when Prop 8 first came out that churches and pastors would be sued while people like you stated that would never happen. It hasn't been people like me who have their fingers in their ears, it is people like you, the same people who want to force your beliefs and your way of life onto Christians to force them to change their religious views to accept others and sin as being ok. Like I have stated before, there are thousands of options for every service imaginable out there, not all of them are ran by Christians. So why not allow Christians to live their lives with their beliefs and not force them to do something that goes against their beliefs when their are other options available? Tolerance goes both ways, and you can't claim the LGBT community is being tolerant when they are forcing Christians to do what is against their beliefs.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
After reading both of your things I can see were your problem is. You don't understand tolerance in the sense that the LGBT mean. You look at it like a white privileged christian male. As if everyone in the world has equal rights and privileges. Your argument seems like you're upset, which I get, it's not easy to be discriminated against. But what you're feeling most minorities feel on a daily basis since they were kids and even worst the farther back in time you go and more often.

The reason everything you're saying is intolerant; is oppression. Oppression requires bodies and resources, things that Christians have multitudes of. The LGBT very little. Christians have been taking boat loads of rights from a small group of people because to they were small. However someone takes one right and you're in a rage.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
Being a Christian is more than just having religious views, it is living our lives by those views. No we are not perfect and we fall short of the mark of those views, but that isn't always on purpose. Sometimes it just happens, but that doesn't mean we should do what we see as wrong on purpose just to please someone else. We never tried to change the LGBT community, but the LGBT community is constantly trying to change us. That is called intolerance by the very definition of the word.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
So in other words, the LGBT community needs their own definition of words in order to have their arguments hold any water? Sounds just like the scientific community towards religion when it comes to evolution, big bang, and other theories. The definition of tolerance is "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.". Christians showed tolerance by stating we are not trying to tell them they can't be gay, in fact many of us don't care what they do behind closed doors. However the response has been to throw their lifestyle into our faces, telling us we are required to accept their lifestyle choice, and the only way to show that we accept it is to change our religious views and practices to do whatever they want or get sued. In other words the LGBT have not been willing to tolerate our opinions or beliefs and expect us to change to fit their needs and beliefs. Marriage was not created by the government, it has always been a religious practice. The government only came in and started giving benefits to married couples because the government saw the benefits of what married couples bring to the community. It is these benefits that the LGBT claimed to be fighting for, although I see that as a lie because instead of changing civil unions which were made legal for them, they wanted to change marriage. By changing marriage, that now gives them more freedom to sue for discrimination when a group or individual wants to choose to live their life and what work they do based off of their religious beliefs.

See what you don't realize is that wanting to keep marriage a religious practice, religious based adoption agencies not wanting to provide for same-sex couples, other businesses not wanting to provide services for same-sex marriage doesn't change the lifestyle that the LGBT community is already living, nor does it take away from them getting services by other means. So their rights are not being taken away with any of this. However the religious beliefs of a Christian is the core of their life. You tell us that we can't practice our religious beliefs from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm to provide services for someone else, that is taking away more than one right. That is altering our lives, telling us how we should live our lives, essentially telling us it should be illegal to be Christians.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Again the problem I have with that is you're making Christians out to be some small Angelic community. If that was true I'd agree with you, but its not. Christians make up most of the states and variations of it. Your beliefs directly impact most of America down to literally the dollar. It makes everyone that isn't Christians life harder and in some cases deadly hard. To not impose on Christian belief legally would be insane, it would mean that the government was turning a blind eye to literally one of the most power organizations ever that gets away with soooo much. If they didn't you could just interpete the bible any old way and do what you wanted.

Actually I didn't mean the LGBT had a different meaning, sorry about that. I meant the word on a grander scale shouldn't use it's dictionary as that's normally for every day use. When you have conversation on the validity of cultures and religions it's best to understand power distribution and people and how those words go with it. You were using the word on a personal level. I'm using it on a country level.
[deleted]
1 up
If Christians had as much power as you claim, same-sex marriage would never have been legalized on the federal level, men would not be allowed to openly walk into the women's restroom, a Christian business owner would be allowed to refuse services to anyone without risking getting sued. But none of that is true, is it.

Why are you afraid to address the point that there are thousands of options for ever service out there, many of which are not run by Christians, which means it shouldn't effect the LGBT community for religious people to refuse services baswd off of their beliefs. I think it is because you know it is a valid point and destroys the entire argument of the laws that are being passed in Mississippi and North Carolina. It also shows the intolerance of the LGBT community for not wanting religious people to practice their religious beliefs unless it complies with the beliefs of the LGBT community as well. Once again, this shows who is forcing their beliefs on who, and you are afraid to admit it.

I am done replying to your bullshit reponses. You have refused to provide evidence for your claims, make bold-faced lies, manipulate information, and I am just done with it. There is absolutely no valid reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to refuse services because of religious or personal beliefs, and you know it. with the multitude of options out there to get the same service, why force someone to do what they don't want to do just for your convinence?
0 ups
"To not impose on Christian belief legally would be insane..." WHAT??!?!?? Haven't you ever heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT???
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
Let me get this straight... You're basically saying that ALL Christians want to kill LGBTs because you heard ONE say so? That's as dumb as saying ALL Muslims are terrorists. IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Now who's the bigot?
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
The fact that you can't comprehend how the ceiling fan/plumbing reference fits only shows your intolerance towards Christians. Many people who work one trade have the ability to do work in another. A plumber could change out a ceiling fan, and them changing a ceiling fan would not effect their status as a plumber, right? They would still be a plumber and it shouldn't be viewed as someone trying to change their profession, much like your claims that forcing a church, pastor, or any other religious person to perform services for an event they don't agree with doesn't change their religious views. With literally thousands of different options and venues to be able to get married, adopt a child, or anything else, why is it necessary to force religious people to do anything? Why should religious people take the back seat instead of being allowed to be accepted. It is a bullshit lie to say they are still being accepting when you go and state they should be forced to perform services for something that is against their beliefs. And to say that we don't look at the whole picture is another lie. You refuse to accept that there are other options out there for these services from people and venues that are not religious, but instead of saying that those options should be used you say religious people should be forced to perform services. By stating that, you are only looking at things to benefit the LGBT community and not looking how it effects others. Do you know there were a lot of pastors who either quit or got fired because the regional sections of their areas made the decision to change their views of homosexuality in order to avoid getting sued? Do you realize this only took place because it was forced upon them by making same sex marriage legal at a federal level, which is actually a higher level than what traditional marriage is legally. Traditional marriages are based off of state laws, which means it is possible for one state to not accept the marriage status of a couple from a different state. But yet a gay couple can get married anywhere in the country and it is required to be accepted in any state because it was made legal by the federal government.

You want to talk about intolerance, maybe you should first do some research first, because you don't have a clue about anything that has taken place.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Sorry , that is a bit of a stretch, LD
reply
1 up
But Bill was a plumber by trade. He was laying pipe every chance he got.
reply
11 ups
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
Hillary is f**king stupid and retarded.
reply
1 up
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Great!!!!!! ????????????
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups
[image deleted]Crooked Hillary Doesn't Care What You Think
reply
3 ups
Wow great meme, but i had no idea there was that much people on imgflip
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 3 replies
[image deleted]
reply
2 ups
It's pronounced tool voting block
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
In a few months it might be pronounced, "Our damn President".
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Why, yes. Yes it is. ;)
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up
dood, if you werent anonymous, you have A LOT of points rn
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
As the Presidential primary are coming up, that is the point where the publicity war gets fictitious.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
It's what they do.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Trump is a fraud and is most likely turning into the worse politician in history. He has no real political value, He can only fracture american prosperity as a whole.
reply
3 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The funniest part of this election is watching sheeple root for their favorite criminal. A turd sandwich vs. a giant deuche.... and this drumpf guy is also running. This is kind of like watching people rooting for their favorite curling team, and watching people spit over whose broom is broomier.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
1 up
For me it is like watching hockey. I don't follow the sport that closely, but it is hillarious watching people dress up, and get into fights about it. Both teams are playing hockey. Both groups support hockey, but man, when their opponent seems tough, they turn into emotional tweens.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up
...also, "hundreds" of federal suits...can you provide links to information about them? I am only aware of his CIVIL suit from his supposed university. Civil, just like if you disagreed with your plumber installing a water conserving flusher that wasn't conserving enough for you.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Make me defend Trump...why you. .
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I'm not a Trump supporter. That is yours to own. As far as I can tell he really doesn't have any beyond getting rid of NAFTA. Which wouldn't suck.
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
Trump has no interest in america, a 12 year old could run with his platform just from a 3 weeks News channel study.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Well, I don't know why you brought him up in a discussion about Hillary. We call that deflection.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
To win a argument.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Hmmm. Try using fact and logic
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
As if I am getting payed to convert someone? I posted with one goal only and that was to neutralize the topic.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Aren't you fun? So you're pro Clinton taking financial backing from the Saudi gov? Just curious
1 up
having political ties to a regime is a bridge well build. The Saudi goverment is just another puppet to public opinion. With that been said I hope you understand how the Onion is been pilled.
reply
2 ups
Stupid reply limitations...

Am I to understand that you are citing the Onion as a source (below)?
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
I would say the republican politicians destroyed the republican party with their failed attempts to use political trickery to undermine the people's choice.
reply
0 ups
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Ah....but seem people have no problem being lied to apparently
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
As many soldier who sacrifice for their country, they too understood how their life was in danger when they decided to take up sides in a world order. I am not the one who will deliver sense into a political strategy, But i can see how it works on some people.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
But soldiers are supposed to be able to rely on their leaders to have their backs. It's one thing for a soldier to be ordered to go into a dangerous situation. It's another thing entirely to be abandoned in a dangerous situation.

My brother has served 19 years in the Army, spending several years in the Middle East. If he had died, and I had any reason to believe it was because someone abandoned him, there'd be HELL to pay.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Did you know about tommy tucker & kristian menchaca? They were set up on a bridge in Iraq & the sergeant left them there where they were gruesomely tortured. I heard tommy's mom in person about how she wanted to go to Iraq & get the guy who did it. She couldn't go, but the (terrorist) was captured & executed before many months. I went to church with his parents. Unreal.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I hadn't known about them, so I did some Googling and read up...

I don't know if it's your belief that they were abandoned by their unit, but it doesn't seem that way to me. You can't always leave a whole platoon, or even a whole squad, in a certain place. And you can't know what's going to happen. Nobody can plan for EVERY possibility. What I read said it was an ambush.

After seeing what happened to them, I am sickened by the insurgents' lack of humaneness as well as their false sense of justice (making someone pay for another's crime).
reply
0 ups
They were set up for the ambush, and I think procedures were changed after that. I saw Tommy about Thanksgiving time, right after basic training, & he was killed about 6 months later. I saw Sgt Jason Buzzard 500 miles away at random & he was killed by ied only a few weeks after that. Freaky, since I was a civilian & not near any bases. So now I take the danger extremely seriously. I thought about reenlisting myself after 9/11 but was just a bit too old anyway. Both deaths hit me very hard & those young guys over there are very brave.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
I lol'd a month ago everyone hated the LGBT and supported the most anti-LGBT laws. Now everyone cares about them because the Muslims did what everyone was literally already talking (and trying to get a bill passed) about doing a month ago first.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
1 man in California tried to get a proposal passed to then be voted on. 1 MAN! Not hundreds or thousands or millions of people, 1 man. But maybe you should take this as a lesson of what the majority of Christians had been stating from the very beginning when same-sex marriage was brought up with prop 8, that it has nothing to do with their lifestyle or forcing them to change who they are but for us to be allowed to keep our beliefs. We might not agree with their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean we want to see them dead. There is a clear difference in all of this and it is time yoh wake up and see that.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
4 thousand people signed it. Yeah one man wrote it up. Oppression is the key word here. Christians have way more bodies and resources to be left unchecked. It is true that under normal circumstances it would be wrong, but the problem is there are way to many Christians that have the same mentality as those thousands of people as proof with how hard it was to even legalize marriage in court and the fact it had to be a civil union first. Everyone talks about Muslims but the same applies to Christians too. You all inspire so many problems under a weird idea of belief, when it's hatred. The bible says nothing about gays, and the few parts in there, are taken out of context for damn near 5oo years ago just to prove a point. Sure it's your belief, but everyone isn't as smart as you and it is way to common to be ok with hating gays. Hell you have to "come out" just for being different. You're upset because gays inconvenienced you a little, they were literally hiding in a closet because they were afraid of what people (mostly Christians I might add) would do to them. As I said before, you sound like a white privileged christian male complaining about the government is so hard on Christians because you took one hit, when the LGBT community have been beat and killed for over a century.

And again, psychopath mentality.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Sight your source on the 4,000 signatures, because everything I read said it never made it to the point to allow signatures to take place.

Few passages taken out of context? What about the verse that says a man shall not lay with another man as he would his wife is not saying that homosexuality is wrong? What about the verse that list different groups of people, including homosexuals, as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God? What is unclear about sodomy being a sin when a whole city is said to have been destroyed because of it? How is all of this taken out of context?

If the term "coming out" had to even be created for stating you are gay, shouldn't that imply that it isn't natural? It might be naturally occurring, but doesn't mean that it is what nature or God intended.

So forcing me to change my beliefs in order to change the view that their lifestyle is a sin is a small inconvience? No. A small inconvience is finding another company not needing to change their beliefs to perform the services you request.

They way that you keep saying "white privileged christian male" is literally telling me that it is unacceptable to be white, a male, hold religious beliefs, and have the society hold me at a certain level that I never asked to be placed at. How is that not you being a bigot, racist, and/or sexist? Society is changing where it is now being considered unacceptable to state you are a Christian, otherwise you get attacked much like you are attacking me. See you still fail to realize that homosexuality is only one part of who those people are, but many Christians live their entire lives based off of their beliefs, even how they work. So this "one hit" as you keep calling it is not just a small part of who we are. For some people it is their entire life. Maybe you need to think about that.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Ahhh the first passage you mentioned, men should not lay with another man was taken out of context, he was talking about pagan rituals. Look it up.

Yes they did sign it. That's why it went to court, I looking at a article now saying the judge threw it out but they did have signatures. But I'll let that slide lets say you're right. Where are you getting your information? Google, Bing, a random gov site? Those aren't credible sources, you do know that right. Real credible sources normally cost money or some backing from an organization so that you can get scholarly websites. You know the ones were people actually are doing the real studying. You just read a random news article and just go with it. That's not research.

Straight White privileged christian male, is not meant to be taken as an insult, it's meant for you to help you understand your place in culture. You talk about the LGBT community and how they are hurting your life. But you don't understand what it means to be a Straight white Christian male in America? You want to walk up to the Culture table and say you're being hurt but you don't really understand how good you got it. You have nothing to bring to the table. Outside of your problems. You don't even know what it means to be Christian in America, and that's why you think I'm attacking you. If you don't know yourself, how can you know others
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
So oppressing someone is a valid reason for why someone should or shouldn't do something? I don't think so. That might be why something is taking place, but not a valid reason as why it should take place. Try again asshat.

And you only stated your opinion about Leviticus and never stated where to look to prove whether your opinion is valid or not. I bet I can go and find 20 sources to prove that Leviticus 18 is not about pagan rituals, and I can start doing so when I get home and get on a computer, but not while I am at work on my phone. But all that stuff you didn't address is because you know that it proves you wrong. So once again sources or shut the f**k up b**ch.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No oppressing people is a valid reason for government to get involved. History would tell you that. But I guess you're one of those people that was upset because they stopped the Jews from getting killed in Germany.

Go ahead, and until you do don't talk to me about it. or better yet don't talk to me until you found one about rituals.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
There is no source that is going to state that Leviticus 18 is about pagan rituals. Prove me wrong if you can.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
Did you know that titles such as that WEREN'T ORIGINALLY IN THE BIBLE?
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Just because the title says so? Let me counter that than with other titles:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=MSG
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=ESVUK
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=AMP
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NRSV
See none of these mention anything about pagan ritual in the title. Parts of 18 do cover some pagan rituals, but that doesn't mean 18:22 does. Here is something you can read, http://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/leviticus.html . It goes into the pagan rituals and talks about the possibility of 18:22 being to reference of Moloch. It does go on to state that the original translation is unclear. At the end of everything though it does state this, "In spite of the fact that the mistranslation of to’evah into English obscures the fact that these verses do not apply to a moral sin, at first glance (especially given the general unanimity of translations in basic meaning), the passages really seem to condemn gay behavior in the strongest possible terms.". So whether you want to try to claim pagan ritual or not, it does clearly state a condemnation towards gay behavior, which is what I have been stating from the very beginning. And if you look at it this way, a pagan ritual is an ungodly or unholy ceremony. So if homosexuality is practiced as an ungodly ceremony, wouldn't that equate to be something that is against God?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Leviticus 18:22- NIV- "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT- "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detrstable sin."
Leviticus 18 is God telling Moses the law of the people regarding sexual relations period, not pegan ritual. Try again.

I see you ignored the second part that referenced 1 Corinthians 6:9. Those who will inherit the kingdom of God is those who follow his law. Homosexuals are on the list of those who will not inherit His kingdom, which means the Bible clearly states there that it is against God. Oh and nothing about how a city was destroyed because of sodomy? You know by ignoring points that are made, you are only proving I am right.

But where is your source that there were signatures?

You don't know a damn thing about being a Christian in America. Who do you think you are trying to tell me I don't know who I am? I have done the research and have seen what I had predicted would happen when all of this started, that the LGBT community would start suing churches, pastors, and religious people for wanting to live and work by their religious beliefs instead of bowing down to their demands. I have personally watched as pastor friends of mine stepped down from their positions because of the changes that were being forced upon them because of the beliefs of others. I speak not just because of problems I could and have faced, but from the problems and experiences of close friends that have been effected by these "minor inconviences". How is it a minor inconvience to allow same-sex marriage when it means losing your job to stick with your religious beliefs? You have no right to tell me what I know and don't know when you don't know a damn thing about me. So you know what, considering I have proven you wrong on multiple points, you have blatently ignored other points I have made because you know they disprove you even more, I am going to ask you to stop responding to me. If imgflip would give us the ability to block others, you would be on that list of people I would block.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
??? you don't read the bible in small parts? The WHOLE thing was about Pagans. You're choosing small bits and making them seem like they're separate verses, they aren't.

Look it up it's there.

80% of America is Christian, I would have to be living in a shake in the middle of nowhere to not know what a Christian is. I was Christian. And again, you're so caught up on being right, you're just putting your hands in your eyes and ignoring everything. Like I said before.
reply
1 up
Jew also hold to the Old Testament. Why doesn't the LGBT community go into a Hasidic bakery and demand a wedding cake. Or why not demand a wedding ceremony in a Muslim mosque. If you want rights that others oppose, you have to be willing to concede that others should have rights you oppose. And guess what .... There are atheist homophobes out there also. I am the proud mother of an openly gay man. Him and so many other older, wiser more self assured gay men I know agree that if a baker feels you are demanding he ignore his heartfelt beliefs just to prove how superior you are, you are an LGBTASS.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
I read the Bible in whole. No where does it say in Leviticus that the laws gave Moses only apply to pagan rituals. Leviticus covers ritual, legal and moral issues. So if you got a source that states all of Leviticus 18 is only about pagan rituals and not about what is moral, then state it, other wise it is time for you to shut it and accept that you are wrong, because so far you have not proven I have been wrong about anything, especially when half the points I make you ignore.

Just because you WAS Christian, that doesn't mean you know what it means to be Christian or how these changes that the LGBT community has been forcing upon us really effects us. You turned from God and religion, which means you never full understood it.

How can you state I am the one putting my hands in my ear when I address all the points you try to make. You are the one that ignores half of what I say, never addressing them, and then refuse to site your sources for your false claims. So once again stop responding unless you are going to site sources. PERIOD.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
I already answered half your questions, I've stated everything already. You look at everything for your own gain instead of what I'm saying. I've actually agreed that you are discriminated against. but I also stated why it was a good thing. I also told you were to find the information. As for the signatures there wasn't any. However there was a rally the former runner Ted Cruz went to that supported it. I have literally addressed everything you've said you just chose not to listen. You can't read the bible by itself you have to actually know the history. That's why you're all mixed up. I actually get Christianity, I think it's solid, however I also realized that most of it goes over the average person head.
reply
1 up
Discrimination is always wrong. We all have rights. However, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. A person's right to be gay ends where it infringes on a Christian's right to practice his religion.
reply
1 up
Stupid time limit...

And before you call me a bigot, as an American, I support gay marriage. As a Christian, I believe homosexual acts are a sin (being a homosexual is merely to be tempted to sin).
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
You only addressed half of what I said, but what about the other half. You haven't stated where it says Leviticus 18 only deals with pagan rituals. You never addressed the city that was destroyed because of sodomy. You never addressed how the Bible clearly states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. You have not addressed why it is not possible to allow Christians to stand by their beliefs and refuse services for what they consider to be wrong by God or why the LGBT cannot accept our beliefs and find someone else that will provide the same services. As I type this, I don't think you have even addressed half of what I have stated.

BTW, I have studied the culture and the history of the Bible which is how I have come to understand the laws that are stated when it comes to **pe and slavery. So don't try to tell me I am the one mixed up, as you have yet to state how I am wrong about chapter 18 of Leviticus covers morals of sexuality that we are to live by, not pagan rituals like you keep claiming with zero evidence to back you up.
0 ups
Wait, I mentioned all that but you didn't feel the need to look it up? I thought you were research guy. I did address why Christians shouldn't be allowed to stand by there beliefs. I said Oppression. I did state why LGBT can't accept your beliefs and the services part I said Oppression it was literally the same message. I didn't address the bible pieces but I gave you a start to look.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
As for Leviticus, if you keep everything in context Jacob was angry that Reuben was having sex with his concubine in his bed. The message is to respect relationships.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
That has nothing to do with stating how Leviticus 18, or even parts of that chapter only apply to pagan rituals. That message isn't even stating a law God gave to Moses.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It's because you're only reading the Bible, you need to know the history about what was happening around that time too otherwise you're just reading a book with no bearing.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Site sources of what you think I should read or shut the f**k up. All you are doing is stating "you are wrong because I say so, lalalalalalala". Sources or shut up, your choice.
0 ups
You sit here and talk about research and then you say cite sources. You haven't cited a single source. All you did was look up anti gay quotes from the bible. Maybe look up are bible quotes homophobic, it should really help.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
I tell you to cite sources because you are the one making claims. You claim that Leviticus 18 is about pagan rituals, where is the source of that. You stated 4,000 people signed that document, but then retracted that statement probably because you couldn't find any sources. What have I stated that requires sources to be posted? The fact that you can't give me any sources and now trying to use that against me only shows how desperate and wrong you are.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
That's what I mean. You're playing the statistics game, sure the signatures were wrong, but now you're going to say that ted cruz didn't show up to that same guys rally, and you're also going to tell me that rally had nobody there because of statistics. thousands of people showed up. Why would a guy running for office show up to a place with 1 person? That's what I mean, you're trying to prove common sense wrong. Everything you say requires sources, you say Christians are being discriminated, wheres your sources? You're saying by altering your belief you are destroying what you believe in, wheres your sources? Leviticus 18 is talking about gay people, wheres your sources?
reply
1 up
Stupid reply limits...

AD does not stand for "after death", it stands for anno Domini, latin for "the year of God (traditionally, 'our Lord')". You talk about others being ignorant... Matthew 7:3.

And in all fairness, your request for sources is kind of like a kid saying, "Darers go first."
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
I will start stating my sources right after you start giving me yours. I have been asking for sources from the beginning. You are only asking now because you know you can't provide any.
0 ups
Oh so now you don't want to, I told you, look it up. It's not hard. "Homophobic bible quotes." That's my third or four time saying it. You can do all the reading there. You seem perplexed to believe that you may not under stand the bible because you didn't grow up before A.D. (after death) really?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Um... The "coming out of the closet" thing refers to "having skeletons in your closet"... Just FYI.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
True but there is also a term for gay people when they are in hiding and decide to no longer do it called coming out the closet.

I can't reply to the other message, so I'll just put it here. Almost everything in America has almost some association with Christians. Even past the first Amendment. Example, like if you wanted to take the God part off a dollar, you would have to impose on Christians even though it has nothing to do with their beliefs.
reply
1 up
I have no objection to taking "IN GOD WE TRUST" off the currency. That doesn't impose on my beliefs whatsoever. Forcing a preacher who believes it to be a sin to perform a gay marriage DOES infringe on his First Amendment rights.
reply
1 up
And the skeletons thing is the origin of the phrase, not the hiding in the closet. People who didn't know the origin decided that that must be what was meant.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What anti-lgbt laws are you talking about? They only laws being passed are pro-lgbt. Marriage equality, transgender rights, hate crime status. All are pro-lgbt.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
This person seems to think that Matt McLaughlin speaks for the majority or all of Christians when he tried to propose the “Sodomite Suppression Act” which call for the death of anyone who practices homosexuality and even to keep homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals from having any political job. The full act can be read https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008%20(Sodomy)_0.pdf . Now of course LittleDovely1 tried to claim that 4,000 people signed it before a judge turned it down. This is actually false (and later they admitted that) and in fact McLaughlin tried to get the courts to bypass the 350,000 signatures required to even have it put on the November ballot.

Lovely claims to have conceded to the signatures but then tried to state that a rally that took place in November was of 1,700 people including some potential presidential nominees all gathering together who want to kill gays, only because the main speaker there was Kevin Swanson, a pastor who spoke a message about the sin of homosexuality and that the Bible does say that homosexuals should be put to death. Now I have not seen anything say that this rally was designed to be a "Kill The Gays" rally like Little claims, but instead it was called National Religious Liberties Conference 2015. Cruz later admitted that it was a mistake attending that conference, which tells me that if he knew what the pastor was going to say before he introduced Cruz, Cruz probably would never have been there.

The only thing that has come close to being an anti-gay law that has passed is actually an anti-discrimination law in Mississippi and North Carolina which actually prevents religious people from being forced to perform services for events they don't feel comfortable doing because of religious reasons.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
So you wanted me to search "homophobic bible verses"? Well I did and I think I found one of your favorite sites, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm . Shall I go over what they conveniently left out in each one of their claims for you? Ok here we go. BTW, All of this will not fit on one post, so I will be replying to my own comments to keep everything in order, so wait until the last one to reply, which I would say at this point is not necessary.

Genesis 2:23-24 states "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man.' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." This clearly states that the natural intent was for the suitable helper to be of the opposite sex.

Sodom and Gomorrah- http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

Leviticus 18:22- "So if you’re gonna be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian." That is a far stretch from even what they listed as what was unlawful. First off the whole wool and linen is actually because that was the attire of the priests, it was only unlawful for nonordained members of the church in order to show a clear distinction between the 2. It is much like how a normal citizen is not allowed, by law, to wear both a police uniform and a badge at the same time. Since God only gave permission for ordained people to lead worship at church, there had to be a clear way to define who was who. As far as eating certain meat, just because some was considered unlawful to eat, that doesn't mean all meat was and that we should all be vegetarians. In fact Genesis 9:3 tells us we are allowed to eat meat. 9:4 just tells us that the meat should not contain blood, which in most cases means it should be fully cooked.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
On the next page- Ruth and Naomi- Just because Ruth was loyal to Naomi, that doesn't mean they were lesbians. 2 people of the same sex can have a deep loyalty to each other without there being sexual attraction or any desire to be mates. Ruth was Naomi's daughter-in-law, and we see many in-laws today that after a spouse passes, they keep a close relationship with each other. These people are trying to make it more than what it is, same with David and Jonathan. A good explanation for David and Jonathan's relation can be seen http://www.gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.html .

Page 3- Reason 2 can be throw out easily. First off The verse they quoted about the wineskins does not come from Matthew 5. It actually comes from Matthew 9:17 and it was a metaphor used to explain why the disciples were not fasting. This has absolutely nothing to do with how when society changes than so must religious views.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Reason 1- First off, nowhere in Matthew 8: 5-13 does the soldier state he has a special relationship with this servant. What he does state is that he believes Jesus could heal the servant by just speaking it instead of needing to go see him, and it is this faith in which Jesus commends the soldier for. The reason Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality here is because there is absolutely nothing to imply that the soldier and/or the servant were gay.

Now with Matthew 19, don't you just love how they conveniently left out important verses here. Verses 4-6 (not just 4 and 5 like they say) do state what God intended for marriage. What is left out with 7-9 is what divorce is acceptable and what isn't. Then in verse 10 the disciples say that if such a commitment is going to be required between a man and a woman for marriage then it isn't worth getting married. This is where the part of the eunuchs comes in, although some translations use maturity. The Message state that not everyone is mature enough to chose only one person to marry and to stay with that person until death. Jesus goes on to say that marriage is not for everyone. He stated that some from the time of birth never give marriage a thought, others are never asked, and some choose because of kingdom/religious reasons, but those who are capable of committing to a life of marriage should do so. Because eunuchs were not capable of procreating, either because of a birth defect, castrated, or even by choice, the term eunuch was to paint a picture of the 3 reasons one may not end up getting married. Nowhere in the bible has eunuch and homosexual ever been interchangeable. Unlike their claims on the site, being a eunuch didn't mean you didn't have sexual attraction to a woman. "In essence, here, Jesus Christ tells his disciples that people born without the innate attraction to the opposite sex should not marry people of the opposite sex." Um, no. In essence here Jesus would be using eunuch as those who shouldn't marry at all. So even if eunuch and homosexual could be interchanged, then Jesus would be saying that homosexuals should not marry at all.

In short, just like you, this site is full of false claims with no proof or credibility to their claims.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
0_e ok... now you're just getting crazy? You are literally trying to translate the bible literally. A 3500 year old book.

Your sources come from bing, yahoo, and google. And as I said before it didn't matter because those aren't reliable sources. And you fell right into it with a single link. You say I'm full of false claims? How? I said you can't give reliable sources unless you have either money or an organization backing you. Yet here you still are talking about the impossible and trying to derail my argument.

However you ignore that because you want google, your best friend hack preacher (who as you said was fired) and your best translation of what the text means to mean something. It doesn't.

You tried to convince me that the LGBT are picking on Christian Churches? Because the government told you, you can't discriminate against people. In which you replied with; there are other venues. In which I said dang near 80 percent of America is Christian.

You tried to nik pik the kill the gay bill that someone tried to get passed, You said there were no signatures, I said that was true. Only to find out that a presidential nominee actually went to a kill the gay rally.

When I said you were a Straight White Privileged Christian Male, you replied that's an insult, In which I replied, It's to help you gain a cultural footing and understanding in which your argument lacks, and how could you know other people if you don't know yourself. You replied I didn't know you and haven't addressed any of your argument.

I said that Christians were Oppressing the LGBT community. You said how since if that was true there would not be half the laws we have today. 0_e ignoring the fact that those were recent.

This argument is getting confusing because you decided to comment in about three different sections and you seem to think I'm ignoring your questions. We'll stick here if you want to continue. Most of the above is what we talked about. And separated by topic. Your rebuttal should be the same paragraph number as the one from here. If you have something new, it should go below the last paragraph as a new one. If you believe a paragraph has already been solved type [skip] or [finish] however you are not allowed to type anything if you do for those paragraphs. There are six paragraphs. Leave the top one and this out. This provides order. So that you can't play the I ignored you or chaos game.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
You have been making false claims because you haven't even tried using any type of source to back up what you say.

I never said my preacher friend was fired. He quit because of the changes the regional organization was making. There you go f**king lying you f**king ass off again.

If you did actual research you would know that it is closer to 62%, not 80% asshole. Unless you are going to provide a source to prove me wrong, then once again you are lying out of your ass. And just because over half of America is Christian, that doesn't mean over half of the businesses out there are owned by Christians. In fact if you had half a brain, you would know that some Christians would go ahead and provide services for things like a same-sex marriage, and that should be their CHOICE to do so, not some government mandate.

You lied about signatures, so why should I believe a damn word you said about the rally? Why not provide something to support your claim? I am not going to do your research to justify your claims, that is your job.

I never stated that oppression never took place. You were trying to make it seem that only Christians are the one oppressing anyone. I was stating that there is more oppression taking place towards Christians today than that of the LGBT. You stated that Christians are able to get any law they want passed, and I stated that if this was the case many of the laws that have been passing lately wouldn't have passed. You need to stop trying to twist words around to make yourself seem superior, especially since you constantly refuse to use any source to back your false claims.

Considering you haven't addressed anything that I stated in the last 3 posts, that is only more evidence showing that you are afraid to address what I say and to try to prove I am wrong. Not every credible source is going to cost money. In fact those who want the truth out there are willing to provide it for free. Sources that normally require money for information are those that provide info on scientific theory. Most books can be googled and quoted for free, if you know where to look. You are obviously too f**king stupid to do that though.

The reason I had to do 3 different posts is because everything wouldn't fit in one, b**ch. I covered 3 pages of a website that came up during a search that you f**king told me to do. And you f**king dismissed it all because you are incapable of proving that anything I said is false. Goodbye asshat.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Why would I try something so stupid? I know they aren't reliable sources. So it's pointless to post a source. What is a source going to do if it can't validate truth?

So he didn't agree with the Church? But he's a reliable source for the Church? Again you're just proving my point. It doesn't mean anything on the subject. They would literally go against there own religion to make their point.

So 60% is still over half. Now you're saying they would provide services, well we know that, they do have LGBT Churches. But it doesn't change the fact that they are outnumber and most of the LGBT problems are because Churches think they are wrong, which lead to most of the oppression.

I didn't lie about the signatures if I did I would have ignored it, I actually showed you I'm willing to look at your side by admitting I was wrong. And I also said I found the rally piece. It was in the news and I literally had just looked at the website.

There's no reason to talk about sources, they're just news articles. That can hardly be called reliable. It serves little to no purpose towards truth. You just said in a previous post that if Christians were making the laws none of the recent LGBT laws would have passed, that's Oppression. You are literally saying that Christians don't accept the LGBT community or at least it's considered immoral. I also already said Oppression requires bodies and resources which Christians have. I've also said Christianity goes over most peoples heads, in which they go so far as to go to kill the gay rallies. Most conservatives are Christian. And yes you did say that you said they're forcing Christians to change their beliefs. Now you're proving that that's not true because the Preachers left the church because they didn't agree with it.

Yes those same sources take small bits and pieces from books. And the sites you get them from normally have an agenda. That's why they aren't credible. Plus you would also need to know about the author and his credentials. Again stuff you're not going to look up.

I meant you were replying to two of my messages I left here which aren't related. You asked me to prove a source that said it. Which I did. I never said I took said source seriously. You're just trying trap me and it's not working.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
I am not even going to read your comment, only the first part. The rest is meaningless, and here is why. Without any type of source, everything you state can only be seen as your opinion. That is it. Absolutely no value and no substance. You might try to claim I have my fingers in my ears, but all you are doing is stating "you are wrong because I say so". So since nothing you have stated isn't backed by any type of source, it means absolutely nothing. Hope you enjoyed wasting your time on the rest of your unread comment.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
This is how you are painting yourself right now. I did catch one other lie of yours that I will bring up and end with. I never stated that Christians would never provide services for something they don't agree with. I have clearly been stating that they should have the right to choose without fear of a lawsuit. Without saying "oppression" or another similar word, what harm would really come to a gay couple having to find a different baker to get their cake because the first one doesn't believe same sex marriage is right? Actually let me tell you about this one lawsuit I read a few years ago. A Christian lady owned a photography study. A gay couple comes in and wants her to photograph their union ceremony. Because of her beliefs she didn't want to do it. Before telling the customers that, she went out and found 4 other companies that would be able to provide the exact same services at the same cost, all of which were willing to do the job. When she turned down the couple and gave them the 4 other options, they thank her by sueing her for discrimination. Now tell me, who was oppressing who there? I will help you out. It wasn't the Christian. See the Christian never told them they shouldn't be allowed to be together, evidence by her getting 4 other leads for them. No the oppression came from the homosexuals by stating with their lawsuit that Christians should do whatever they are told to do no matter how uncomfortable it makes them feel. See Christians haven't tried to stop certain laws from passing in order to oppress anyone, they do it to try to keep their religious practices. If Christians were trying to oppress homosexuals by not wanting same sex marriage, why didn't they also try to go and take away civil unions from homosexuals as well?
reply
0 ups
One word "democracy".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yes, because she DOES support LGBTQ. And this f*ggot knows that for a fact! So, get your shit right.
reply
2 ups
Dear Hillary,

imgflip.com/i/12dhkb
Flip Settings
Hillary Clinton memeRe-caption this meme
Show embed codes
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SAYS SHE SUPPORTS LGBT MEMBERS IN TIME OF NEED AFTER TIME OF VIOLENCE; SET UP WEAPONS SALES AND ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM SAUDI ARABIA WHO KILL HOMOSEXUALS IN THEIR COUNTRY
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back