It's partly the businesses that control the show's content
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
reply
[deleted]
14 ups, 3 replies
I saw an interview on BBC America. There were two actors, a male and a female, both played bit parts, nothing major, but making a pretty good living out in L.A. The guy said that he made it known to his actor friends that he had voted Republican during this past presidential election. Word went around in the acting community about that and he was dropped by his agent and couldn't find work, not even in commercials. The female said that she's a Conservative and had to keep it a secret just so she could keep getting work. Now she's finally sick of all that shit and is finally speaking up. She realizes that her career is probably over but " total thine own self be true. " You're all correct. Television and movies have a huge influence on people's thoughts and the biggest lever they have is that it's a billion dollar business. Imagine our kids watching a show featuring illegal aliens and thinking that they're heroes.
Just heard about his latest project: a movie called Let There Be Light, where he plays the most unrealistic strawman of an atheist I've ever seen on film. Like his character in God's Not Dead, but even more absurd.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
I have the weekend off. I should see if that's on Netflix.
yea would not want them thinking that right? smh... From illegal migrant worker to Hopkins brain surgeon: http://esgweb1.nts.jhu.edu/hmn/W07/feature1.cfm
1 a :of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal education
b archaic :of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a :marked by generosity :openhanded a liberal giver
b :given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal meal
c :ample, full
3 obsolete :lacking moral restraint :licentious
4 :not literal or strict :loose a liberal translation
5 :broad-minded; especially :not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a :of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized :of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Didn't ABC make the show? Which would mean they wrote it as well? Why would they write a show around a conservative character and then cancel the show that they made because the character is conservative? That's like me cooking food I hate then dumping it in the trash because I don't like that kind of food.
reply
[deleted]
9 ups, 4 replies
They pull shows all the the time. This one happens to be one with a conservative slant. Big deal. Do you see outcray and whining from liberals when they pulled the real oniells? Jeez. Get a grip ya conservative snowflakes!
Yes, like Bruce...errr Katylin Jenners show, but there are far more shows on the liberal end than the conservative end. There are very few to begin begin with and when one is knocked off despite success and ratings it makes a person such as myself take notice.
Tim wrote most of the show and he had creative freedom in his contract much like the Simpsons do with fox, that is why they have so many jabs against fox
Because logic need not apply when conservative feels are denied.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Networks don't always make their own shows. FOX or Warner Bros. could produce it for all I know. I think all the networks have their own studios. For some reason the networks don't have exclusive rights or care to buy their own studio's shows. Now though, they realize they make more money on the back end (syndication, selling streaming rights, etc) so they're buying more and more from than own studios than even 5 years ago.
Come on, Octavia, you're smarter than this. We both know that's not how the entertainment business works. ABC didn't write the show. And ABC didn't even produce the show. It was actually a show produced by a Fox Production Company. ABC aired it. And It'd be more like you cooking great food at a popular restaurant, and then the owners deciding that they're shutting down the restaurant because they don't like your customer base and how big it's getting. Are you really gonna sit here and tell me that these corporate monoliths don't make decisions that are politically motivated? It's their network, and their money, and they can do what they want. But I can get angry about it and point it out, if I want, too.
I'm sure that they do make decisions that are politically motivated, but I didn't know that ABC itself didn't write or produce the show. I just assumed that since they air it, they make it. That was ignorance on my part.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
If it's so awesome then surely another network will pick it up. No problem. Capitalism!
I have never heard of such laws that force Christians into accepting a gay "lifestyle".
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
The legalization of same sex marriages at the federal level, which would technically put it higher ranked than that of traditional marriage which is at the state level. It is possible for one state to not accept the traditional marriage of another state, but if it is a same sex couple it has to be accepted everywhere. With that, anyone who has the ability to sign a marriage certificate, which does include pastors, is required by law to provide a same sex couple their services to marry them, even if it is against the pastor's beliefs. It is all hidden within the disguise of being considered a discrimination law.
Has anyone made an effort to outlaw traditional marriage with that loophole? Meanwhile, several efforts are made to outlaw marriage equality. Some months ago, an Arkansas official made a legislation for an Amendment calling for traditional marriage. It fell short of votes, however.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Let me ask you 1 simple question, and regardless of what you think it is simple. Why did the definition of marriage need to be changed to make same-sex marriage legal instead of changing how and what privileges are given with civil unions? BTW, besides changing the definition of marriage, it also forced religions to change what they have believed for centuries to avoid being sued for discrimination which is a violation of the separation of church and state, and for those who didn't change it forced pastors to give up their right to sign marriage certificates for the state in order to prevent having to change their beliefs and from being sued for discrimination. All of this could have been avoided by changing the privileges given by something that was already legal for them.
Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government. The government created benefits for married couples and families when the government saw the benefits to the community that these couples and families provided. These benefits were created AFTER marriage was created, not before.
Did the definition of marriage get changed? The definition I looked up states that some jurisdictions call marriage a union between a man and a woman, not all.
"BTW, besides changing the definition of marriage, it also forced religions to change what they have believed for centuries to avoid being sued for discrimination which is a violation of the separation of church and state,..."
The separation of church and state really means that the church has no influence on government power.
"and for those who didn't change it forced pastors to give up their right to sign marriage certificates for the state in order to prevent having to change their beliefs and from being sued for discrimination."
Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding.
"All of this could have been avoided by changing the privileges given by something that was already legal for them."
Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages.
"Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government."
If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either. Another fact you should consider is that the Bible never actually condemns homosexuality. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNZQ64xiqo
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
"The separation of church and state really means that the church has no influence on government power."
This is a major misconception. The purpose of the separation of church and state was to keep the government from making a singular religion everyone has to follow or defining what religions are allowed to practice. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802. Find me any legal document that states otherwise.
"Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding."
You are contradicting yourself when you say that they were not forced and then spout off what has happened since. Pastors who did not want to get sued by refusing to sign gay marriage certificates but still wanted to sign for traditional marriage certificates made the decision to accept it by changing their core beliefs. Those who refused were sued because of discrimination. Had gay marriage never been legalized at the federal level, none of this would had to have happen. So when it became legal, either they had to change their beliefs or give up their ability to sign marriage certificates, they didn't have a choice. Not having a choice means they were forced.
"Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages."
Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage.
"If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either."
Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family.
When Jefferson said Congress would make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, he also said that there would be no law respecting an establishment of one, which means no anti-gay laws.
"Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage."
For a start, how did they change marriage? All they did was make the federal laws flexible for a man to marry another man, woman to another woman, etc. Secondly, no. Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals. Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination.
"Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family."
Except for the fact that separation of church and state was meant to keep church and other religious affiliated institutions out of the government, hence the name. Not to mention that I've never, ever heard about a married couple gaining rewards from the government.
"However when the federal government stated that it is unconstitutional to deny a gay couple the right to get married, it throws the state's definition out the window and replaces it with "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law." making it no longer defined as just between a man and a woman."
I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?
"As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible."
And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah? I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
"Except for the fact that separation of church and state was meant to keep church and other religious affiliated institutions out of the government, hence the name." F**K PROVE IT!!!!!!!! THE NAME ONLY IMPLIES THAT THERE IS SUPPOSE TO BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE 2, BUT DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT THAT SEPARATION IS SUPPOSE TO BE. EVEN IF IT WAS TO MEAN BOTH WAYS, IT IS STILL A F**KING VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR THE STATE TO TELL THE CHURCH THEY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE AND PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR DOCTRINE SAYS. STILL I WANT YOU TO SHOW SOME F**KING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS MEANT FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHURCH.
"I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?" CONSIDERING MARRIAGE WAS A SACRED PRACTICE STARTED BY THE CHURCH AND WAS INTENDED TO BE BETWEEN 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN, THEN YES THE DEFINITION SHOULD REFLECT THAT. BUT SINCE YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THE CHURCH WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO BELIEVE AND PRACTICE (AND IT DID THAT BY LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE AND MAKING IT WHERE PASTORS AND CHURCHES CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION FOR WANTING TO PRACTICE THEIR BELIEFS AND NOT PERFORM A GAY MARRIAGE) I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
"And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah?" I DID LATER TRY TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THEIR BS, BUT THEY LOST A LOT OF CREDIBILITY BY SAYING THE IMPORTANCE OF SOMETHING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS BASED ON HOW OFTEN IT IS IN THE BIBLE. AND FOR THEM TO ALSO LATER STATE THAT BECAUSE OF HOW SOCIETY HAS CHANGED WE SHOULDN'T BASE OUR VALUES OF HOW WE LIVE ON STORIES IN A BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THAT THERE MADE EVERYTHING THEY STATED COMPLETE BULLSHIT AND I CANNOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THEY SAY TO REFLECT ANYTHING OF GOD.
"I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like." FIND ME 1 VERSE WHERE IT CONDONES A MAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER MAN OR A WOMAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
"When Jefferson said Congress would make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, he also said that there would be no law respecting an establishment of one, which means no anti-gay laws."
Do you not realize how stupid you are making yourself look? Let me break down the quote for you. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature (THE GOVERNMENT) should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion (NOT CREATE A SINGLE RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (TELL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HOW TO PRACTICE),' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." NOWHERE IN THIS QUOTE DOES IT SAY SHIT ABOUT KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
"For a start, how did they change marriage?" LEARN HOW TO F**KING READ. BY MAKING IT F**KING LEGAL FOR GAYS TO GET MARRIED, IT NOW PUT PASTORS AND CHURCHES IN A POSITION IN WHICH THEY COULD AND DO GET SUED IF THEY WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT CONDONE HOMOSEXUALITY BY PERFORMING THEIR MARRIAGE SERVICE AND SIGNING THEIR MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. THEY DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT LEGAL FOR A MAN TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN OR WOMAN WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. THEY MADE IT WHERE THE CHURCHES HAD TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE, PASTORS GIVING UP THEIR ABILITY TO SIGN MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES, AND/OR RISK GETTING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION. IT BECAME THE FIRST STEP IN VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WILL ALWAYS MEAN KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHURCH NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
"Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals." DID YOU F**KING FORGET THAT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED AT STATE LEVELS AS WELL, WHICH MEANS SOME STATES CAN HAVE CERTAIN REGULATIONS THAT DON'T RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN FROM ANOTHER STATE? WHY SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE STATE LEVEL?
"Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination." WHY SHOULD I SHOW YOU PROOF OF ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED PROOF OF SHIT, ESPECIALLY THAT REGARDING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO KEEP THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT?
"So now answer my question that you decided to so clearly ignore. If CIVIL UNIONS were and still are legal for gay couples prior to the federal government legalizing marriage for gay couples, then why did marriage need to be altered instead of altering civil unions which was already available for them?"
Anti-gay marriage laws were ruled as unconstitutional because it states that an individual as the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage. My answer to your question is that marriage is part of what America offers as liberty, otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness. Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?
My question is this: Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized? They haven't been harmed in any way, and neither has the United States had a "negatively impacted society". Is it dangerous to have a secular United States, like one they have in Britain or Iceland, or dangerous to have a United States under religious rule, similar to Saudi Arabia or Iran?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
"My answer to your question is that marriage is part of what America offers" FIRST MISTAKE, BECAUSE AMERICA DIDN'T CREATE MARRIAGE, THE CHURCH DID THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES CERTAIN RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES TO MARRIED COUPLES AND FAMILIES, AND ALSO EXTENDS THOSE TO CIVIL UNIONS.
"right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage" WHY DOES A COUPLE HAVE TO BE MARRIED IN ORDER TO PURSUE LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS?
"otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness." SO IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STRAIGHT COUPLES BUT NOT GAY COUPLES? WHY THE F**K NOT? WHAT ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS PREVENTS LIBERTY, JUSTICE, OR THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
"Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?" IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IT IS A MATTER OF TAKING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AWAY FROM PASTORS AND CHURCHES TO STILL PRACTICE THEIR DOCTRINE WITHOUT WORRYING WHO IS GOING TO SUE THEM NEXT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME BUT THE VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
"Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized?" WELL I HAVE SAID IT ABOUT A THOUSAND TIMES NOW, BECAUSE IT FORCES CHURCHES TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE OR GET SUED FOR NOT PERFORMING A GAY MARRIAGE.
"They haven't been harmed in any way," EXCEPT FOR THE MULTITUDE OF PASTORS AND RELIGIOUS BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY NOT PERFORMING SERVICES FOR SOMETHING THEY BELIEVE IS MORALLY WRONG. IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO SHOOT SOMEONE REGARDLESS IF THE INTENT IS JUST TO INJURY THEM OR KILL THEM (UNLESS IT IS MEANT SOLELY FOR SELF DEFENSE AND IT IS THE ONLY OPTION). SHOULD A GUN STORE OWNER SELL SOMEONE A GUN THAT OPENLY ADMITS THEY PLAN ON SHOOTING PEOPLE ONLY TO INJURE THEM BUT NOT KILL THEM? IF THE GUN SHOP OWNER REFUSES, SHOULD THE PERSON BE ALLOWED TO SUE HIM FOR DISCRIMINATION? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. YOU MAY THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMLESS, BUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO STICK WITH THE DOCTRINE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BELIEVE THAT THE ACT AND LIVING THAT LIFESTYLE LEADS TO ETERNAL DAMNATION. WHY SHOULD THEY CONDONE THE ACT BY PARTICIPATING?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
"Is it dangerous to have a secular United States, like one they have in Britain or Iceland, or dangerous to have a United States under religious rule, similar to Saudi Arabia or Iran?" CONSIDERING YOU JUST COMPARED CHRISTIANITY TO A RELIGION THAT DOESN'T PROMOTE ANY KIND OF LOVE BUT INSTEAD TELLS ITS FOLLOWERS TO KILL THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOST ANY FOOTING YOU HAD IN ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. BESIDES THE FACT YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, THIS HERE JUST LOST ANY REASONING FOR ME TO CONTINUE WITH YOU ANY MORE. I WILL STATE THIS, I NEVER ONCE STATED WE NEEDED A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. I HAVE STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO NOT TELL THE CHURCH WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE, AND BY MAKING GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IT IS DOING THAT. NOW IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE HAVING A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OVER A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, MAYBE YOU SHOULD COMPARE WITH A COUNTRY THAT HAS A CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. IN FACT THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THAT ISN'T ISLAMIC IS VATICAN CITY. IT IS CONSIDERED ITS OWN COUNTRY DESPITE ITS SIZE. EVEN THOUGH THE CRIME RATE IS 1.5 PER CITIZEN, THIS IS BASED OFF OF ITS MOST POPULAR CRIME OF PICK-POCKETING. OTHER THAN THAT, CRIME IS PRETTY LOW THERE. REGARDLESS I STILL NEVER STATED WE NEEDED A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. NOW AS FAR AS WHICH IS DANGEROUS, THE QUESTION SHOULD REALLY BE WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS AND HOW IS IT DANGEROUS. A PURE SECULAR GOVERNMENT WITH NO RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHAT SO EVER IS DANGEROUS ON MANY LEVELS. IT WILL BE VIEWED BY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AS DANGEROUS FOR THE SOUL FOR EVERYONE. IT ALSO CREATES THE POSSIBILITIES OF MAKING ANYTHING LEGAL BASED OFF OF WHAT WE NOW WANT TO DETERMINE IS ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE SOCIETY. THIS GIVES US AN UNSTABLE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS CHANGE. HAVING A PURE THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS ALSO DANGEROUS AS IT CREATES A COUNTRY BASED OFF A SINGLE RELIGION MAKING EVERYONE PRACTICE ONLY 1 RELIGION, WHICH IS WHY MANY FROM ENGLAND STARTED COMING HERE AND FORMING AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER IS HAVING A GOVERNMENT WITH AN EQUAL BALANCE, WHICH IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED AND TRIED TO FORM. HOWEVER WE ARE MOVING TO BEING A MORE SECULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH IS GOING TO BE DANGEROUS ON MANY LEVELS.
[deleted]
0 ups
It is always annoying when dumbasses comment in a way that you can’t give them a direct response, so let’s see if butthurt decides to come back and read this.
The issue with what you posted about the concubine, woman’s property, and polygamy is that they are not all married to each other, just each one “married” to the man. None of those examples show anything other than a man marrying a woman. There is no man marrying man or woman marrying woman. Also if you actually were to study the Bible and history of the cultures from back then, you would better understand why some of those marriages took place. Back then it was part of the culture to remain a virgin until married. If a woman was not a virgin, chances are she would never get married. In the culture of that time, the husband provided the finances, food, shelter, and protection, among other things. If a woman never got married, most likely she would end up on the streets as a prostitute. There was no exception to this is a woman was **ped. So if a woman was **ped, she was actually given the choice if she wanted to marry her predator. By doing so, the predator was required to provide all the services a husband was required to perform, however she was not required to perform and wifely duties in the bedroom unless she chose to. It was never a requirement for her to marry him, but the alternative could be much worse.
Concubines were often acquired mainly to provide offspring for when the wife couldn’t.
Polygamy may never have been condemned by God in the Old Testament, and there are multiple theories as to why. However the New Testament does clearly state 1 man and 1 woman. None of the incidences listed in concubine and polygomy all happened in Old Testament.
Keep trying, maybe with more studying and research you might actually say something intelligent.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
1 FINAL NOTE. UNLESS YOUR NEXT RESPONSE HAS EVIDENCE COMING FROM A GOVERNMENT SITE OR ANY CREDIBLE SITE STATING THAT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS ONLY MEANT FOR KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A F**K ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TO SAY. EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM THIS POINT ON IS NULL AND VOID IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS CLAIM OF YOURS.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
"Did the definition of marriage get changed? The definition I looked up states that some jurisdictions call marriage a union between a man and a woman, not all." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage However when the federal government stated that it is unconstitutional to deny a gay couple the right to get married, it throws the state's definition out the window and replaces it with "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law." making it no longer defined as just between a man and a woman.
As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible. There are many passages in which it states that homosexuality is a sin, that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, except for denying the power of God itself. So regardless of what you think that video states, they lost all credibility when they tried to say that because homosexuality is in less than 1% of the Bible that it isn't that important to God so therefore we can ignore it. So yes the Bible does condemn homosexuality, regardless of how often it is mentioned in it, PERIOD.
So now answer my question that you decided to so clearly ignore. If CIVIL UNIONS were and still are legal for gay couples prior to the federal government legalizing marriage for gay couples, then why did marriage need to be altered instead of altering civil unions which was already available for them?
Canada's government didn't issue such law. That is a fake news story that has spread around several conservative news sites to paint the liberal government in Canada as totalitarian.
I had heard that myself. If you're right, and it is in fact fake, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they would deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent something like that. That's what they do.
Bill 89 leaves alot of room for interpretation regarding negative psychological effects...while not specifically naming trans youths it does include them in the discrimination piece. It is written purposefully vague.
For me it's less about racism than it is about hypocrisy and double standards. If you're going to say it's ok for Bill to say those things because he's a liberal and then destroy others for the same... It's not right.
How you use it - and under what circumstances - are more important than the "who" part. And NOT the same word. To use it against Rodney Harrison (for selling out his people over Colin Kaepernick's protest would be perhaps equally apppropriate - but not wise for Maher or myself to do. Kaep?
True enough...but this works until you hit the buffer. I've seen 'em tweak something and re-activate your reply options before...but WHO can follow it all? A way to keep the threads straight would help at times.
And your link appears broken. I call all haters on their hate, this time I was focusing on bill Maher. Can you start over on the comment line? I'm enjoying talking to you but we're basically bumping up against the end of the comments here. At least on my phone
Donald Sterling. - LA Clippers former owner...and a REAL scumbag racist with a history (housing discrimination and the like) - but he a BIG PHILANTHROPIST...just ask the Greater LA Jewish Journal - where every ostensible charity thanks him for chairing their Gala's...
I ALMOST never use it myself. In a hip-hop rhyme - or like Maher - perhaps for effect in an APPROPRIATE circumstance. Sometimes I'll drop it on the truly ignorant (but to avoid a lack of clarity, only on white dumb-asses).
And then there is the journalistic issue of whether to re-utter it in a report - or sanitize the story of the truth ALONG with the word. When you hear someone say it...your ears lift up (or they should anyway). So editing it steals the power of the story. Sure I can tell you what DSterling says (in abbreviated forml
..but how about hearing HIM say it? i.imgflip.com/1wdrr1.jpg (click to show)
I dont like maher. I fhink he gets a pass when others dont and thats extremely bias. I wasnt saying its ok. I was being sarcastic toward the meme. Perhaps i should have said "really?"
I understood after the second one, I apologize for misunderstanding the first. It's always a little funny when you find yourself "agreeing loudly" with someone else :)
He used a VARIANT of the N-word...to refer to HIMSELF. As descriptors go - IT WAS DEAD-ON ACCURATE (which is tbe scary part to Hollywood - he dropped his mask, and broke the 4th wall.
"House N- " denotes a Judas or Malinche' like figure who serves the master in a privileged place - perceived and often at the expense of fellow slaves. Occasionally bearing some family resemblance to the master or having lighter skin than the rest.
IceCube uses the term, himself, as an epithet against Ren and Eazy E in a rhyme. Far more offensive a use of the word than Maher attacking (OUT-ing) HIMSELF with it. It is a word. He used it properly. ONLY HOLLYWOOD CARED.
House N- is NOT THE SAME WORD. And applying it to himself......
In fact since you seem WILLFULLY Ignorant about the difference....you might try the non-location/social context -specific version on for size.
Even in the days of slavery.- using that word on Fredrick Douglas or Prince Hall or Crispus Attucks - would have been inappropriate - except as an unwarranted insult, from a racist.
Share the real reason you dislike Bill Maher - is it beacause he used the N-Word and (you're just a jelly little b**ch, like Ferris Beuller's sister, so) you wish you could?
Or do you attribute your bias to those unencumbered by it regularly - and therefore just can't pass this opportunity?
How about Donald Sterling? Seems to me you're an alt sith-clone or something starting quarrels for no good reason. And you're not a D or R but I don't buy your not being on the right. Your sensitivity to thee issue is the TELL.
Are you saying Jennifer Gray's character isn't a jelly little b**ch...or just that you're not like unto her? Seems unclear.
HBO is his boss. If they felt like he hurt their bottom line - they'd fire him. So cancel YOUR SUBSCRIPTION. Lot's of good reasons to dislike Bill Maher...but RACIST isn't one of them. Pied Piper /House N- is a good place to start...but - POLITICALLY INCORRECT (as you seem like you wish that you could be ...) not a SHOCK to those who've followed him.
I understand about Trump now, representing the country. But Trump wasn't president when he made his comments. So he represents everyone now, I get it. But I still think that outrage should be equal, which may be naive of me, but here we are
I can't seem to be able to reply to your last, I guess we broke the comment section :)
Anyway, let's stick to Maher at the moment. When he made vulgar disgusting comments about women and didn't apologize, did you care? Or did you laugh along?
When Trump made disgusting comments about women and didn't apologize, were you offended?
Didn't expect ANYTHING more of Bill Maher - but ..which time, ...cause I don't follow his work, right now (no TV or HBO).
And if Trump was a JUST a jack-ass billionaire like Mercer or Koch et al, his personal statements (particularly off air) would mean little to me. Sure...another asshole.
To me the issue is that he associates the entire country with his words and statements now - so I consider them apples and pumpkins.
Not very. Today's progressivism is center-right, supporting mostly capitalism but some regulations to protect worker's interests, the environment, and the financial system.
Conservatism today is for ideological kooks who have never read a bit of history, or enjoy being a part of the 0.1% oligarchy that f**ks the rest of the country.
Hmmmmmmm. Funny you mention History. I teach history. Lol. I'm a conservative kook tho
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
Riiiigjt - Socialism is for the bright ones who think some Government Angels are going to rule us with humility, equity, justice and love- Hahahahaha.....socialism is truly for the most foolish and wimpish of all. Feel free to move to Venezuela and take the lot with you. Enjoy your Nirvana where all are equal in misery, except those in power of course who have billions.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
"Today's progressivism is center-right" hahahahahahahaha hahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha haha hahahahahaha
Just making sure. It would be remiss if the comments had devolved to that level. People can agree to disagree but disrespectful name calling is just ignorant. Pivoted anyway.
Last Man Standing was watched by an average of 8 mil viewers a week. A guaranteed audience. That isn't as appealing as starting a new show or rebooting an old show? Old show reboots have not done well at all...see Prison Break, 24, X files. ...In my opinion casting out 8 or so million viewers for untested and nostalgia based likely viewers isn't a great business model.
Read crystalizung public opinion by Edward bernays. I had never heard of the term "cis-gender" until I was called that. Now I hear it on TV by talking heads.
I don't buy into the transgender stuff any more than you do, and I definitely, being a true american, wholeheartedly oppose illegal immigration, HOWEVER, I also believe that liberals have just as much a right as conservatives to air programs that reflect their political beliefs, and calling it "social programming" stinks of demonization, conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theories. ABC has just as much right to air liberal stuff as Fox does to air conservative stuff.
Never said they have no right. Capitalism is capitalism. If they are making money ...so be it. Just feel like there aren't any shows that share my views. And the one that did was axed. And the new shows for fall are completely opposite of what I believe in. So I am the alienated viewer. Seems very conspiratory though. That no shows share my beliefs. But the trendy new York and la crowd have plenty to choose from.
Ok. Thanks for being reasonable and debating me instead of screaming "libtard" and mashing your keyboard. Your views are actually much more reasonable than they seemed at first.
Anyways, congrats on your first front page meme. I generally don't do politics, but I know how awesome it feels to get a meme on the front page for the first time.
Looks like a slippery slope argument. I personally am not sure about transgenders and definitely do not approve of illegal immigrants, but I do support homosexual (or gay/lesbian if you prefer) rights, and there is definitely a massive difference between two consenting adults having a romantic relationship and a man f***ing a horse, so although I disagree a lot with liberals, I do believe that homosexuals have as much a right as you or me to openly have romantic relationships without being deemed evil, perverted menaces to society.
You're moving the goalposts. He said "quality family entertainment without an agenda". He didn't say anything about being on a major network during prime time.
My assumption was that your response and their response referred back to the original meme. Sounds like I was mistaken, and ultimately, I don't care. One conservative show is cancelled in a sea of liberal crap. Your example of one obscure show vs many was fine.
I like hitting reply and then having to sort through all these responses like a seek and find. It makes me feel like a winner when I find your post.
1 news site on cable, 1 everyone else is so far in the tank for the left they don't even hide it anymore......and lobbyists pay for all politicians not just right side ones. For every Lindsey Graham defense contract there is a Harry Reid solar farm contract.
You seem to conveniently leave out
media matters
Open society
Center for American progress
Just to name a few. It's on both sides. Aaaaand both parties enjoy the kickbacks from subsidizing football stadiums (see California, Democrat state, continuously trying to get more teams there) just like weapons manufacturers get subsidies in red states.
Only reading one news source isn't good for an argument. Try reading non partisan economic news like zero hedge and open secrets.org
??? Basically you don't speak english. Because I don't see how you would not understand what I wrote. That's cool. I speak 4 languages. Portuguese (native) Spanish, Italian and English (american)...which would you like it translated to? I don't speak insult or unintelligent so that may be a stretch. I do have a Bernie supporter friend that may be able to help tho. Also being a teacher in a juvenile justice setting (mostly inner city kids) means I am in a union so the anti-worker party, alt right ( hispanic ethnicity) bit doesn't quite pertain to me but please keep name calling because you do your side so much justice that way.
Yeah sure, because hollywood has shown such FLYING COLORS when it comes to trans representation thus far. Hollywood is definitely liberal, but leftist, they are not.
Trans community persons are a small population. Their representation in Hollywood gas reflected such. I remember seeing too wong fu and the birdcage in the 90s!
I'm not referring to the amount of representation (although that can be improved too), I'm talking about how they're being represented; i.e. hiring cis actors to play trans characters while actual trans actors and actresses barely get any work.
SO ABC NETWORK CANCELED THE CONSERVATIVE SITCOM TO REPLACE IT WITH A REBOOT WITH A TRANSGENDER KID AND ANOTHER WITH AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FAMILY. TELL ME AGAIN THAT HOLLYWOOD ISN'T A LEFTIST SOCIAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTION OF PROPAGANDA
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Re-caption this meme
Definition of liberal
1 a :of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal education
b archaic :of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a :marked by generosity :openhanded a liberal giver
b :given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal meal
c :ample, full
3 obsolete :lacking moral restraint :licentious
4 :not literal or strict :loose a liberal translation
5 :broad-minded; especially :not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a :of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized :of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government. The government created benefits for married couples and families when the government saw the benefits to the community that these couples and families provided. These benefits were created AFTER marriage was created, not before.
"BTW, besides changing the definition of marriage, it also forced religions to change what they have believed for centuries to avoid being sued for discrimination which is a violation of the separation of church and state,..."
The separation of church and state really means that the church has no influence on government power.
"and for those who didn't change it forced pastors to give up their right to sign marriage certificates for the state in order to prevent having to change their beliefs and from being sued for discrimination."
Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding.
"All of this could have been avoided by changing the privileges given by something that was already legal for them."
Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages.
"Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government."
If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either. Another fact you should consider is that the Bible never actually condemns homosexuality. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNZQ64xiqo
This is a major misconception. The purpose of the separation of church and state was to keep the government from making a singular religion everyone has to follow or defining what religions are allowed to practice. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802. Find me any legal document that states otherwise.
"Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding."
You are contradicting yourself when you say that they were not forced and then spout off what has happened since. Pastors who did not want to get sued by refusing to sign gay marriage certificates but still wanted to sign for traditional marriage certificates made the decision to accept it by changing their core beliefs. Those who refused were sued because of discrimination. Had gay marriage never been legalized at the federal level, none of this would had to have happen. So when it became legal, either they had to change their beliefs or give up their ability to sign marriage certificates, they didn't have a choice. Not having a choice means they were forced.
"Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages."
Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage.
"If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either."
Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family.
"Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage."
For a start, how did they change marriage? All they did was make the federal laws flexible for a man to marry another man, woman to another woman, etc. Secondly, no. Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals. Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination.
"Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family."
Except for the fact that separation of church and state was meant to keep church and other religious affiliated institutions out of the government, hence the name. Not to mention that I've never, ever heard about a married couple gaining rewards from the government.
"However when the federal government stated that it is unconstitutional to deny a gay couple the right to get married, it throws the state's definition out the window and replaces it with "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law." making it no longer defined as just between a man and a woman."
I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?
"As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible."
And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah? I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like.
"I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?" CONSIDERING MARRIAGE WAS A SACRED PRACTICE STARTED BY THE CHURCH AND WAS INTENDED TO BE BETWEEN 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN, THEN YES THE DEFINITION SHOULD REFLECT THAT. BUT SINCE YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THE CHURCH WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO BELIEVE AND PRACTICE (AND IT DID THAT BY LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE AND MAKING IT WHERE PASTORS AND CHURCHES CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION FOR WANTING TO PRACTICE THEIR BELIEFS AND NOT PERFORM A GAY MARRIAGE) I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
"And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah?" I DID LATER TRY TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THEIR BS, BUT THEY LOST A LOT OF CREDIBILITY BY SAYING THE IMPORTANCE OF SOMETHING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS BASED ON HOW OFTEN IT IS IN THE BIBLE. AND FOR THEM TO ALSO LATER STATE THAT BECAUSE OF HOW SOCIETY HAS CHANGED WE SHOULDN'T BASE OUR VALUES OF HOW WE LIVE ON STORIES IN A BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THAT THERE MADE EVERYTHING THEY STATED COMPLETE BULLSHIT AND I CANNOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THEY SAY TO REFLECT ANYTHING OF GOD.
"I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like." FIND ME 1 VERSE WHERE IT CONDONES A MAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER MAN OR A WOMAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN.
Do you not realize how stupid you are making yourself look? Let me break down the quote for you. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature (THE GOVERNMENT) should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion (NOT CREATE A SINGLE RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (TELL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HOW TO PRACTICE),' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." NOWHERE IN THIS QUOTE DOES IT SAY SHIT ABOUT KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
"For a start, how did they change marriage?" LEARN HOW TO F**KING READ. BY MAKING IT F**KING LEGAL FOR GAYS TO GET MARRIED, IT NOW PUT PASTORS AND CHURCHES IN A POSITION IN WHICH THEY COULD AND DO GET SUED IF THEY WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT CONDONE HOMOSEXUALITY BY PERFORMING THEIR MARRIAGE SERVICE AND SIGNING THEIR MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. THEY DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT LEGAL FOR A MAN TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN OR WOMAN WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. THEY MADE IT WHERE THE CHURCHES HAD TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE, PASTORS GIVING UP THEIR ABILITY TO SIGN MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES, AND/OR RISK GETTING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION. IT BECAME THE FIRST STEP IN VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WILL ALWAYS MEAN KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHURCH NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
"Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals." DID YOU F**KING FORGET THAT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED AT STATE LEVELS AS WELL, WHICH MEANS SOME STATES CAN HAVE CERTAIN REGULATIONS THAT DON'T RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN FROM ANOTHER STATE? WHY SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE STATE LEVEL?
"Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination." WHY SHOULD I SHOW YOU PROOF OF ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED PROOF OF SHIT, ESPECIALLY THAT REGARDING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO KEEP THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT?
Anti-gay marriage laws were ruled as unconstitutional because it states that an individual as the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage. My answer to your question is that marriage is part of what America offers as liberty, otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness. Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?
My question is this: Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized? They haven't been harmed in any way, and neither has the United States had a "negatively impacted society". Is it dangerous to have a secular United States, like one they have in Britain or Iceland, or dangerous to have a United States under religious rule, similar to Saudi Arabia or Iran?
"right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage" WHY DOES A COUPLE HAVE TO BE MARRIED IN ORDER TO PURSUE LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS?
"otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness." SO IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STRAIGHT COUPLES BUT NOT GAY COUPLES? WHY THE F**K NOT? WHAT ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS PREVENTS LIBERTY, JUSTICE, OR THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
"Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?" IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IT IS A MATTER OF TAKING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AWAY FROM PASTORS AND CHURCHES TO STILL PRACTICE THEIR DOCTRINE WITHOUT WORRYING WHO IS GOING TO SUE THEM NEXT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME BUT THE VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
"Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized?" WELL I HAVE SAID IT ABOUT A THOUSAND TIMES NOW, BECAUSE IT FORCES CHURCHES TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE OR GET SUED FOR NOT PERFORMING A GAY MARRIAGE.
"They haven't been harmed in any way," EXCEPT FOR THE MULTITUDE OF PASTORS AND RELIGIOUS BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY NOT PERFORMING SERVICES FOR SOMETHING THEY BELIEVE IS MORALLY WRONG. IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO SHOOT SOMEONE REGARDLESS IF THE INTENT IS JUST TO INJURY THEM OR KILL THEM (UNLESS IT IS MEANT SOLELY FOR SELF DEFENSE AND IT IS THE ONLY OPTION). SHOULD A GUN STORE OWNER SELL SOMEONE A GUN THAT OPENLY ADMITS THEY PLAN ON SHOOTING PEOPLE ONLY TO INJURE THEM BUT NOT KILL THEM? IF THE GUN SHOP OWNER REFUSES, SHOULD THE PERSON BE ALLOWED TO SUE HIM FOR DISCRIMINATION? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. YOU MAY THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMLESS, BUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO STICK WITH THE DOCTRINE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BELIEVE THAT THE ACT AND LIVING THAT LIFESTYLE LEADS TO ETERNAL DAMNATION. WHY SHOULD THEY CONDONE THE ACT BY PARTICIPATING?
The issue with what you posted about the concubine, woman’s property, and polygamy is that they are not all married to each other, just each one “married” to the man. None of those examples show anything other than a man marrying a woman. There is no man marrying man or woman marrying woman. Also if you actually were to study the Bible and history of the cultures from back then, you would better understand why some of those marriages took place. Back then it was part of the culture to remain a virgin until married. If a woman was not a virgin, chances are she would never get married. In the culture of that time, the husband provided the finances, food, shelter, and protection, among other things. If a woman never got married, most likely she would end up on the streets as a prostitute. There was no exception to this is a woman was **ped. So if a woman was **ped, she was actually given the choice if she wanted to marry her predator. By doing so, the predator was required to provide all the services a husband was required to perform, however she was not required to perform and wifely duties in the bedroom unless she chose to. It was never a requirement for her to marry him, but the alternative could be much worse.
Concubines were often acquired mainly to provide offspring for when the wife couldn’t.
Polygamy may never have been condemned by God in the Old Testament, and there are multiple theories as to why. However the New Testament does clearly state 1 man and 1 woman. None of the incidences listed in concubine and polygomy all happened in Old Testament.
Keep trying, maybe with more studying and research you might actually say something intelligent.
As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible. There are many passages in which it states that homosexuality is a sin, that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, except for denying the power of God itself. So regardless of what you think that video states, they lost all credibility when they tried to say that because homosexuality is in less than 1% of the Bible that it isn't that important to God so therefore we can ignore it. So yes the Bible does condemn homosexuality, regardless of how often it is mentioned in it, PERIOD.
So now answer my question that you decided to so clearly ignore. If CIVIL UNIONS were and still are legal for gay couples prior to the federal government legalizing marriage for gay couples, then why did marriage need to be altered instead of altering civil unions which was already available for them?
But you are correct; liberals can and do slant stories, too.
Better in an Ethnic Studies class. What chance I'd catch you as a student in one?
imgflip.com/i/1wdrr1
Try this page...we can start fresh and avoid bumming out the main page's owner, here.
I'm seeing a lot of typing, but not a lot of meme posting. Please spell it out and remind people you're using it correctly.
And then there is the journalistic issue of whether to re-utter it in a report - or sanitize the story of the truth ALONG with the word. When you hear someone say it...your ears lift up (or they should anyway). So editing it steals the power of the story. Sure I can tell you what DSterling says (in abbreviated forml
..but how about hearing HIM say it?
i.imgflip.com/1wdrr1.jpg (click to show)
"House N- " denotes a Judas or Malinche' like figure who serves the master in a privileged place - perceived and often at the expense of fellow slaves. Occasionally bearing some family resemblance to the master or having lighter skin than the rest.
IceCube uses the term, himself, as an epithet against Ren and Eazy E in a rhyme. Far more offensive a use of the word than Maher attacking (OUT-ing) HIMSELF with it. It is a word. He used it properly. ONLY HOLLYWOOD CARED.
There is no justifying it, but good try
In fact since you seem WILLFULLY Ignorant about the difference....you might try the non-location/social context -specific version on for size.
Even in the days of slavery.- using that word on Fredrick Douglas or Prince Hall or Crispus Attucks - would have been inappropriate - except as an unwarranted insult, from a racist.
Or do you attribute your bias to those unencumbered by it regularly - and therefore just can't pass this opportunity?
And name calling... Tsk tsk... We can speak like adults
How about Donald Sterling? Seems to me you're an alt sith-clone or something starting quarrels for no good reason. And you're not a D or R but I don't buy your not being on the right. Your sensitivity to thee issue is the TELL.
Are you saying Jennifer Gray's character isn't a jelly little b**ch...or just that you're not like unto her? Seems unclear.
HBO is his boss. If they felt like he hurt their bottom line - they'd fire him. So cancel YOUR SUBSCRIPTION. Lot's of good reasons to dislike Bill Maher...but RACIST isn't one of them. Pied Piper /House N- is a good place to start...but - POLITICALLY INCORRECT (as you seem like you wish that you could be ...) not a SHOCK to those who've followed him.
Anyway, let's stick to Maher at the moment. When he made vulgar disgusting comments about women and didn't apologize, did you care? Or did you laugh along?
When Trump made disgusting comments about women and didn't apologize, were you offended?
And if Trump was a JUST a jack-ass billionaire like Mercer or Koch et al, his personal statements (particularly off air) would mean little to me. Sure...another asshole.
To me the issue is that he associates the entire country with his words and statements now - so I consider them apples and pumpkins.
Conservatism today is for ideological kooks who have never read a bit of history, or enjoy being a part of the 0.1% oligarchy that f**ks the rest of the country.
.
Anyways, congrats on your first front page meme. I generally don't do politics, but I know how awesome it feels to get a meme on the front page for the first time.
I like hitting reply and then having to sort through all these responses like a seek and find. It makes me feel like a winner when I find your post.
Also, if you think veggie tales is obscure, you must not get out much. I'm not even a Christian and I'm very familiar with it.
I'm not a Christian either. How interesting that you're very familiar with it.
Heritage Foundation
American Enterprise Institute
Cato Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
NBER
And for the left, there is:
.......
media matters
Open society
Center for American progress
Just to name a few. It's on both sides. Aaaaand both parties enjoy the kickbacks from subsidizing football stadiums (see California, Democrat state, continuously trying to get more teams there) just like weapons manufacturers get subsidies in red states.
Only reading one news source isn't good for an argument. Try reading non partisan economic news like zero hedge and open secrets.org
Drag queens are gay men who identify as men who cross dress for different reasons, but they aren't transgender.