The Probelm Is

The Probelm Is Meme | SON YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S RIGHTS BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER | image tagged in memes,the probelm is | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
20,364 views, 250 upvotes, Made by JJJR 6 months ago memesthe probelm is
The Probelm Is memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
17 ups, 1 reply
First World Problems Meme | BUT I WANT A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY | image tagged in memes,first world problems | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
Y U No Meme | Y U NO FEEL SECURE IN YOUR KITCHEN? | image tagged in memes,y u no | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
Confession Bear Meme | SAD THING IS MOST OF THESE KIDS DIDN'T HAVE A FATHER TELLING THEM THAT | image tagged in memes,confession bear | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
We'd have a better country if families stayed together and conscientiously raised their children
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
That requires commitment to another person even when it is inconvenient to one’s self - and the rejection in the belief that I deserve to be happy, and can justify any bad action on another if it furthers my happiness.
reply
9 ups
Picard Wtf Meme | IRONICALLY, AFTER I LEARNED THAT I HAD A HAPPIER MARRIAGE | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | HES GONNA BECOME A POLITICIAN | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups
The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | HE ALREADY IS ONE | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups
reply
8 ups
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Just a quick fix.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Another straw man.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Wrong.
reply
5 ups, 5 replies
And? There is not a problem with this statement in the least. We can discriminate when it comes to behaviors. We all discriminate in one way or another when it comes to behaviors. This is not to say thay we don't treat others with dignity and respect. One cannot change their ethnicity but people can and do change their behavior all the time - so these are different things which should be treated differenty while we should treat like things the same. I hope this helps.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You can't change your sexualiity. You physically cannot. If I forced you to be gay, I would bet you couldn't do it
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Actually, many who experience unwanted homosexual attractions undergo therapy (mostly talking, not those terrible shock and aversion types) in order to work through their feelings and learn to not be defined by them.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
How does someone talk themselves straight? Can you talk yourself gay?
reply
0 ups
I don't know exactly how it works, but there are many scholarly papers on the subject that are readily available
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Imagine that only homosexuals could marry and strait people were shunned. Ignoring the fact that there people would not be making babies in the conventional way; but then again when did rational come into this debate.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
This is an appeal to emotion but are homosexuals shunned today? I will concede that the historical record of treatment of homosexuals is horrible but today? It's almost a badge of honor. Heck, I catch more flack for being a Consrvative. But, what would the world look like if everyone lived in natural marriage versus if everyone lived in a same sex "marriage"?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It's an appeal to your decency to ask you to consider the situation of the relevant people whom you're making an assessment of rights about. You’re dodging.

Are homosexuals shunned today? Not to the extent that they once were. While they're still being killed in other parts of the world things have come a long way in the US in recent years. This is a good thing, but it could be better.

"what would the world look like if everyone lived in natural marriage versus if everyone lived in a same sex "marriage"?"

You're poisoning the well here by positing the very thing being contested by saying that the natural marriage is between a man and woman.
It would not be unlike the world we came from, where homosexuals aren’t allowed to be married to the gender which they have a proclivity to marry.

What would the world look like if everyone could marry who they want?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What does "SHUNNED" have to do with anything? Are you advocating people being forced to be around others whether they want to or not?? I grew up in Detroit and shunned people all the time because they were dangerous.

So,you seem to saying that I can marry anyone I want then. So, what is your principled argument against a man marrying his 15 year old daughter?
0 ups
People should not be allowed to get married if they're too young to consent. Also, I'm an outlier here but I don't see incest as intrinsically bad; although there is a power dynamic between parent and child that I think constitutes grounds for not allowing it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But do we really want to force people to either do that or be shunned?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I never said it should be forced. In fact, I think forcing it would be outright cruel. However, some people experience homosexual attraction as an unwanted thing, and have every right to seek help if they want it.
reply
0 ups
If they don't want to be homosexual then while they would be suppressing their innate feelings, they could still legally marry whoever they want. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone else. The point of disagreement is about the hindrance on marriage.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I agree. Anybody should be allowed to do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
reply
2 ups
Absolutely! Although I do want to make the distinction that certain things that are permissible are not always beneficial or right.
reply
1 up
I agree with you. I am not sure what you mean by "force" but in general the thought of it repulses me and I think that it is a natural thought of most heterosexuals. I will admit that I have no idea of what it is like to have same sex attractions but I do know what it's like to have attractions to things which will hurt me and my family if I acted on them.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So strait people can marry but homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to? No discrimination there. =P
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I am in agreement with the first part of your statement but not the 2nd. Homosexuals can get married to a person of the opposite sex. As for 2 men or 2 women getting "married" - it is impossible in reality. Legally - according to the Supreme Court decision - yes. Does everyone have to accept? No. But to answer your last question - it is allowed by law - so what's the issue? Is it that I don't acknowledge it??
reply
0 ups
We're talking about whether homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. You think they should not, and I think that unless you have some objective reasons that can hold up to scrutiny, you are discriminating against homosexuals for illogical reasons. The bedrock of your position, assuming that we're not invoking deities, is an emotional one. A particularly ugly emotion called disgust, backed by a retrospective rationalization and reinforced by the rhetoric of our peers.
reply
1 up
Here's a non-democrat saying we should discriminate.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Being gay is not a behavior. Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same sex is a behavior. Gay people should not be discriminated against based on whom they find sexually attractive any more than straight people should be discriminated against based on whom they find sexually attractive. You're confusing orientation with behavior. Don't feel bad; it's a common tactic...err...mistake, made by people like you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
JJJR didn't talk about orientation, but specifically used the term "behavior". I do agree with you 100% that it is a mistake often made, but this is not an instance of such a mistake
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Yes, he used the term behavior, which was his error. The subject was about orientation and attraction, not behavior. Someone can control their behavior. They cannot control who they find attractive.

I've noticed a lot of conservatives flip flop back and forth between talking about orientation and behavior as if they are the same thing. They aren't. They are two different things.
reply
1 up
I fail to see where orientation and attraction were presented as the subject. Not to mention that you seem to be faulting him for both talking about behavior and for not talking about behavior (unless I am misunderstanding you, which is very possible).

I do agree that a lot of conservatives make the mistake of flipping back and forth between orientation and behavior, and it creates a sort of confusion that muddies the waters of discussion. Clarity is certainly important.
reply
0 ups
ehhh.
reply
0 ups
Just like if you identify as a banana. (One of the 50 whatever genders) That's just who you are! Use logic people.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Oh f**k you, if being gay was a choice then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And no, when you deny rights and privileges to a specific group of people that is not treating them with respect, that is the definition of bigotry.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Who said it was a choice? I surely didn't. So many straw men and so little time. No, you cannot chose desires but you can chose to act on them or not. And what rights are being denied to people????
reply
0 ups
Your position is not exactly clear.
Just so that we understand your position better. Let me know if I got any of this wrong.
I’m asking if you agree with this.

You agree with Mike Pence that homosexuals should not be entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws.
This is not discrimination against gay people, but against the defining characteristic behavior of gay people.
We can “discriminate against behaviors” (By “we can”, presumably you are asserting: ethically?)
You agree that being gay is not a choice.

You agree with that so far? Which part(s) don’t you agree with?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"what rights are being denied to people????"

I've already answered that question for you.
reply
0 ups
Please lookk at the entirety of the statement by VP Pence. He is saying that they do not deserve protection IN THE SAME WAY and FOR THE SAME REASONS(I am not yelling - only adding emphasis). Women and blacks(or any other ethnicities) were being discriminated against because of those unchangable charachteristics. So, the entirety of his statement is coherent. Homosexuals enjoy all of the same rights as every other American. The same could not have always been said for women and blacks. And BTW, I think that it's the way it should be. I believe that every person should be treated with human dignity.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That picture should honestly be a template. There's so many people you can use it for!
reply
0 ups
You can make it or any into a template here.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
they are being raised to have zero tolerance or respect. The idea of having hurt feelings or someone in disagreement with them is practically punishable by death.
reply
5 ups
Awesome.

Thank you for this!
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
When a vocal minority do...
i.imgflip.com/2777x0.jpg (click to show)
i.imgflip.com/274xqe.jpg (click to show)
reply
[deleted]
1 up
A vocal minority are admitting it. The rest are either lying or in self denial.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
This image comes with hardly any context (excluding current events), so I'll try and guess:
1st guess: How is placing gun restrictions merely for the purpose of making people feel better?
2nd guess: Hey Christians, you can't take gay rights away just because of religious feeling.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
A. We already have gun restrctions so why do you think we need more? To make you feel better?
B. I don't really know any Christians who want to take "gay rights" away, so please explain. On the surface this seems a straw man.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Also, gay people have the right to privacy, and that should extend to what they do between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. Yet many conservative Christians want gay marriage and consentual same-sex sexual activity to be illegal.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
I am not sure what kind of Christians you are around but most of me and many other Christians I know don't really care or want to know what someone who identifies as gay - does privately. But as far as marriage- it is between one man and one woman no matter what you or anyone else wants to call it. It is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms when 2 men or 2 women get "married". It is an impossibility. It's like looking at a rock and calling it a tree. Just because you call it a tree doesn't make it a tree. But, no one is stopping people from doing what they want to do. If anything, the issue is that when Christians who refuse to be party to the ceremony are being preyed on and forced to participate when it violates what they believe is their religious beliefs. Sure, homosexuals used to be the victms of bullying but today the activist are the ones doing the bullying.
reply
4 ups
I wish they would shut up about their sexual thoughts. Do they really want heterosexuals to protest how hetero they feel?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Marriage is a human construct. It is whatever that particular society or culture says it is. In the USA in 2018, it is any two adults, regardless of sex. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact. A man and a woman are a marriage. Two men are a marriage. Two women are a marriage.

If you say that marriage is only between one man and one woman because the Bible says so, then that's too bad, because the US doesn't operate under the rules of the Bible, or your God. We operate under the US Constitution, and state and federal laws. Also, if you're going by the Bible, then that would include polygamy, war brides, **pe brides, etc. Read it for yourself.

Saying that two men or two women can't get married is like saying two men or two women can't enter into a business contract. The law says they can.

"But, no one is stopping people from doing what they want to do."

Up until 2003, when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v Texas, a number of states DID have laws prohibiting same-sex sexual activity ("anti-sodomy" laws). That decision struck down all anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. So yes, it actually was illegal for gay people to have sex in private, consensually, behind closed doors. And many Christians still think it should be illegal.

Haha. Christians are "being preyed on." That's funny! XD Nice try.

"Sure, homosexuals used to be the victms of bullying..."

Many still are.

"...but today the activist are the ones doing the bullying."

Would you say black people in the 60s "bullied" white people into doing away with segregation? When black people didn't want to use separate waiting rooms and drinking fountains, were they being bullies by speaking up?
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
Thanks for your comments. I didn't make up the concept of marriage nor have I suggested that people cannot do whatever they want to do in a relationship. What I said is that it is impposible for anything other than a man and a woman to get married. You can call it marriage, the Supreme court can call it marriage but in reality it isn't. I have not spoken about the Bible, so I am not sure why you are trying to bring it into the discussion. Thanks for corroberating what I said about people having the freedom to enter into relationships which they call marriage. I will repeat "No one is stopping people from doing what they want to do". And yes, Christian Bakers and Flourist have been targeted by gay activist to participate in baking cakes or providing flourist for their ceremonies.

As I stated previously, people cannot change their ethnicity. There are no former black people while there are former homosexuals. It is a behavior, not an ethnicity. I am obviously not advocating for bullying anyone but blacks were treated as 2nd class because of the color of their skin. Homosexuals today are not treated like blacks were prior to the 1960s. There were never seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms for homosexuals. They never had to sit on the back of buses. You are trying to compare two distinctly different things and there is no comparison.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Same with these “redefinitions” of marriage.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Haha :) it's funny that you actually think marriage has been the same thing since the beginning of humanity.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That actually is the basis of most arguments on what marriage is. For any debate on such a topic to be fruitful, the fundamental basis of each side's argument must be properly addressed, rather than dismissed. If the words of Jesus of Nazareth are true, then marriage was in-fact instituted and defined at the beginning of humanity.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And if the person with whom you're conversing rejects the words of Jesus as authoritative, then that argument carries no weight in the discussion.
0 ups
If you are to reject the premise of an argument in debate, you must address and disprove it rather than dismiss it. That is all I am saying.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If you say that two men or two women does not make a real marriage, on what are you basing that assertion? You keep saying it, but you never back it up with actual proof.

I don't believe that people can change their sexual orientation. If you say gay people can do it, does that mean straight people can do it as well? Can you make yourself find the same sex attractive? Can you make yourself want to have sex with someone who is the same sex as you? I highly doubt it. "Ex-gay" people are either liars or they are self-deluded.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Finding someone physically attractive is not a behavior. You are not physically doing anything sexual with that person. You are simply finding them attractive. A feeling is not a behavior. An attraction is not a behavior.

"...blacks were treated as 2nd class because of the color of their skin. Homosexuals today are not treated like blacks were prior to the 1960s. There were never seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms for homosexuals. They never had to sit on the back of buses."

No, they've only been harassed, attacked, denied jobs, denied housing and called every name in the book. Oh, and murdered. Gay people have sometimes been murdered just for being gay. That is a fact.
reply
2 ups
Thanks for your response. Again, I didn't make up the definition of marriage. In principle, there is only one combination which by function and design can bring forth the next generation and that is the relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore it is not the same thing as 2 men or 2 women no matter how you want to dress it up. No one is stopping 2 men or 2 women from being together and making a commitment to each other but it is not marriage.

I completely understand the difference between desires and actions. We cannot control our desires but we can control our actions. And simply because we have a desire does not mean that it should be acted upon. So, I think on this we are in ageement - I think.

There has never been a time in our history where homosexuality has been with such high regard. I believe in American freedom in that if you don't want to rent out your apartment to someone or serve someone in your place of busuiness then you should have the freedom to do so. I don't think a business should be forced by government to serve someone. The American people are a good people and will rn that business out of existance if they didn't serve blacks, Jewish people or LGBT. That seems radical to some but I believe in feeedom and consequences. Great conversation though!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
“What I said is that it is impposible for anything other than a man and a woman to get married”
Yeah if you’re defining the word to be exclusive to a man and a woman, but that’s no longer it’s common usage.
Where are you getting the definition of marriage from? Dictionary.com recognizes gay marriage.
So you see that we can define marriage to include same-sex marriage. It’s not impossible.

“in reality it isn't”
In reality it is!

“Thanks for corroberating what I said about people having the freedom to enter into relationships which they call marriage.”
Sounds good.
"No one is stopping people from doing what they want to do”
Not anymore, not in the US. But there are those that are still trying to, and it’s beside the point of whether or not they should be allowed to be married?

“It is a behavior, not an ethnicity.”
It is a behavior. But it’s also a manifestation of who why are. It is a behavior that a strait person partakes in, the behavior of attraction and love. And relevantly, it’s a behavior that doesn’t infringe on your rights, only your feelings.

“blacks were treated as 2nd class because of the color of their skin. Homosexuals today are not treated like blacks were prior to the 1960s.”
Fallacy of relative privation and a strawman. He is asking if the suppressed trying to liberate themselves constitutes “bullying” in your mind.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
This has been fun and I am frying bigger fish so this will be my last comment on thisn thread regarding this. A man and a woman can accomplish different outcomes than 2 men and 2 women. This is the design of nature and it is called "marriage". So, while you or judges or anyone are free to call it marriage, it does not , nor can not accomplish what a man and a woman can accomplish by nature and by design. It is not the same not matter you or anyone's wishes or fiats. I am also free to recognize this redifinition. So, I respect your freedom to redefinition but I do not have to adhere to it. I believe in treating same things the same and different things differently. If Dictionary.com wants to redefine it and you want to accept it then, by all means - go right ahead.

As far as homosexually being a manifestation of what a person is - people aren't behaviors. Behaviors can change and we control our behaviors. I have behaviors which I have to control as a married man. No one is encourages me to "go ahead and engage in adultry" and that it's just being me. Why? Because I and they know that it is going to hurt a lot of people. Homosexual behavior is very harmful to the individuals participating in it and yet today's culture thinks it's okay to encourage it. It's not PC to tell people that a behavior is destructive to that person's health.The CDC stats tells the story and you seem pretty smart, so go look it up. You won't read it on the front of the SF Chronicle or the NY Times because it is not PC. But, back to marriage. As soon as 2 men or 2 women can do what 1 man and 1 woman can do then I will accept the redifinition. In principle, a man and a woman is the only combination which brings forth the next generation and has the best possible opportunity for the next generation to be raised by a mother and a father - which is optimal for raising children. In principle, marriage is a license for having children - even if they don't.

As for you last statement - blacks wer fighting to get equal rights. They had to use seperate drinking fountains and restrooms and suffered lynching and all kinds of atrocities. Stopping that was not bullying. The Gay activist have turned into bullies by forcing attempting to force others to accept their behavior at the threat of the long arm of the law. Being black is something which cannot be changed. How and whom you have sex with CAN BE CHANGED and others do not have to adhere to it - especially when it crosses religious rights.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Fair enough we can agree to disagree. I understand that these conversations can be tedious when no headway is being made.

I consider any definition of marriage to be arbitrary and authoritative; so even though the dictionary may give a definition congruent with my position, I don’t think that has any bearing on the moral assessment.

There is virtually no human activity that you couldn’t describe in terms of mere behavior. In this case it fails to acknowledge one’s natural sexual disposition as a cardinal aspect to their wellbeing, whether straight or gay.

I find it slightly disingenuous to suggest that the disallowance of the specific right to marriage and all that it entails, comes even in part from altruistic intention of improving gay people’s health.

If you link me specific polls I will look at them. Are the polls from a credible unbiased source? Does the implied correlation of and graph or statistics necessarily imply causation or are there unrepresented variables? Have you perhaps selectively ignored certain polls as well?

In case you aren’t interested in responding, nice talking to you.
reply
1 up
Likewise. FYI - I mentioned the health aspects of it for the reason that the government should disclose the truth to the public similarly to what they did with cigarettes. Nice talking to you.
reply
0 ups
I am free to NOT recognize this redifinition - is what I meant to say above.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
There were many kinds of black philosophies in the ‘60s. King was not a bully & it was effective. Malcolm X was a bully and ineffective, but scary. We din’t See many Kings anymore compared to black bullies. Sad.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I think you missed my point entirely. Would you call black people who wanted to end segregation "bullies" for not wanting to be mistreated?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It sounded like you believe bullying has a place in civil rights. Some did bully others. Some did not. The white majority of that era was not bullied, but shamed and reasoned with, and changed their minds. I do not think Congress or the Courts were bullied into their actions.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
My point was that it's a double standard for someone to say that black people wanting to be treated equally is fine, but gay people wanting to be treated equally makes them bullies. Are people capable of engaging in bullying behavior? Of course. But not wanting to be mistreated does not in and of itself make someone a bully.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Seeking respectful treatment does not make anyone per se a bully. But I see a bully attitude in gay activists and a flounting that I do not recall from peaceful King protestors on race.
3 ups
Like you said, some black activists were peaceful and some were more aggressive. The same is true of LGBT activists. Some are more peaceful and others are more aggressive.
reply
0 ups
If that's your objection then are you okay with changing the definition of marriage to incorporate gay marriage? If not why?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
The reason I think it should be illegal is because the Bible says it's a sin and I believe the Bible. It's just as bad as any other sin.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
As a Christian myself, I think it should be tolerated but not government endorsed. Government should be endorsing natural marriage because of the many benefits it provides to society which other forms of relationships don't.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You think it should be tolerated? Do you think stealing should be tolerated?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yes. When it comes to public policy it should be tolerated but not endorsed by the government. Stealing should not be tolerated and it isn't. When you say that you are legislating an action because it is a sin then you are legislation a religion. We cannot do that.
reply
1 up
"Blessed is the nation who's God is the Lord." Why can't we do that? We will not because we are sinful beings, but we should.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
The bible teaches nothing but lies, violence, hate, and intolerance. Case closed.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You mean like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love your neighbor as thyself"?? What about "whoever asks you to go one mile with him, go two"??? Which category does these fall into - lies, violence or hate???
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Those are only a few Bible lines. Let's read the rest of them, shall we?
reply
0 ups
In reply to you comment below-

(cough) Abrahamic religions... (cough) – If you think there is no difference then it demonstrates that you know neither.

"As for God "slaughtering villagers" for not believing in Him. We need more context. If He has shown Himself as the Creator of the universe and they refused to believe in Him then he was not just arbitrarily doing so. He had a good reason and right to do so."

Basically, if I just walk up to some average joe and tell him I made the universe, and he doesn't believe me, I should kill him and his family?

God Demonstrated who he was by performing miracles which no average Joe can do.

"The Canaanites were sacraficing their babies to a false god and did so for 400 years before God stepped in and brought judgement on them. "

Did God ask them nicely to stop, or did he slaughter them as well because it was easier?

What does it matter how He asked them?? He actually didn’t even need to warn them at all because they knew that killing babies was wrong.

"Moses preached for over 100 years and the people didn't listen to them so God is not only just but patient. "

If God was patient, couldn't he be bothered to show up and tell the people Moses was preaching to, "listen up, villagers who don't believe in me: I've had it up to here; my patience is wearing thin," instead of bringing an army to take every single man, woman, and child to kingdom come?

My apologies – Noah. But He did show up – through Noah.

"God also had shown His goodness by stopping the evil."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It only takes one line to falsify your statement. You claimed that the Bible teaches "NOTHING BUT lies, violence, hate and intolerance" and that is easily proven as false. Jesus even said to "Love your enemies and pray for those ho persecute you" so I am not sure what kind of Bible you have read but it sure doesn't sound like the one the rest of us are reading. Where are you coming up with this info? There is a distinction which you might be missing and that is what the Bible is DESCRIBING versus what is PRESCRIBED. Just because the Bible is describing an event does not mean that it is telling everyone to go out and do it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I didn't claim the Bible teaches "NOTHING BUT lies, violence, hate and intolerance", that was the next person.

Where the Bible has been doing that was when the Bible tells its readers how to treat slaves, how God slaughtered villagers for not believing in him, and how to treat one's wife (wives) (it's kinda like the Koran, btw).
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
My apologies -talking to too many. But, thanks for responding. The Bible and the Quran are worlds apart. The Bible condemns slavery roundly in 1 Timothy 1:10. One must also remember that in those cultures there was indentured or voluntary slavery for a time to pay off debts. So, it depends on the type of slavery one if referring to as even in Proverbs it says that the borrower is slave to the debtor. As for God "slaughtering villagers" for not believing in Him. We need more context. If He has shown Himself as the Creator of the universe and they refused to believe in Him then he was not just arbitrarily doing so. He had a good reason and right to do so. The Canaanites were sacraficing their babies to a false god and did so for 400 years before God stepped in and brought judgement on them. Moses preached for over 100 years and the people didn't listen to them so God is not only just but patient. People had opportunity to turn away from their evil ways and didn't. God also had shown His goodness by stopping the evil.
0 ups
Actually Proverbs says the borrower is slave to the lender.
0 ups
Apology accepted, and you're welcome. :)

"The Bible and the Quran are worlds apart. "

(cough) Abrahamic religions... (cough)

"As for God "slaughtering villagers" for not believing in Him. We need more context. If He has shown Himself as the Creator of the universe and they refused to believe in Him then he was not just arbitrarily doing so. He had a good reason and right to do so."

Basically, if I just walk up to some average joe and tell him I made the universe, and he doesn't believe me, I should kill him and his family?

"The Canaanites were sacraficing their babies to a false god and did so for 400 years before God stepped in and brought judgement on them. "

Did God ask them nicely to stop, or did he slaughter them as well because it was easier?

"Moses preached for over 100 years and the people didn't listen to them so God is not only just but patient. "

If God was patient, couldn't he be bothered to show up and tell the people Moses was preaching to, "listen up, villagers who don't believe in me: I've had it up to here; my patience is wearing thin," instead of bringing an army to take every single man, woman, and child to kingdom come?

"God also had shown His goodness by stopping the evil."

Evil will never stop, sadly...
reply
2 ups
What about Romans 1 that talks about this particular sin? You probably shouldn't summarize the Bible if you haven't read it.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Gay people should have the right to seek housing and employment without being unfairly discriminated against. Many conservative Christians have fought against things like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because they want to legally deny LGBT people housing and employment.
reply
3 ups
I would ask for some evidence to support your claim against conservative Christians trying to deny housing and employment based on whether or not they are LGBT.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
A. We need more gun restrictions because the
B. This is mainly socially conservative Christians, specifically Mike Pence, Pat Robertson, anyone who denies a gay couple a cake over religious feelings, Steven Crowder, Pat McCrory, etc...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You should be able to choose who you serve, because if the government forces you to serve to some people then it becomes more like a command economy. The free market would've sorted this one out if the couple bothered to go other places.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Still, who you serve shouldn't be based on race, gender, sexual identity, etc.
reply
2 ups
In this case, they served people based on their religious beleifs.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why not? If a business has an practice like this then it probably won't last very long. If it is a gay affirming business then the gay community can support it and Christian owned businesses can operate according to their faith. Same with a Muslim or any other religion.
reply
0 ups
Many businesses have lasted longer by welcoming everyone and not being selective. Imagine how long a business would last if it served only people with down syndrome.
reply
1 up
No one has ever denied a homosexual couple a cake. You might want to catch up on the details of these things before engaging.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Nice argument. You should run for senator.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
where is the word gay in this meme? (Takes out radar)
reply
1 up
Ya'know, we should all make memes where we don't specify what the heck we're talking about.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 4 replies
I'm not sure what the probe-lm is, but I do know people aren't going to die without an assault rifle.
reply
3 ups
I do not own an assault rifle. I own a semi automatic rifle. The semi automatic has existed since 1885, but all of a sudden is NOW a big problem. Why? Could it be because people are becoming bat shit crazy? So, the solution is to let something exist for over 100 years, then blame it solely for the heartlessness of man in recent time? Next, take away from all good, law abiding persons, their ability to protect themselves or hunt or whatever other legal activities they choose to do with said contraption leaving 100's of million of those same contraptions to fall into those same heartless men's hands? There are 326 million people in this country. There are over 300 million DOCUMENTED guns. How many undocumented guns do you suppose are floating around out there? Good thing they will all get turned in if they get banned right? Right?
reply
3 ups
What is an "assault rifle"??
reply
2 ups
The heck? If nobody had "assualt rifles" nobody would die from guns? What if I told you that most gun violence happens with hand guns? Look it up before making baseless assertions.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Which churches are doing this? I have been in many churches and have never seen or read anything like this. My bible says that "we are all one in Christ" and that there is no Jew or Gentile. Doesn't sound racist to me. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek and even said to pray for our enemies. Jesus said that "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" - is that teaching violence??? I have been reading the Bible for years and cannot find anyplace where it teaches about having a fear of homosexuals. Where is that verse? And what is wrong with being aggressive when the situation calls for it and intolerant of evil?? If I tolerate evil, is that good or bad??? Seems like you have some explaining to do.
reply
1 up
That is some awesome wallpaper though
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
Ya gotta draw the line somewhere.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't think he wants to feel better, he doesn't want to come home from school in a box. I think that is the minimum a society should aim for in its education system that children do at least go home to their parents every night.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Do you know who Blaine Gaskill is? Are you for educating the kids as to what this guy did last week? I agree that the kids need educating, not indoctrinated. We need education onthe 2nd amendment, why it's there and it's benefits. These kids are being taught that guns are the problem and it is not. Guns are a solution for stopping bad people who want to do a lot of harm in soft spots, like schools.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
yeah I am all for educating kids, telling them there is a possibility they may get killed just going to school but the school will run drills and arm teachers and other members of staff, so we can stop these bad people and hope you don't get shot in the cross fire.

Not sure what we will say to these kids when they ask what happens in the rest of the world? When they ask if the UK, Europe, Australia, Japan and other developed nations have armed teachers, armed guards, metal detectors and school shooting drills, they might be surprised to find that they don't need them. Being smart kids, their next question will be, why do we need them if they don't?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Well, you are assuming that there will be crossfire. It seems that if we value our children then we should guard them from evil people. It doesn,'t have to be teachers - even though I see nothing wrong with a teacher getting the training to protect the children. The UK and Australia are terrible examples as you are also talking about taking guns away from law abiding citizens. The gun buyback in Australia has not made the case for gun conficscation. Their "mass shootings" were nothing(figuratively speaking) and taking the citizens guns when mass shootings was already rare has not proven a thing. London just passed gun controlled NYC in murders this week. And they keep telling us that they don't want to take guns away from us - LOL!! You seem to be forgetting that i flaw abiding citizens have no guns then the lawless will have them and we are sitting ducks - at their mercy when it does. SMH.
reply
1 up
NYC is the safest big city in the USA because of gun control.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ah statistics! There have actually been more murders in NY this year, (50) than London (46) but during Feb and March London was higher than NY. It is a problem in London now that needs tackling, we don't want the American disease and become as violence ridden as American cities. Thank God this people don't have easy access to guns or we might see mass shootings on the same scale as America and our kids would not be safe.

See in America the problem is your kids are not safe, 91% of kids under 14 shot in the world's 23 richest countries happen in America. 91%! Apparently according to your news outlets a lot of this can be attributed to kids being caught in the crossfire.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gun-deaths-children-20170619-story.html
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
From The Telegraph:

"Criminal justice experts insisted rising crime in the UK, and particularly London, was more to do with the way the city was policed and blamed the reduction in neighbourhood patrols across the capital.

While both London and New York have populations of around 8 million, figures suggest you are almost six times more likely to be burgled in the British capital than in the US city, and one and a half times more likely to fall victim to a robbery.

London has almost three times the number of reported **pes and while the murder rate in New York remains higher, the gap is narrowing dramatically.

The change in fortunes of the two global cities has been put down largely to the difference in tactics adopted by the two police forces.

Both Scotland Yard and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) have just over 30,000 officers each and budgets of around £3 billion a year.

But in the mid-1990s spiralling crime rates in New York - sparked by the crack cocaine epidemic - resulted in radical a new approach being adopted by the city's police department.

Under the leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and police commissioner, Bill Bratton, the NYPD introduced a zero tolerance approach to low level crime and flooded problem areas with patrols.

The force also put a huge amount of emphasis on community policing in order to build bridges between the police and members of the public.

As a result the murder plummeted from a high in 1990 of over 2,000 to a record low of 335 last year.

That figure is expected to fall even lower this year, and is currently in line to dip below 240.

Crime has been falling in New York for 20-years following a change in approach
Crime has been falling in New York for 20-years following a change in approach
But the last decade has seen the Metropolitan Police move away from the neighbourhood policing model and low level in favour of pursuing more serious offences.

Last week it emerged that Scotland Yard would not even bother investigating a large number of low level offences as part of a major cost cutting drive."

©Telegraph Media Group 2018
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Again statistics are misleading, **pe is counted differently in the UK and the US. The UK has a much wider definition therefore leading to a higher number of **pes being recorded. The same goes for violent crime, in the UK many more acts are considered as violent crimes but are not considered violent crimes in the US, go figure. For example, the UK offences count sexual assualt; that is not counted by US statistics as violent crime unless it is actual **pe and only of a female.
Since under US statistics raping a man does not count as a violent crime. Huh! Someone is massaging your statistics......

The definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain … the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of only four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible **pe, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible **pes.”

I could go on but you get the point.....
reply
0 ups
You seem to have trouble with basic reading and comprehension, as noted eleswhere.
Those aren't MY stats, those are YOURS, as in BRITISH. What I posted was an excerpt from an article in The Telegraph, a UK paper. Aaaaaaaaaand I posted it in support of your point, which you weren't supporting.

I had also stated stuff along the lines which you did a few weeks ago.

PS: NYC is the safest big city in the USA. Comparing London to it is not as dire as it seems. Much has changed here in the last 5 decades.
reply
0 ups
Just to bring guns into, in the US and the UK you have about the same chance of getting mugged, but in the US you are 5 times more likely to be killed. Ouch!
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
Oh? Well we still do.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
Hint- you lose every time.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
Lol, wut?
reply
7 ups
They are not. My complaint was with a handful of judges who think they are social engineers and rewrite or add to or just refuse to enforce the constitutional language so as to break down the family with all these non functional, redefined family concepts. I do support 2nd Amendment rights
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're retarded.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Hence what happened to radically rightwing anti-gay conservatives.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Umm... Yeah, I guess? Wtf does that have to do with anything?
reply
2 ups
Sums it up pretty much
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Supreme Court.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
Basketball Court
reply
0 ups
Food Court
Flip Settings
The Probelm Is memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SON; YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S RIGHTS BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback