Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on August 15, 2009, 09:34:31 AM
-
BRAD PITT RULZ!!!!!!!!
-
-
WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!
Where can I sign up? ::)
-
WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!
Where can I sign up? ::)
LOL
-
Brad Pitt might want to get his facts straight.
The freedoms we have allow us to define marriage as we see fit. And our citizens have done that, time and time again.
Gays are free to live their lives, however they want. But, American citizens aren't require to recognize their arrangement as marriages, just as we aren't required to recognize polygamy, incestous relationships, or adult-child relationships.
Pitt's spiel about "no religion" is precisely why atheists have a tough time getting elected. They tend to be hostile towards people of faith. Since the lion's share of people believe (at least, nominally) in God, insulting them or their practice of religious expression is a rather stupid thing to do.
-
First, pot is for losers. Kick the weed and stick with booze or coke. We need winners here!
Second, WTF does a Hollywood actor know dick about?
That being said I still like Pitt. Very talented and likable man.
-
Didn't watch the clip, but Pitt is a louse. Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies. And even then I don't want his opinion. Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie.
-
Brad Pitt might want to get his facts straight.
The freedoms we have allow us to define marriage as we see fit. And our citizens have done that, time and time again.
Gays are free to live their lives, however they want. But, American citizens aren't require to recognize their arrangement as marriages, just as we aren't required to recognize polygamy, incestous relationships, or adult-child relationships.
Pitt's spiel about "no religion" is precisely why atheists have a tough time getting elected. They tend to be hostile towards people of faith. Since the lion's share of people believe (at least, nominally) in God, insulting them or their practice of religious expression is a rather stupid thing to do.
I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.
-
Didn't watch the clip, but Pitt is a louse. Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies. And even then I don't want his opinion. Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie.
"Please no."
-
"Please no."
Hey I liked them. :) Second and third not as good as the first, but they were decent movies.
-
I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.
Listen to what you just said. First of all, gays telling people that marriage should not be allowed is ridiculous. Marriage, by is very nature, IS HETEROSEXUAL. Gay "marriage" is an abberation of such.
With that said, if people disagree on how marriage should be truly defined, they can settle that at the ballot box, in accordance with their state and the federal constitution.
What gays keep attempting to do is re-define marriage, while keeping the electorate out of the process, which is wrong. And, per the Supreme Court (courtesy of "Baker v. Nelson), there is no right to gay "marriage".
The questions for decision are whether a marriage of two persons of the same sex is authorized by state statutes and, if not, whether state authorization is constitutionally compelled.
Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.
The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.
1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.
Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex. It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3).
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.
Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court.......
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.....
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plantiffs' appeal of this Minnesota court ruling on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. That effectively is the same as if it deliberated and ruled in favor of the MN court, and such is binding on all lower courts. In other words, no state court can rule that marriage amendments violate the equal protection/due process clause of the US Constitution.
Since the Supreme Court has stated that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates no constitutional statutes, if the people want to pass marrriage amendments, they can do so. Gay "marriage" supporters cannot claim that such "diminishes their rights".
What's really silly about Pitt's comments is that he acts as if marriage amendments just came out of the blue. They've been happening for several years, including those years he was MARRIED to Jennifer Aniston (and screwing around on her with Angelina Jolie). Now, all of sudden he claims he won't marry Jolie, until gay "marriage" is legalized nationwide........utterl y ridiculous.
-
i like bratt pitt and bill maher. both are great americans.
-
lot of common sense between those two gentlemen.Something a majority doesn't have.
-
WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!
Where can I sign up? ::)
...WTF does a Hollywood actor know dick about?
That being said I still like Pitt. Very talented and likable man.
Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies. And even then I don't want his opinion. Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie.
EXCELLENT quotes.
It’s truly rare to find someone who does not worship “celebrity” opinions. I was surprised to find so many in succession.
Are we still the minority, or are more people catching on?
-
I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.
That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".
Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.
-
That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".
Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.
Why do we have to listen to your opinions?
Why don't you shut up?
-
Why do we have to listen to your opinions?
Why don't you shut up?
There's an old saying: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they usually stink. :)
Personally, the whole 'need to identify with celebrities' seems gay and I always wonder how stupid people wanting to do it are.
-
i like bratt pitt and bill maher. both are great americans.
I agree. They are both great Americans
Pitt is actually doing something to help the people of New Orleans when he could just kick back and relax, party, etc...
http://www.makeitrightnola.org/
Pitt and Maher have the same right to express their opinions as do the dopes that show up at town hall meeting screaming about death camps and how they want their country back (back to a way that only exist in their imagination).
Pitt and Maher probably pay more taxes than anyone on this board and Maher admitted on that show that he's be willing to pay more to help those who have less.
Kudos' to Maher for doing stuff like this:
-
That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".
Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.
I agree
-
There's an old saying: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they usually stink. :)
Personally, the whole 'need to identify with celebrities' seems gay and I always wonder how stupid people wanting to do it are.
Your breath stinks.
-
Your breath stinks.
Reads like a Brad Pits schmoe.
-
Yeah - all those Ronald Reagan fans need to shut up!
-
He's likeable, for sure. I know this has been asked before, but I've never understood the answer. When it comes to rights/freedoms, isn't there logical limitations that should apply? For instance, is really so that a person should have absolute freedom? I say no. Here's why. What if we allowed child molestors to practice their "right", would you agree to them doing so? Of course not. That is just one example of how rights/freedoms should be limited.
I know the argument will be, "yeah, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone". True, however, what if the original couple would have been gay? That would have been the end of mankind. For you ones that support homosexuality, that would mean non-existence for you. So, the question isn't is it a right/freedom, but that of, is it logical, reasonbale, good for the overall human race. There are allot of freedoms/rights that people would like to practice, however we all know, in the long run, it wouldn't be the best for humanity. I've got more, but I would like to get your opinion on this, as I'm just like the next freedom/right activist, I want my freedom/rights. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
^^^to compare a molester to a homosexual is down right ignorant...^^^
and people being gay not able to reproduce is an illogical and moot point.Sorry but not every one believes the Adam & eve fairy tail(or Adam and Steve).the earth is overpopulated and theres millions of children in adoption agency's wishing they had a home here in the real world current day.your logic is flawed and filled with your religious agenda.
-
I know the argument will be, "yeah, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone". True, however, what if the original couple would have been gay? That would have been the end of mankind. For you ones that support homosexuality, that would mean non-existence for you.
LMAO !
I feel fairly confident that if Adam was a raving cock-knocker and Eve a monster carpet-muncher that I'd still be here today.
I also believe that if Rapunzel hadn't had long hair, Snow White hadn't woken up and the Princess hadn't guessed Rumplestiltskins name that society would still be in one piece too.
-
I know the argument will be, "yeah, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone". True, however, what if the original couple would have been gay? That would have been the end of mankind. For you ones that support homosexuality, that would mean non-existence for you.
...the "original couple" (most recent common female ancestor; most recent common male ancestor for all mankind) probably lived thousands of years apart from each other, so they probably never had sex with each other anyway.
Besides, our concestors (most recet common ancestors) were probably somethig akin to banobo chimps... who are all bisexual: in fact the only sexual pairing they refrain from is mother and son.
The real hypocrisy in all this church-sponsored Proposition 8 is the fact that Christian communities are already rife with married homosexuals... they just aren't married to OTHER homosexuals.
I think the good reverend Ted Hagard is a textbook example of this... he is a married bisexual man, who conducted homosexual affairs in private all the while leading an anti-gay-marriage crusade. Think about that, a married homosexual who opposes gay marriage...!
Accept it America: you already have gay marriage... the question you need to answer is whether two married homosexual men married to each other is so much worse than two married homosexual men living in misery and ruining their respective wives lives?
The Luke
-
The real hypocrisy in all this church-sponsored Proposition 8 is the fact that Christian communities are already rife with married homosexuals... they just aren't married to OTHER homosexuals.
I think the good reverend Ted Hagard is a textbook example of this... he is a married bisexual man, who conducted homosexual affairs in private all the while leading an anti-gay-marriage crusade. Think about that, a married homosexual who opposes gay marriage...!
Accept it America: you already have gay marriage... the question you need to answer is whether two married homosexual men married to each other is so much worse than two married homosexual men living in misery and ruining their respective wives lives?
Personally I think limited government is generally a good thing and the government should stay out of marriage be it gay or straight.
Having said that, your unsubstantiated claim that gay people being married to straight people being "rife" in society by pointing out an example (or even a handful of public examples) and trying to apply that to the millions of heterosexual marriages is utter nonsense.
As for Brad Pitt, it's ok to ignore his opinion. But if Chuck Norris says it, you'd better fall in line... ;D
-
Having said that, your unsubstantiated claim that gay people being married to straight people being "rife" in society by pointing out an example (or even a handful of public examples) and trying to apply that to the millions of heterosexual marriages is utter nonsense.
...if married homosexual Christian Evagelicals are so rare, then what are the odds that the most prominent anti-gay-marriage Evangelical mega-church pastor would turn out to be a closeted homosexual/bisexual?
Isn't it more probably that sexual orientation is genetically pre-determined, but that homosexuals born into Evangelical Christian homes adopt the defensive tactic of becoming outspoken homophobes and thereby rise up the ranks of these homophobic churches? Only to be found out later on?
Isn't that more probable?
The same thing happens in cults... the most fervet supporters of the cult leader are often those with the gravest doubts. They similarly overcompensate, only to later defect... all the founding members of the Moonies; Scientology etc all defected eventually, having been avid proselytizing zealots beforehand.
Some simple facts:
(1)-Only BISEXUALS believe sexual orientation is a choice.
(2)-Solely heterosexual people don't care what homosexals do to each other.
(3)-Only repressed homosexuals/bisexuals oppose homosexuality: it is resentment plain and simple
So, if a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pupit about evil people CHOOSING to be homosexual... chances are has some bisexual leanings himself or is a closeted homosexal living a lie. No rational heterosexual believes there is any choice involved in sexual inclination.
If a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pulpit about the "evils" of homosexuality, that is a manifestation of self-repression: not moral indignance. Rational heterosexuals don't care what consenting adults do in private any more than they care what music strangers enjoy... not my thing; none of my business. You only care if you really need to justify denying your own nature.
If a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pulpit against gay marriage then he's probably a resentful self-repressed closet case. No rational person would prefer homosexuals live lives of misery married to a heterosexual partner, rather than have them marry each other. What kind of life is that for the heterosexual partner? There is a conservative argument to be made against homosexual promiscuity: but the answer to that is monogamos gay marriage, not oppression. Odious resentment is the only rational explanation for the homophobic attitudes of Evangelicals.
If a reverend or pastor is screaming from the pulpit about evil homosexuals (2) choosing to be homosexual (1), and how we shouldn't let them get married (3)... it's really only a matter of time till he's caught with a mouthful of cock.
Just think about the dynamics involved.
Wherever there is a vested interest; there is a lie.
Wherever there is a lot of money; there is a thief.
Wherever there is a free love philosophy; there is a horny nymphomaiac.
Wherever there is a religious cult; there is a chronic narcissism personality disorder.
Wherever someone taks directly to God; there is gonna be some child-fucking.
Wherever a crowd holds signs claiming "God hates Fags"; a fag is holding one of those signs.
The Luke
-
i like bratt pitt and bill maher. both are great americans.
Bill Maher is an atheist and he is anti-religion, yet he supports the state of Israel unconditionally and calls anybody who criticizes the state of Israel an anti-semite. That's weird!
Denouncing Israel — And Bill Maher — With Love
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=383
The World IS Mel Gibson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/the-world-is-mel-gibson_b_26315.html
-
...if married homosexual Christian Evagelicals are so rare, then what are the odds that the most prominent anti-gay-marriage Evangelical mega-church pastor would turn out to be a closeted homosexual/bisexual?
Isn't it more probably that sexual orientation is genetically pre-determined, but that homosexuals born into Evangelical Christian homes adopt the defensive tactic of becoming outspoken homophobes and thereby rise up the ranks of these homophobic churches? Only to be found out later on?
Isn't that more probable?
The same thing happens in cults... the most fervet supporters of the cult leader are often those with the gravest doubts. They similarly overcompensate, only to later defect... all the founding members of the Moonies; Scientology etc all defected eventually, having been avid proselytizing zealots beforehand.
Some simple facts:
(1)-Only BISEXUALS believe sexual orientation is a choice.
(2)-Solely heterosexual people don't care what homosexals do to each other.
(3)-Only repressed homosexuals/bisexuals oppose homosexuality: it is resentment plain and simple
It appears the poster boy for inaccuracy and utter silliness has made his triumphant return, using the tired canard that someone who think homosexuality is wrong is a closet homo. I just hope no one sues him for false advertising (referring to this mess as "simple facts).
So, if a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pupit about evil people CHOOSING to be homosexual... chances are has some bisexual leanings himself or is a closeted homosexal living a lie. No rational heterosexual believes there is any choice involved in sexual inclination.
Woefully incorrect, as usual, Luke. There are MILLIONS of preachers in America who state the Biblical truth of homosexuality being wrong. Yet, only a small handful, at best, would fit the category of being closet homosexuals. Those few just happen to make the news; because (based on sheer numbers), they are a rarity.
If a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pulpit about the "evils" of homosexuality, that is a manifestation of self-repression: not moral indignance. Rational heterosexuals don't care what consenting adults do in private any more than they care what music strangers enjoy... not my thing; none of my business. You only care if you really need to justify denying your own nature.
If a reverend or preacher is screaming from the pulpit against gay marriage then he's probably a resentful self-repressed closet case. No rational person would prefer homosexuals live lives of misery married to a heterosexual partner, rather than have them marry each other. What kind of life is that for the heterosexual partner? There is a conservative argument to be made against homosexual promiscuity: but the answer to that is monogamos gay marriage, not oppression. Odious resentment is the only rational explanation for the homophobic attitudes of Evangelicals.
If a reverend or pastor is screaming from the pulpit about evil homosexuals (2) choosing to be homosexual (1), and how we shouldn't let them get married (3)... it's really only a matter of time till he's caught with a mouthful of cock.
Just think about the dynamics involved.
Wherever there is a vested interest; there is a lie.
Wherever there is a lot of money; there is a thief.
Wherever there is a free love philosophy; there is a horny nymphomaiac.
Wherever there is a religious cult; there is a chronic narcissism personality disorder.
Wherever someone taks directly to God; there is gonna be some child-fucking.
Wherever a crowd holds signs claiming "God hates Fags"; a fag is holding one of those signs.
The Luke
Whenever Luke makes a post, it's going to be filled with some of the most lame-brained, bone-headed, factually-deprived jibberish known to man.
That's especially true, as he (like so many others on GetBig) has resorted to insulting people by implying that they're gay.
-
I couldnt care less if gays get married or not.However,the day I listen to pasty faced idiot like Bill Maher is the day pigs fly.He always puts people on that cant debate and then bullies them.He is a fraud,much like Olberman.
-
That's especially true, as he (like so many others on GetBig) has resorted to insulting people by implying that they're gay.
...I was referring to Ted Hagard. I think he actually is gay, what with the sleeping with men and all.
Unless of course, you don't BELIEVE Ted Hagard is gay?
By the way, epic evasion of any of my points... as usual you just quote then evade, but think because you quoted someone it might seem as if you've addressed the issues.
The Luke
-
...I was referring to Ted Hagard. I think he actually is gay, what with the sleeping with men and all.
Unless of course, you don't BELIEVE Ted Hagard is gay?
The insults to which I was referring were regards to fellow GetBig posters, who take potshots at other posters by claiming that they're gay.
By the way, epic evasion of any of my points... as usual you just quote then evade, but think because you quoted someone it might seem as if you've addressed the issues.
The Luke
Unbelivably wrong, as usual, Luke.
Your claim that preachers speaking out against homosexuality are, by and large, closet homos is as right as two left shoes.
Your "rational heterosexuals" spiel is void of sense and accuracy, as well.
Strike One: Bisexuals are NOT the only who think that homosexuality is a choice.
Strike Two: Heterosexuals often do care what homosexuals do, particularly if those happen to be in their family.
Strike Three: People are against homosexuality for reason that have NOTHING TO DO, with repressing homosexual tendencies.
So, please spare us your silliness. My abs can't take the pain anymore!!!
-
Intriguing points McWay...
Strike One: Bisexuals are NOT the only who think that homosexuality is a choice.
...do you think homosexuality is a choice? Could you CHOOSE to have sex with another man?
Maybe you should watch some gay porn and see if it causes you to become aroused.
Strike Two: Heterosexuals often do care what homosexuals do, particularly if those happen to be in their family.
Why? I don't care which way any of my relatives have sex? Nor do I care what music or food they like.
Have you, perchance, had a falling out with a gay relative?... I'm guessing it would have to be a close relative, and the fundie Christian thing is a justification for the guilt associated with mistreating a close relative.
But I'd just be guessing.
Strike Three: People are against homosexuality for reason that have NOTHING TO DO, with repressing homosexual tendencies.
Disease and promiscuity are the only rational reasons I can think of... are there others?
The Luke
-
Intriguing points McWay...
...do you think homosexuality is a choice? Could you CHOOSE to have sex with another man?
I could. Then again, I could eat roadkill, too.
Maybe you should watch some gay porn and see if it causes you to become aroused.
You first!!!
Why? I don't care which way any of my relatives have sex? Nor do I care what music or food they like.
Fortunately, the rest of the planet isn't quite like you.
Have you, perchance, had a falling out with a gay relative?... I'm guessing it would have to be a close relative, and the fundie Christian thing is a justification for the guilt associated with mistreating a close relative.
That would be a "No"!!!
But I'd just be guessing.
Disease and promiscuity are the only rational reasons I can think of... are there others?
The Luke
Indeed, there are. Whether you think they're "rational" or not is somewhat irrevelant.
-
...if married homosexual Christian Evagelicals are so rare, then what are the odds that the most prominent anti-gay-marriage Evangelical mega-church pastor would turn out to be a closeted homosexual/bisexual?
I never said anything against homosexuals, so the remainder of your rant is....well, ...you brought up over-compensation.
Anyway, gay people married to straight people are rare and you can't post any scientifically valid numbers to substantiate your bullshit claim that it is "rife". That's not to say that there aren't gay people who haven't come out.
-
...do you think homosexuality is a choice? Could you CHOOSE to have sex with another man?
I could. Then again, I could eat roadkill, too.
...someone please correct me if I'm wrong; but isn't this a fundie Evangelical Christian coming out of the closet as a bisexual on the politics board?
Good for you McWay, hopefully you now realise the source of your hostility against homosexuals.
The Luke
-
...someone please correct me if I'm wrong; but isn't this a fundie Evangelical Christian coming out of the closet as a bisexual on the politics board?
Good for you McWay, hopefully you now realise the source of your hostility against homosexuals.
The Luke
Add this to the rather large collection of utterly stupid, wildly inaccurate posts of yours.
To quote Lawrence Taylor, "Son, you gotta do better than this!!!"
-
Add this to the rather large collection of utterly stupid, wildly inaccurate posts of yours.
To quote Lawrence Taylor, "Son, you gotta do better than this!!!"
Gotta say McWay, it certainly reads as if you are actively suppressing an interest in your own sex... few hetrosexuals feel they could CHOOSE to have sex with another man.
Hope you enjoy the middle of the Kinsey scale.
The Luke
-
The Luke Back & owning chumps with the quickness.
-
My heart goes out to the homosexuals. Most of them have been taught an inaccuracie regarding how God feels about forgiving. Of course, this is ONLY pertinent to the practicing homosexual, who THINKS that God will forgive the continued practice of homosexuality/bisexuality. Here is what the Bible says on the matter.
Hebrews 10:26-31
"26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
So then, whatever sin one is committing, that same one has STOP that said sin. Then the door of forgiveness/repentance can be opened. This shows God you are SINCERE about your repentance.
I felt it was only fair for the ones who didn't know this. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
My heart goes out to the homosexuals. Most of them have been taught an inaccuracie regarding how God feels about forgiving. Of course, this is ONLY pertinent to the practicing homosexual, who THINKS that God will forgive the continued practice of homosexuality/bisexuality. Here is what the Bible says on the matter.
Hebrews 10:26-31
"26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
So then, whatever sin one is committing, that same one has STOP that said sin. Then the door of forgiveness/repentance can be opened. This shows God you are SINCERE about your repentance.
I felt it was only fair for the ones who didn't know this. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
well then that just about says we're all screwd including a good portion of republicans and christians in America. Just looking at adultry alone, lol...
-
Anyway, gay people married to straight people are rare and you can't post any scientifically valid numbers to substantiate your bullshit claim that it is "rife". That's not to say that there aren't gay people who haven't come out.
That's true... they marry other gay people as beards... like in the case of the parents of a former beauty queen. :P
-
Gotta say McWay, it certainly reads as if you are actively suppressing an interest in your own sex... few hetrosexuals feel they could CHOOSE to have sex with another man.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Nuh-uh... that's where you're wrong.
I'm heterosexual, and I feel I can CHOOSE to have sex with a man... or not. :D
-
My heart goes out to the homosexuals. Most of them have been taught an inaccuracie regarding how God feels about forgiving. Of course, this is ONLY pertinent to the practicing homosexual, who THINKS that God will forgive the continued practice of homosexuality/bisexuality. Here is what the Bible says on the matter.
Hebrews 10:26-31
"26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
So then, whatever sin one is committing, that same one has STOP that said sin. Then the door of forgiveness/repentance can be opened. This shows God you are SINCERE about your repentance.
I felt it was only fair for the ones who didn't know this. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
It's not a sin.theres no invisible fairy in the sky governing there lives.It's a sin only to sheep like you...HTH.
-
Gotta say McWay, it certainly reads as if you are actively suppressing an interest in your own sex... few hetrosexuals feel they could CHOOSE to have sex with another man.
Hope you enjoy the middle of the Kinsey scale.
The Luke
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Nuh-uh... that's where you're wrong.
I'm heterosexual, and I feel I can CHOOSE to have sex with a man... or not. :D
AHHHH!!!! The "Heckle and Jeckle" of GetBig!!! Comic relief at its finest!!!
Again, I refer to the Lawrence Taylor quote. So void are your pitiful post of any actual facts, that the only way you can turn down the buffoon meters on your respective posts is to engage in the tired old GetBig practice of calling someone gay.
It is to laugh!!!
-
It's not a sin.theres no invisible fairy in the sky governing there lives.It's a sin only to sheep like you...HTH.
This coming from a guy who can barely put a sentence together (on par with a multiple-time 4th-grader)!!!
The laughs just keep on coming!!!
-
Bill Maher is an atheist and he is anti-religion, yet he supports the state of Israel unconditionally and calls anybody who criticizes the state of Israel an anti-semite. That's weird!
Denouncing Israel — And Bill Maher — With Love
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=383
The World IS Mel Gibson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/the-world-is-mel-gibson_b_26315.html
u make iit sound like a bad thing
-
u make iit sound like a bad thing
Are you saying that you believe supporting the state of Israel unconditionally and accusing anybody who criticizes the state of Israel an anti-Semite is a good thing?
-
Are you saying that you believe supporting the state of Israel unconditionally and accusing anybody who criticizes the state of Israel an anti-Semite is a good thing?
absolutely
-
absolutely
Okay. Then you are consistent.
Many people believe that this is a bad thing, and they attribute it to theism and religion. But obviously that's not true since you and Maher are neither theist nor religious, yet you both support the state of Israel unconditionally.
-
Unbelivably wrong, as usual, Luke.
Your claim that preachers speaking out against homosexuality are, by and large, closet homos is as right as two left shoes.
Your "rational heterosexuals" spiel is void of sense and accuracy, as well.
Strike One: Bisexuals are NOT the only who think that homosexuality is a choice.
Strike Two: Heterosexuals often do care what homosexuals do, particularly if those happen to be in their family.
Strike Three: People are against homosexuality for reason that have NOTHING TO DO, with repressing homosexual tendencies.
WOW! Unbelievable logic, friend! So, I guess if I say I don't like red, really I mean I do? *LOL* Well, with that logic, homosexuals really aren't homosexual, they are heterosexual. McWay, where do these people come from? How do you continue to endure it? Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
WOW! Unbelievable logic, friend! So, I guess if I say I like red, really I mean I don't? *LOL* Well, with that logic, homosexuals really aren't homosexual, they are heterosexual. McWay, where do these people come from? How do you continue to endure it? Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
Your guess is a good as mine, regarding the origins of such strange people. Just kidding!!! In my view, folks like Luke carry some personal vendetta against religion (Christianity in particular). Plus, Luke is either from Europe (or at least has lived there for a sustained period of time).
I say that, because I remember seeing a poll on the news, regarding Christianity. It seems that 67% of people who call themselves Christians are Catholic worldwide. However, that number DROPS significantly here in the USA, where only 32 or 33% of self-identified Christians are Catholic.
As for the endurance part, it's all about facts, a good sense of humor, and prayer (not necessarily in that order) ;D .
-
I could. Then again, I could eat roadkill, too.
The only thing keeping you from dipping the donkey with men is a moral code that says you should do it with women?
I've often wondered how people could honestly think homosexuality is a choice....that they could have sex with men, they just choose to sleep with women because the bible tells them to.
That's seriously an interesting statement there MCWAY. I have nothing against homosexuality, but there is no way hell I could have sex with a man. If it were "proper" to be gay, I'd still have to have sex with women. I'm interested in hearing more about how you have sex with women only because you're supposed to.
Do you have a particular "type" of guy you find attractive but don't have sex with only because God tells you not to?
Do you find women more attractive than men? Less attractive? Or are they pretty much equal in your eye?
-
He would kill children (if he heard voices) I mean if god told him to.And would have sex with men if his religion allowed him to.
-
Read this back and forth carefully...
Luke:
Only BISEXUALS believe sexual orientation is a choice.
McWay:
Strike One: Bisexuals are NOT the only who think that homosexuality is a choice.
Luke:
...do you think homosexuality is a choice? Could you CHOOSE to have sex with another man?
McWay:
I could. Then again, I could eat roadkill, too.
...is McWay actually claiming the Bible restrained his bisexuality?
Is a non-practicing bisexual any less of a bisexual? After all, didn't Jesus himself make the point that sin is first committed by thought; not action.
The Luke
-
Didn't watch the clip, but Pitt is a louse. Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies. And even then I don't want his opinion. Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie.
Agree.
He's a good actor.
But his opinions on issues aren't really a big deal.
However, I think it's nice to see that "celebs" are open about being Atheists.
Perhaps then that won't be so demonized and a big issue for many.
-
Read this back and forth carefully...
Luke:
McWay:
Luke:
McWay:
...is McWay actually claiming the Bible restrained his bisexuality?
Is a non-practicing bisexual any less of a bisexual? After all, didn't Jesus himself make the point that sin is first committed by thought; not action.
The Luke
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Luke, go easy on the guy. When he was a little kid, ...his father didn't take enough showers with him. ;D
-
Read this back and forth carefully...
Luke:
McWay:
Luke:
McWay:
...is McWay actually claiming the Bible restrained his bisexuality?
Is a non-practicing bisexual any less of a bisexual? After all, didn't Jesus himself make the point that sin is first committed by thought; not action.
The Luke
::)
-
Agree.
He's a good actor.
But his opinions on issues aren't really a big deal.
However, I think it's nice to see that "celebs" are open about being Atheists.
Perhaps then that won't be so demonized and a big issue for many.
I don't think people are demonized for being atheists. I have atheist friends. They just can't get elected governor, president, etc.
-
I don't think people are demonized for being atheists. I have atheist friends. They just can't get elected governor, president, etc.
Oh brother! Oly in America... the land where an atheist could never get elected, ...but the anti-christ can. ::)
-
Oh brother! Oly in America... the land where an atheist could never get elected, ...but the anti-christ can. ::)
It's what the people want. Or more accurately don't want.
-
I don't think people are demonized for being atheists. I have atheist friends. They just can't get elected governor, president, etc.
sure they can
all they have to do is pretend to be religious to appease the people who need to hear that shit
happens every day
-
LOL! Whatever it takes to make you feel better. :)
-
LOL! Whatever it takes to make you feel better. :)
actually it doesn't make me feel better at all
it's just a sad fact about our country
you know it's true too
-
No, I don't know it's true that people of faith lie about their faith to get elected, secretly concealing the fact that they're really "dyed in the wool" atheists. That's really funny. :)
Atheists make up a tiny percentage of the country. They are the least trusted group in the country. They are unable to win most elected offices, because the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want an atheist in office.
That doesn't make atheists bad people. Those are just the facts.
-
No, I don't know it's true that people of faith lie about their faith to get elected, secretly concealing the fact that they're really "dyed in the wool" atheists. That's really funny. :)
Atheists make up a tiny percentage of the country. They are the least trusted group in the country. They are unable to win most elected offices, because the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want an atheist in office.
That doesn't make atheists bad people. Those are just the facts.
they don't have to be atheist. They just don't need to actually believe the shit they say (they are politicians after all).
Most people who are non-believers would not define themselves as atheists. To be an atheist is to have the same certainty of something they can't prove which is just the same as being a true believer.
Most people just don't subscribe to a specific religious belief but without actually denying there might be some greater mystery to life. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I can choose not to believe in Jesus, Allah or the Divine Trinity and still not consider myself an atheist
Once again, I suspect you already know this too
-
Atheists make up a tiny percentage of the country. They are the least trusted group in the country. They are unable to win most elected offices, because the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want an atheist in office.
That doesn't make atheists bad people. Those are just the facts.
...maybe not, but it certainly makes this supposed believer majority bad people.
The Luke
-
...maybe not, but it certainly makes this supposed believer majority bad people.
The Luke
Why? Because they want a person of faith in public office?
-
Why? Because they want a person of faith in public office?
...yes, people of faith are (in general) dumber than athiests.
It's irresponsible to want a Jesus-freak "praying" for guidance on foreign policy when what the world needs are sober, logical, rational people making informed decisions; actually taking the time to READ about a subject instead of waiting for "God" to enlighten them.
Athiests aren't the ones who pushed George Dubya Bush on the world.
Athiests don't double down on their mistakes and label it "faith", unlike the "Dubya just wasn't dumb enough: vote Palin!" crowd.
The Luke
-
...yes, people of faith are (in general) dumber than athiests.
It's irresponsible to want a Jesus-freak "praying" for guidance on foreign policy when what the world needs are sober, logical, rational people making informed decisions; actually taking the time to READ about a subject instead of waiting for "God" to enlighten them.
Athiests aren't the ones who pushed George Dubya Bush on the world.
Athiests don't double down on their mistakes and label it "faith", unlike the "Dubya just wasn't dumb enough: vote Palin!" crowd.
The Luke
This is a "dumb" analysis. I was asking why you call people who want those who hold public office to believe in God "bad people," not which group is smarter than the other. I'm not getting into that absurd discussion (who is smarter ::)).
Part of the reason this is a "dumb" analysis is atheists are such a small percentage of the population that they likely have zero impact on state and national elections. And the same people who put Bush in office also put the professed God-fearing Obama in office.
-
Okay...
Hypothetically separate the population into two groups: those with IQs below the median, and those above the median...
...where would you find the bulk of the believers?
...where would you find the bulk of the athiests?
...and yes, to simplify things, if Dubya thought us anyhting, it's this very simple fact:
Clever... good, dumb... bad.
There is a direct statistical correlation between atheism and intelligence.
There is a direct statistical correlation between atheism and morality.
There is a direct statistical correlation between atheism and law abiding behaviour.
There is a negative statistical correlation between atheism and stupidity.
There is a negative statistical correlation between atheism and immorality.
There is a negative statistical correlation between atheism and violent behaviour.
The Luke
-
EXCELLENT quotes.
It’s truly rare to find someone who does not worship “celebrity” opinions. I was surprised to find so many in succession.
Are we still the minority, or are more people catching on?
I agree, more people are catching on. No man is worthy of worship. We are all the same. There is no God, but God and only he is worthy of worship.
-
I just don’t get why celebrities preach their beliefs to the public as though we should hold them in higher regards.
So, you’re a famous actor/actress…
You’re lucky enough to make a lot of money pretending to be other people…
Or maybe you sing songs… :o
Whatever.
How exactly does that qualify you as a political authority?
And why should I hold your opinions as more valid & important than anyone else’s?
-
I just don’t get why celebrities preach their beliefs to the public as though we should hold them in higher regards.
So, you’re a famous actor/actress…
You’re lucky enough to make a lot of money pretending to be other people…
Or maybe you sing songs… :o
Whatever.
How exactly does that qualify you as a political authority?
And why should I hold your opinions as more valid & important than anyone else’s?
I don't think they are asking you to hold their opinions at a high level. I think they believe because of their popularity they can influence people on issues they believe in.