A gold star for Jack on his Google Fu skills. Still doesn't change the fact comparing the women's suffrage act to homosexuality is comparing apples to oranges.
HOMOCAUST - Clash of the BS I-Titans!
- Thread starter SeventhSon
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
A gold star for Jack on his Google Fu skills. Still doesn't change the fact comparing the women's suffrage act to homosexuality is comparing apples to oranges.
It's not apples to oranges at all.
I was bringing up the fact that what was ONCE seen as biblically evil is now commonplace and accepted. I'm thinking it'll be the same, here, in a number of years. The bible is used for all sorts of hatred and bigotry against people, because as you say, it's your personal opinion - you just use the Bible to attempt to give your opinion gravitas. No one cares enough what the vitriolic minority says about gays, so you try and project your opinion as being from the Bible to give it authority, lest no one care.
I'm just showing you how history repeats itself.
Oh... and there are way more verses about women submitting and not having power over man, than there are versus involving homosexuality in general.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
So you say it's not apples to apples and that he was trying to confuse the subject because nobody ever said women voting was evil, then you were shown to be wrong, that they were and that much of the basis of women not being able to vote was based on biblical text, as listed above......... But you're still saying he is clouding the subject you just avoid listing a reason this time so you can't be refuted again. Bravo sir!
And I'd hardly consider it Google fu for me to find all of those posters on the first page, I think you said you looked and didn't.
Here is he 8th image result for women's sufferage propaganda. No implication of evil to be found huh?
Last edited:
No, see, it's not bigotry. I think /he/ is wrong, an individual, and I've based this on the personal merits and statements he has made, which I find incorrect.
I think you need to look up the definitions of bigot and prejudice.
If I took this one dude, and used him as an excuse to say all Christians are equally as bad, or worse, then it'd be different, but I don't. I have this AMAZING ability, that some in this thread lack, to be able to disagree with someone's life choices, but still desire to support the lack of government intrusion into their lives, and want to see equal standing in the community, unless they actually commit some crime.
But I also see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Well, this thread has made me see the light, and I've completely changed my opinion on this subject.
You mean this definition from Merriam-Webster? I'm using this one as a common definition. So are you are aren't you devoted to YOUR opinion that nothing is wrong with homosexual activity and that his beliefs are wrong? It does not matter if you only disagree with a single person's beliefs or a groups. So what if he is prejudiced in his beliefs? Isn't that his right, whether you agree with him or not? Isn't true tolerance being respectful of other's lifestyles, beliefs, etc. even if they're different from your own?
Maybe in the instances of some people on here, you are right. In some cases, you are wrong. Just because someone disagrees with another person's life choices (regardless of their reason why), doesn't always mean that they "hate" that person or group of people.
Maybe I'm just reading what you're trying to say the wrong way?
This thread is awesome...we now have Godwin in it!
Whether you respect Hitler's beliefs or not, it's your choice and it's not my place to tell you if you're right or wrong for doing so. But if you would choose to do so, I'd respect your choice whether I agreed with it or not. And even if I disagreed, I wouldn't hate on you for it.
I guess that's where we differ.
When I see people with ass-backwards hate filled beliefs, I have the character to stand up from it.
But hey, you go ahead and just see how it turns out if a bunch of neo-nazis start gaining power. I'm sure the world will be happy you sat by and just respected them and chose not to hate their platform.
When I see people with ass-backwards hate filled beliefs, I have the character to stand up from it.
But hey, you go ahead and just see how it turns out if a bunch of neo-nazis start gaining power. I'm sure the world will be happy you sat by and just respected them and chose not to hate their platform.
You missed the part where it says AND prejudices, I don't think him disliking Charles is part of a prejudiced, in fact basing his opinion on "the personal merits and statements he has made" is the exact opposite of prejudicial.
This.
Sorry guys....I just couldn't resist.....
What does that have to do with it? If I was discussing prejudices I would have included it. The inference is regarding one's bigotry concerning their own opinions. Believe it or not you can be bigoted about your own opinion, without being prejudiced.
- Status
