Oh humanity. you so crazy.. cloth. Don't worry. The Muslims have got us covered. tags Youre it
x
Click to expand

Comments(61):

[ 61 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - wolfypolli ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Don't worry. The Muslims have got us covered.
#65 to #2 - norwegianlolz ONLINE (06/15/2013) [-]
Ha, Muslims got everything covered
#27 to #2 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
actually divorce isn´t forbidden, it´s bad but allowed to conduct
#53 - gameshredder (06/15/2013) [-]
So, is the entire planet protesting premarital sex? or does it only count the moon?
+12
#10 - tittylovin has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #6 - croski (06/14/2013) [-]
If they tried protesting against divorce you'd all flip out and **** ... And don't think they are doing it just because the Bible forbids it (indirectly), they have other reasons.

In my country its mostly because of adoption of children.
User avatar #8 - sealman (06/15/2013) [-]
I seriously hate it when people wear mixed cloth. Freakin' work of the devil.
#55 - hybridxproject (06/15/2013) [-]
this
this
#49 - wamegor (06/15/2013) [-]
oh humanity (yeah I though this post was going to be something about Dark Souls)
User avatar #9 - shadowstepone (06/15/2013) [-]
everyone on earth is protesting premarital sex?
User avatar #3 - iamtheblackgoat (06/14/2013) [-]
I hate it when people protest about gay marriage, it's a such a faggy thing to do
#56 - cinematicbrix (06/15/2013) [-]
Though the commandments in Leviticus were directed from God to the people of Israel at the time.
#60 - mrmamric (06/15/2013) [-]
I didn't know so many people protested premarital sex.
User avatar #54 - justignoreme (06/15/2013) [-]
**justignoreme rolls 145** a lot of Leviticus is voided out by the new testament.
#41 - awesomeanigma (06/15/2013) [-]
I could be wrong, (don't have too much knowledge essentially on the subject) but I'm pretty sure the main problem is just using the term "married" and doing it in a church. It's more of a religious problem, it seems to me. Why not just give homosexual couples the legal ability to have be "married" but just don't call it married? Give homosexual couples the same legal rights are heterosexual couples when married, but don't call it marriage. (Yes I do realize this was explored in South Park. Just don't call them Butt Buddies.)

Plus, isn't there something called "separation of church and state"? So states can't force churches to marry them, but states can't disallow people from their legal rights as a legal union. That seems like a good decision to me.
#46 to #41 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
Homosexuals, at least in my country, have been allowed the right to enter 'civil partnerships' which is, I guess, the point you're making.

Christians' main concern is that they won't stop asking. They believe gay couples will keep pushing the boundaries. First, they want civil partnerships... then marriage... then marriage in church... then Christians will be prosecuted/sued for denying a homosexual couple to marry in their church... so on and so on...
User avatar #51 to #41 - jakefenris (06/15/2013) [-]
The term marriage and the act of marrying is not the property of the church. They do not have the right to attempt to dictate how it is used. There is no reason to cow-tow to these people. Everyone has the right to equality and recognition under the law, calling it anything less than marriage would be an insult.
#30 - dbjorgo (06/15/2013) [-]
Part of why the Leviticus laws aren't followed is because we aren't bound by them anymore since they were directions given to the Hebrews in the Old Covenant which ended after the death of Jesus. That being said, I think a few of the loud Christians need to remember the passage that says "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"
#4 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
And yet another juvenile idiot who gets his theology degree from 4chan....
User avatar #14 to #4 - bgskamikaze (06/15/2013) [-]
Say that signed it bitch
#1 - mraye (06/14/2013) [-]
What else do we ignore from the bible...   
   
   
Also why is only one faith represented so strongly in your democracy?
What else do we ignore from the bible...


Also why is only one faith represented so strongly in your democracy?
User avatar #5 to #1 - chrolt (06/14/2013) [-]
Because most of our society is based on christian morals and belief, and the largest religous group is the christians.
#13 to #5 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account** (06/15/2013) [-]
Separation of church and state my ass
#26 to #13 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
cuz its not like religious and social aspect of human being in enclosed in its unity.
#25 to #5 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
cuz its not like religious and social aspect of human being in enclosed in its unity.
User avatar #21 - awesomegreenguy (06/15/2013) [-]
Christians aren't allowed to eat pork!? I thought that only went for muslims.. :s
User avatar #39 to #21 - MrChef (06/15/2013) [-]
Only muslims? L2 Kosher.
User avatar #24 to #21 - sanguinesolitude (06/15/2013) [-]
read the bible.
User avatar #18 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
Let's clear some **** up here. The bible thumping homophobes are the unfortunate minority in the church. Blindly following the old testament as if most of it has any relevance outside Judaism and the good stories. In reality, the church has nothing against homosexuality in itself. Pope John Paul II said on the matter "love and be loved." We really have no problem with a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. But the issue we take is them getting married. Since Catholic and most Christian doctrine supports natural pro-creation within marriage, and since a homosexual couple cannot naturally pro-create, their marriage cannot be considered a real marriage in the eyes of the church. But that doesn't mean we all think they are God hating abominations, we just won't marry them in churches.
User avatar #20 to #18 - spikethepony (06/15/2013) [-]
I concur. Furthermore, I will go farther and say that the Church has no issue with homosexual legal union, which is essentially marriage without the religious element.

Now, what I don't understand is why some portions of the gay community demand marriage by the Catholic Church (for example, military chaplains can now be forced to marry two soldiers). If one is getting one's pound of flesh (granted, they have yet to actually win the right to legal union), one should not demand a second pound.
#31 to #18 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
ok, if marriage is for the sake of procreation, why does the church allow sterile people to get married?
User avatar #36 to #31 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
I don't have canon law on marriage memorized but there are some exceptions, in the case of sterility there is always that small chance (and I mean miraculously small) of pregnancy. But I think you misunderstood my point, I never said traditional marriage was ALL about pro-creation. Only that pro-creation was a big part of it, a man and a woman can still get married in a church even if the don't plan on having kids. And it's not shoved in their faces or anything, it's not like they sign a waver saying "we will make lots of babies." I probably could have worded my earlier post a little better in hindsight.
#37 to #36 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
you explicitly stated that " since a homosexual couple cannot naturally pro-create, their marriage cannot be considered a real marriage in the eyes of the church" . So why is it considered a real marriage if it's between a man and a woman who cannot naturally procreate?
User avatar #38 to #37 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
like I said, there are certain exceptions that can be made, but I don't have those laws memorized so I can't cite anything specific for ya.
#40 to #38 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
I don't suppose those exceptions include "genuine, unconditional love for one another, despite the inability to reproduce" otherwise gays would be allowed to marry.
User avatar #43 to #40 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
Since traditional marriage is viewed as a man and a woman, no I'm afraid not.
#44 to #43 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
tradition is overrated.
seriously, people shouldn't hang on to harmful practices just because they're "traditional"
"it's traditional" isn't a valid argument
User avatar #47 to #44 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
if that is what you really think then I feel bad for you anon. Twas a pleasure debating, good day.
#67 to #47 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
I'm just saying we can't sacrifice progress for the sake of tradition.
Just think about all the things that hundreds of years ago would have been inconceivable: interracial marriage, women's rights to education, property, etc.
What will our descendants think of us when learning that we used to deny people their rights just because "that's how it's always been"
#34 to #31 - kingnicholas (06/15/2013) [-]
although sterility is allowed impotence is not allowed, so you still have to get it up. This probably hearkens back to Abraham and Sarah who didn't have a kid until he was in his 90's.
User avatar #48 to #34 - jellybob (06/15/2013) [-]
Thank you I'll have to remember that
User avatar #17 - colegaleener (06/15/2013) [-]
erm.. pig isn't even that good, i can live without bacon. but pork tender loin? oh mama.
User avatar #7 - javalord (06/14/2013) [-]
Technically that last one is everyone except the person taking the picture
[ 61 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)