Old Man G Funk said:
Why? The dudes have no style sense nor decorating skills.
Utah hates queers
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
Why? The dudes have no style sense nor decorating skills.
"If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is their free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex."
stinkyboy said:
Bible spouting stinkyboys give me the creeps too...
stinkyboy said:
I'm a Democrat, but more importantly, I'm a Christian.
Ha! Like that is even possible!
Because the movie focuses a lot on the fact that two people who are in love can't be together due to the bigotry that surrounds them. This is the same bigotry that you show with your comments. Maybe if you watched it and could get past your "ick" factor, you might take something positive away from it.N8 said:
BTW, if this helps, the hetero sex is more graphic than the homo sex.
Could you provide the source of this quote please?stinkyboy said:
Edit: Which part of the Bible are you referencing as well?
Exactly, there are numerous reasons that the film could have explored why these two people could not be together.LordOpie said:yup! There was boobage
PS: Replace two gay men with a black man and a white woman or a chinese woman with a french man. Love denied sucks.
Yeah like taking care of the poor..........the only person Jesus talks about being in an actual hell (not the present state imagery that Jesus sometimes uses) is the rich dude who didn't take care of the poor dude living out side his house......the only reason for this dude being in hell is that he didn't take care of the needs of those around him when he had the power to do something about it.stinkyboy said:
Needless to say my fundy / republican friends don't like it when I bring that point up............
They're not hard to find, but the first one listed here is all you really need to know. Can it be more clear?!Old Man G Funk said:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"
Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Just because repubs think they have "Bible believing Christians" in their hip pocket doesn't mean that stereotype applies to all of us who strive to follow Jesus.N8 said:Ha! Like that is even possible!
I plan on seeing the film if it shows here locally... which means a local theaters will have to have The Passion of the Crist on only 14 screens instead of all 15.
I will, however, not see Rent.
I will, however, not see Rent.
Andyman_1970 said:Just because repubs think they have "Bible believing Christians" in their hip pocket doesn't mean that stereotype applies to all of us who strive to follow Jesus.
Just trolling this morning... so far I've got a nice little stringer going.
Sorry, not trying to be obtuse.stinkyboy said:
Where did your original quote come from?
Also, were you aware of the story of Saul and David (1 Samuel)?
Either way, do you really feel that your condemnation of gays is in line with Jesus's supposed teachings of love?
That could be the only thing you do well...............LOLN8 said:Just trolling this morning... so far I've got a nice little stringer going.
Andyman_1970 said:
It's pretty easy catching bottom-feeding sucker fish...
They still have Passion? That's like soooooooooooo 2004.N8 said:
Well, for a start you're on the same level, eh?N8 said:
fluff said:
Hey, hey! I practice 'catch-and -release'... no sucker fish were harmed in this thread.
Oh well, just hoping I could get a hold of it.stinkyboy said:
You might be leaving the dirty work to god, but you are complicit in it.
Old Man G Funk said:
Well when you live in a small city with 186 Baptist churches....
Can the Christians practice in privacy? Please?stinkyboy said:
So what are you doing with your quotations?stinkyboy said:
I agree...............LordOpie said:
Feel free to email Pat Robertson with your suggestion..........
I'm okay with them queers, its those gays that I don't like.
You go to hell, you go to hell and die.LordOpie said:
Yes they are "stinky" boy.....stinkyboy said:
i guess i'm not suprised to see you're packing a "born again" card in your back pocket so as to crow about others percieved inadequacies before The Creator, backed with the knowledge you can pull out your card to justify your limited logic based on out-dated text.
Life is a gift, and it's actually quite easy to share happiness with tolerance and understanding.
That being said i'm still a little miffed nobody want's to ride Brokeback Mountain with me next summer.
:heart:
:heart: :heart:Homosexuals are gay...just wanted to get that out there.
Anyway, back to the point, I agree with LordOpie that this appears to be motivated by the message of the film. None of the articles I have read appear to point at an economic motive. Sheesh, they could even save face (in some peoples' eyes) by just lying and saying it was an economic motive...
Perhaps (well, most likely) my opinion may be shaped by my own stance on gay rights and the fact that my roommate (who used to live in Utah and goes there often to see who I assume is her girlfriend) was told by her girlfriend's mother that she made her daughter gay with her tricky, godless, lefty ways. Yeah. Sure.
Also, I don't want to turn this into another Jesus-fest, but just be careful about using passages from the Bible to lay the smackdown on homosexuality. Usually, such efforts quote from the same books that tell people not to plant two crops in the same field or mix fabrics in clothing etc. The point is not what the text literally says, but how and/or why one should follow it.
Anyway, back to the point, I agree with LordOpie that this appears to be motivated by the message of the film. None of the articles I have read appear to point at an economic motive. Sheesh, they could even save face (in some peoples' eyes) by just lying and saying it was an economic motive...
Perhaps (well, most likely) my opinion may be shaped by my own stance on gay rights and the fact that my roommate (who used to live in Utah and goes there often to see who I assume is her girlfriend) was told by her girlfriend's mother that she made her daughter gay with her tricky, godless, lefty ways. Yeah. Sure.
Also, I don't want to turn this into another Jesus-fest, but just be careful about using passages from the Bible to lay the smackdown on homosexuality. Usually, such efforts quote from the same books that tell people not to plant two crops in the same field or mix fabrics in clothing etc. The point is not what the text literally says, but how and/or why one should follow it.
Um, I know where Sandy is. I have friends that live there and I see them about twice a year. I further know that it is more or less part of the SLC "metroplex" however, unlike the more cosmopolitan city center which you made mention of, it is by and large a suburb. It's population has a higher percentage of serious mormons than SLC proper. By virtue of that the film would be shall we say "less attractive" to that group of the populace than elsewhere.blue said:
I never EVER said that this guy ABSOLUTElY cancelled the engagement for business reasons. That would be foolish to do since given the information that you and I and Opie have there is no way to ABSOLUTElY know that. Anymore than you can ABSOLUTELY know that he cancelled it for reasons of content or pressure from some special interest.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that in all likelyhood he recieved a deluge of calls and letters from groups surrounding the Mormon church (Who are those old chicks that sit around in big throne looking chairs on TV and talk about Sister So-and-so going to Gyuana? Probably those broads.) Threatening to boycott unless blah, blah, blah......
However, being that this is America I think we ought to KNOW some FACTS and HAVE the TRUTH before we go collecting pitchforks torches and 13" of sturdy rope.
Old Man G Funk said:
Hmm, there is an original theme for a movie.
Two lovers who cannot be together because of the social stigma surrounding the relationship.
Wow, groundbreaking.