Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40
Quote# 110349

A Warning From Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
Get ready to say goodbye to your first Amendment freedoms

Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?

Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for the American Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscated at the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Dawn Stefanowicz, Aleteia 22 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110351

"Jesus-is-Savior.com" Attacks our Film "After the Tribulation"

There is an article on the website www.jesus-is-savior.com attacking our film After the Tribulation, which came out last December and has been viewed online over 1.3 million times so far (if you add up the view counts of the several versions uploaded to YouTube). Here are a few excerpts from the article:

["In the film, Dr. Kent Hovind denounces the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Kent Hovind is wrong about a Young Earth and he's wrong about the Rapture. The Bible teaches an Old Earth. Dinosaurs never co-existed amongst mankind."]

This should tell you everything you need to know about David Stewart, the man behind the website jesus-is-savior.com. He believes that the earth is billions of years old! Instead of the Bible being his final authority, he twists the words of the Bible to make them match up with the "science falsely so-called" of our day.

Steven L Anderson, Steven L Anderson 37 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110341


All I'm saying is that the fetus is more important than the woman who has an abortion. The government should pass laws to protect the fetus (and yes, I do believe that banning abortions reduces abortion rates), not to protect women who are trying to harm the fetus.

The Amazing Sam's Ego, Political Forum 22 Comments [7/1/2015 3:18:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110352

In my fire alarm business, I am constantly testing batteries and measuring their voltage. When a battery is completely dead, there is no potential difference between the positive and negative poles, and a multimeter will read 0 volts. This equilibrium produces no energy, and the battery is therefore worthless.

Magnetism operates on similar principles. There is a force of attraction between unlike poles and a force of repulsion between like poles.

The difference between north and south produces the attraction.

What does any of this have to do with marriage?
The difference between men and women is what causes the attraction between them. When a man and woman get married, this attraction is very strong. There is very powerful electricity in their relationship. Often, however, the newness wears off over time, and the attraction can become very weak. The battery goes dead so to speak. Why is that?

When a battery goes dead, it is because there is equilibrium between the positive and negative leads. Just as electrical energy is fueled by the difference between "positive" and "negative," and magnetic energy thrives on the difference between "north" and "south," so the male/female energy is powered by the difference between "masculine" and "feminine."

As our society destroys the differences between male and female, and especially husband and wife, the attraction becomes less and less, and the voltage of our marriages is reduced. That is why our sinful world views married life as being "boring" and "unexciting." In order to have an exciting love life, they must keep switching to a different partner. It is possible, on the other hand, to have a very exciting married life and be very strongly physically attracted to your spouse as long as the difference between the masculine and the feminine is maintained.

Modern American culture teaches us that there should be equality between a man and a woman in marriage. This is the biggest turn off in the world for both parties. If there is equality, then there will be much less attraction between the man and his wife. When there is a big difference between husband and wife, they will be much more attracted to one another. If the husband is completely in charge, and the wife is completely submissive and subject to him (as the Bible commands), then they will have a very "high voltage" love life. Equality = a dead battery.

As men in America become more and more feminine, and women become more and more masculine, the difference between a man and his wife is dramatically reduced. Husbands and wives become more and more apathetic about their physical relationship with each other. This leads to people looking outside of their marriage for the spark and excitement they are lacking at home. If, on the other hand, the husband is firmly in power, being the head of household, sole breadwinner, and acting/dressing in a manly fashion, and the wife is very submissive to her husband, a homemaker, cooking and cleaning, wearing skirts/dresses, long hair, etc., the voltage of the relationship will be cranked up, and husband and wife will find themselves very strongly attracted to one another. Greater potential difference = stronger electromotive force.

The world will not accept this obvious, basic, scientific truth because it is not politically correct. Even though atheists claim to be scientific, they ignore all the empirical evidence and insist on male/female equality. Unfortunately many Christians are buying into similar philosophies in their home life and are consequently missing out on a truly electrified marriage.

Steven L Anderson, Steven L Anderson 39 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110316

My friend, if you are a professed “atheist,” I promise you that YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD after the very first 5 seconds of awakening in the horrifying flames of Hell beneath in the earth. There are no atheists in Hell.

One of the most celebrated, quoted and infamous atheists was comedian George Carlin, whom I liked; yet, he is sadly a believer in God this moment in the fires of Hell, as he awaits his final judgment at The Great White Throne Of Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). The Bible teaches and warns in Revelation 20:11-15 that God the Father will bring up all the dead from Hell (Greek: Hades) and the dead, and He will judge the dead, casting them into the Lake of Fire (Greek: Gehenna) for all eternity without hope or end. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8 warns that God Himself will punish them, taking vengeance upon them with flames of fire. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Only a total fool would dare say that these plain Scriptures are merely figurative, or mean anything other than exactly what they teach.

I don't write this article to be unkind; but rather, to WARN YOU OF THE JUDGMENT TO COME IN THE LAKE OF FIRE! Colossians 1:28-29, “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” Only one sin can keep a person out of Heaven, which is the unpardonable sin of unbelief. If you die in your sins without having received Jesus Christ as your personal Savior in your lifetime, you will go to Hell to burn forever. Nobody Is Laughing In Hell (a life-changing, red-hot, MP3 sermon by Evangelist Phil Kidd). Everyone who goes to Hell pays their own way, but every one that goes to Heaven has a free pass.

But you say, “I don't believe in Hell!” You are not alone, a USA TODAY poll shows 59% of Americans don't believe in a literal Hell. ARE YOU GOING TO HELL? (video). Whether or not you believe that a literal Hell exists doesn't change the fact that it DOES exist. Are you calling God a liar? God authored the holy Bible. The Bible teaches much more about Hell than it does Heaven. Research the Scriptures and you'll find an incredible amount of information on Hell. If you'd like to read an excellent Biblical study about Hell, I recommend “A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF HELL” (.pdf book by Dr. Max D. Younce). I assure you my friend, whoever you may be, that there are NO ATHEISTS IN HELL. Not a one!

But let's say for argument's sake that you don't know for certain that Hell exists. Are you willing to burn in Hell for all eternity if you're wrong? Common sense tells us that sin MUST be punished. Our very human soul tells us that there MUST be a God Who is going to judge every human being in eternity. The Bible warns in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”



David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 20 Comments [7/1/2015 2:45:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110334

"Most gays, if they're having a wedding, don't want pizzas -- they want cake," Robertson told "700 Club" viewers, according to Right Wing Watch. "It's the cake-makers that are having a problem."

Still, he warned Christian business owners of all types that gay customers will eventually "make you conform to them."

"You're gonna say that you like anal sex, you like oral sex, you like bestiality," he added. "Sooner or later, you're going to have to conform your religious beliefs to the group of some abhorrent thing. It won't stop at homosexuality."

Pat Robertson, Huffington Post 22 Comments [7/1/2015 2:54:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110331

Pro-Life, and Pro-Adoption. Why? I was almost killed, I was adopted. simple as that. ;)

If I had the choice now to save an innocent child's life, or kill it, there would be no choice at all, because I was once one of them, the ones about to be drilled through the head, with no chance at a life.

Therefore, would be in no position to support an innocent child being aborted, I may as well murder myself the second I support it. I've been given a second chance at life, so should every unborn child.

Abortion is Murder, and shame on the women who want to throw away something so beautiful and with such potential for the sparing of about a day of pain. Give the child up for abortion, and sleep well knowing that what may have even been a mistake, or concieved by a crime, may become something great.

So, to me, there are two options.

1. Go ahead and murder the child, spare yourself a little bit of pain, and be content.
2. Continue with birth, give the child up for abortion if you can't take care of it, and think of your child every day, and know that you saved a life.

If we consider Fetuses un-human because they are unborn, we may as well kill every mentally-disabled person in the world for being not as intellectually advanced as the others around them.

If you're pro-abortion, I'd like you to come to me and drill my head open, then toss me in a garbage can, after all, that was what was supposed to happen, wasn't it?

This is my view, my own experience, and thank God, I am here. ;)

Sincerely,

~V.

Vaughan, Fallout STudios 12 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110333

[[If abortion is banned, women will still do it, they just would have to go to a back-alley clinic]]

And I proved this argument illogical, because if its murder, its totally irrelevant what is safe for the woman.

That was my point, but obviously you weren't paying much attention.

[[It's a baby Only if it has sentience which my opinion means it has brain activity and can perceive and feel pain.]]

First of all, it can certainly feel pain before the end of the second trimester, and the brain is there from 2 months or less (Not sure of the exact time, but its definitely less than 2 months.)

Second of all, that is your postulate. Then you use this postulate to say "OK, its not a full life, and so, even if it were better for her not to abort, its still better to allow it so that her life is safe!" I reject this idea. Not only would I say she ought to be executed for murder anyway, but I would also say that this is a horrible reason to make something legal, because "They'd do it unsafely otherwise."

Murder is murder.

Ghostwriter16, Civfanatics 14 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110335

...we are seeing their mockery expanded. These perverts have dared to take a symbol of God’s promise not to judge the earth and have perverted it to promote their sick and abominable lifestyle. We must strive to tell the true story of the rainbow. We must remind people that the rainbow symbolizes God’s restraint

Randy, Net-4-Christ 14 Comments [7/1/2015 2:54:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110342

In response to a blog about "What would Earth's skies look like with Saturn's rings?"
=======================================================================================

I study the Bible Genesis to understand the 83-year cycle of Jupiter whose 84 years of 360-day do not drift forward a year until Abram's 427 years, and Solomon's temple of 427 years. I also study the 205-year Mars of Abram's father Terah (208-year of 360-day) and the Semiramis Venus of a sidereal 235 years Sothic Julian 243 years and seasonal Shem-Ramis of 251 years, as well as how the 1200 year Venus is not Jupiter. So quite versed in ancient chronology that unveils whether modern astronomy has drifted or not. Currently studying Mars to see how it passed from Ur to Babel to Nineveh to Harran Syria to Mari Syria and was kept by the Mayan thru Harappa India, Xian China, Korea and Japan upon their arrival in Copan in 1313bc. Armageddonist here, as in Noah's asteroid Flood, global comet armageddon exodus (not just Jews in Egypt), and the asteroid about to strike soon.

Elijah, http://www.planetary.org/ 24 Comments [7/1/2015 3:19:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: OzInJohn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110353

I am against head-coverings on women for two reasons:

1. I am against head-coverings because they associate you with the wrong crowd spiritually. Every church or pastor I have ever seen or known that taught that women were commanded to wear head-coverings was wrong on the Gospel. I have never seen or heard of a church that taught that women must wear head-coverings that believed that salvation was by faith alone. The churches and teachers promoting head-coverings on women teach a works-based salvation in one of the following forms:

- some teach you can lose your salvation
- some teach you must repent of your sins in order to be saved
- some teach you must surrender your life to Christ in order to be saved
- some teach Calvinist doctrines of "grace" which teach that if you don't have works, you aren't saved, and that God is the one who chooses who will be saved and who will be damned (TULIP).

The Bible on the other hand states that salvation is by faith alone:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have never seen or heard of any church that preached Bible salvation that taught women to wear head-coverings. Therefore, wearing a head-covering will lump you in with unsaved false teachers such as the Amish, Pentecostals, etc.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

2. I am against head-coverings because they are not modest apparel. Yes, you got that right, I said that they are not modest apparel:

1Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" in these verses is often misinterpreted to only mean "not revealing" or "not promiscuous." However, there is nothing revealing or promiscuous about broided hair, gold, or pearls. This passage is telling ladies not to dress in a way that draws attention to themselves. Their good works should be what stand out, not their appearance, clothing, hair, or jewelry. Instead of a "Christian uniform," it should be the good works of Christian ladies that stand out to the world.

mod?est
[mod-ist]
?adjective
1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.

Women who wear head-coverings or Amish-looking dresses are doing so in order to purposely look different and stand out. There are many beautiful and stylish dresses for women to wear that are very modest and and not revealing whatsoever, but that do not purposely draw attention and cry out, "Look at me! Look how 'modest' I am!" Purposely drawing attention to yourself is neither modesty nor humility!

Ladies are commanded by the Bible to have long hair. They are not commanded to wear an external head covering of any kind. If they do wear one, people will probably associate them with religions that preach a false Gospel.

Pastor Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church 20 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 108976

When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment.

...

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

Brett Stevens, amerika.org 47 Comments [5/28/2015 3:15:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110310

(In a thread asking why conservatives care about gay marriage.)

It devalues the importance of the family unit. In my opinion a society should endorse the natural family unit as it leads to a strong and productive society. What is productive about homosexuality? It weakens society, it takes the emphasis of marriage away from being a gift for human production, rearing and ultimately human domination of the earth and its resources and switches it to that of hedonistic and self serving pleasure. It puts an individual's desires above anything else and forgets about humanity as a whole. It pits love against humanity, and it ultimately will lead to the destruction of love. People are going to stop loving other people. Man will stop loving woman if it is not emphasized to man that the his role is not his own pleasure..but the betterment of all humanity even at his displeasure.

It's insulting to me as a man to think that another man might think that he can love a man with the same intensity that I can love my wife. No man will ever love another man more deeply than I will love my wife. To think homosexual love is as strong as heterosexual love is insulting to what it means to be human. To be man and woman. Man belongs with woman and woman with man. Without man and woman there are no people. I love woman so deeply that I might become another person with her, put another being on this earth that is me and her, our creation. No two men can say that. You could never understand that love, to look at another person and realize it is not another person. It is something I could never say about another man and myself. If homosexual love is all about individual rights, then it is a lesser love. It is a selfish love. It is not love, not as heterosexual love..which is all about the non individuals rights. The other's rights.

It is an insult to my wife and children to think that what you have is anything close to what I will have.

It's a slap in the face to all the pairs of man and woman that even allowed you to exist to be here to read this. You insult your own blood.

Life is not about self serving pleasure, some of us are actually trying to push us forward. People want to chase hedonistic pleasures but life is not about your self, or your pleasures. People complain that life is hard, and that it is unfair. That your self is being neglected. Good. Life is supposed to be hard. You are supposed to suffer. It is not about you. That is what has made us the greatest species in this history of consciousness. Yet some think our position is certain, or that we have arrived, and can fall into hedonism and pleasure focused living. Like there is no room to improve. No. There is plenty of work, the human journey just started. This is not the end, this is the beginning. Life is a constant battle. Humans are very easily replaced. Some of you don't care to spread humanity, to continue pushing and fighting. I am not one of those people. And to those of us who aren't, it is both insulting to our efforts, and maybe an impediment even..

Humanity is not yet done evolving. But some of you are. You have no place in the future of humanity, it is why you can't reproduce. And it is why I can not accept.

gumisgood, City Data 12 Comments [7/1/2015 2:26:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: ScrappyB
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110348

Jimmy, You seem to think everything is a happy ending child’s book. Most of us on the right don’t care about gays and what they do in their bedrooms it’s the larger picture of displaying their sexual activity in public. The pride parade is a perfect example can you think of another similar event for a group where behaviours are on display of a sexual nature? Keep your private lives private, we understand what homosexuality is a sexual preference for the same sex we don’t need to see it in public, just like we don’t have parades where scantily clothed heterosexuals display to us the sexual nature of their lives.

As for marriage I always saw homosexuality as a choice to abandon two things, natural born children with your partner and marriage with them as well. For the prior 300 years until around 1990 nobody even considered gay marriage in our common law courts. The challenges to marriage were almost always around bigamy and the decisions always concluded with marriage being defined as between one man and one woman of consenting age. That definition did not discriminate against gays as they could marry a person of the opposite sex as well if they chose. Unlike racial exclusions which attached exceptions to conditions of the previous definition, sexual orientation did not prohibit one from meeting the preset conditions of marrying the opposite sex. What gays sought was an addition of an exceptional class to marry with no definitions of the term without a compelling legal reason. The concept violates the foundation of our justice system of stare decisis by carving out an exception for no legal reason. Civil unions would have granted all the power of marriage without the word and extended those protections to any number of couplings both gay and not. The whole gay marriage centered on the impossible being now made possible at a cost to our system of laws.

In the USA none of the justices in the majority addressed the 9th or tenth amendments, but instead chose the 14th to support their opinion. The 9th amendment would have been the most reasoned challenged as it defines that certain enumerations of rights do not disparage unenumerated rights and the argument could be made marriage was a right and gay marriage was one as well. The 10th however leaves to the states the powers that to delegate those that are not under the federal scope so at a minimum that should have been addressed as well. Instead they chose to declare marriage as a right to everybody that is protected equally which surely will be used to limit states rights to legislate against multiparty marriage and even as an unintended consequence things like gun control. Surely if unenumerated rights can’t be limited by the individual states then certainly enumerated ones like the second amendment can’t be. Thus gun control is also now dead at a state level in my mind. Same thing for hate speech laws, the states no longer have the ability to tackle legislation of individual rights, so basically the next 15 years will see dozens of constitutional challenges to any legislation that limits individual rights at a state level.

In Canada section 15 addresses individual rights in paragraph 1 and then enshrines discrimination in paragraph 2 to create equality, a prime example of what is wrong with creating exceptional classes. The funny elephant in the room is that a document addressing individual rights written less than 35 years ago somehow missed sexual orientation, are we to believe that NOBODY saw discrimination 35 years ago against gays or is it safe to assume there really was no need to address a personal matter like sex regarding public accommodation? This whole gay rights, sexual orientation movement is a creation of a handful of radical imbeciles holding the narrative of freedom captive to their sexual behaviour. Gays aren’t discriminated against unless they seek to flaunt their private behaviour and then only by a handful of people. They however have no problem creating confrontations by trying to attack faith based businesses for not endorsing their behaviour. I feel like going to a gay bakery and making them make me an anti-gay cake and see what it sets off. The simple and succinct definition of individual rights is they end where they impact others individual rights a concept people on the left can’t seem to accept.

Robert Prongay, The Rebel 14 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110347

Ian what a childish worldview you have, are you suggesting people’s thoughts should be policed by the state’s inclusive police? Is the semantics of wording to protect a very exclusive minority at the expense of a sizable portion of the community, FREEDOM? Are you blind to your very own ignorance of accusing all anti-gay marriage people of being theocrats or suggesting those with religious oppositions should have less merit based on their freedom of worship than a gay has regarding their freedom of sex?

Like every dimwitted, thought challenged leftist you use anti-miscegenation laws to support gay marriage leaving out the very real fact that those laws added to marriage conditions beyond its definition. Gay marriage is actually more similar to those laws then it is to what marriage is. Gay marriage is an additional exclusionary clause added to marriage to craft exceptions not remain inclusive as marriage was to all men and women who chose to marry the opposite sex. You fools that choose the symbology of civil rights to address discrimination that doesn’t exist are revolting anti-liberty crusaders seeking to create a tyranny of the minority on all people who believe in traditional values. You point out changing curriculum to become more “inclusive” in support of your beliefs rather than the scientific evidence that displays gays cannot naturally reproduce with their same sex partners. Should that be part of the curriculum? How about including this type of statement “although gays were granted the freedom to marry the same sex, unlike traditional couples these partners can not reproduce biologically with one another and must rely on surrogates or poor unfortunate people that have to give up their natural parental rights so gays can become legal parents. The confusion this leads to and the 300% increase in abuse to these children are unintended consequences of creating domestic sexual relationships to placate the self indulgent nature of people unable to live with the consequences of their chosen sexual lifestyle”. I think that would be an accurate description to include along with all the “positives” we need to provide children regarding the glory of homsexuality. Should we also include that 40% of post-op transgendered people attempt suicide and many regret their surgeries? I mean if we want to be inclusive we must have the truths lest people mutilate themselves.

So tell me Ian how is it that we move forward with this?

Robert Prongay , The Rebel 11 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110345

Nearly 21 years old and i am still a virgin.
I never even kissed and i see the way they look at me. Am i really so bad looking? Do i have to beg them and buy them with gifts to even let me kiss them? I would settle for even a slightly chubby chick if i didn't have to beg her to date me.

I hate them and i will show them just how pain feels. I will wait some time after making this post just in case someone connects the dots.

I plan to take a trip to a nearby country where i will pick a female and beat her up. I will smash her mobile phone, duct tape her mouth and arms and leave here there. Then i will change my clothes in a different location and walk up to my car and drive back to my country.

I will get to beat up a woman and get away with it too. Just lol at attacking women in your own country. All she will see is my clothes which i will change and she will never see me again

Thonis, sluthate 33 Comments [7/1/2015 3:20:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110317

[Article on BarbWire on how gay marriage is unjust. Written by a basketball player.]

This is more of the same: tout the love of God (true) and the fact He wins in the end (true) while offering no actual solution to halt the advance of evil.

Christians forget our God is also the God of the Old Testament, a God of wrath and fury and judgment. Lest you think otherwise, re-read the Book of Revelation (or read it for the first time), there is wrath aplenty in there.

Jesus gave us a very broad hint when He told His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. They showed Him two swords and He said it was enough. Enough for what? Conquest? Hardly. Two was enough for self-defense. We can fight back in self-defense when evil attacks or tries to force us to the bow the knee to false gods or unjust laws.

Christians need to grow a pair, stand up on their hind legs and fight for what we claim to believe in.


MichealVWilson, BarbWire 5 Comments [7/1/2015 2:46:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: AJ Williams
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110332

Your "man's law rules supreme" "morality" results in blacks being forced into slavery and Jews being forced into ovens.

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively "evil" Christians and the God of the Bible are.

Therefore, by identity with Premise 2, Conclusion 1 is achieved. Theref ore, by Modus Tollens of Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is achieved, and God exists. So, when you talk about how objectively "evil" Christians and their God is, you are unwittingly acknowledging His existence.

A-theists affirm Premise 1:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

“Let me summarize my views on what m odern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate
meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

As an a-theist, you don't get to criticize ANY morality - objective morality is just an ice cream flavor to you. By using the objective term "morally repugnant," you are actually admitting to an Objective Moral Standard and therefore, you are unwittingly affirming the existence of God. You can't have it both ways: if God does not exist, then all things are permissible. If you don't like that fact, take it up with your "pope" and "cardinals" of a-theism. :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, Christian News Network 16 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110318

Two children have reportedly been “crucified” by Isis for not fasting during the holy month of Ramadan.

The boys, believed to be under the age of 18, were killed in Syria and their bodies displayed with placards hung around their necks announcing their “crime”.

Their deaths in the town of Mayadin, Deir Ezzor province, were reported by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on Monday.

Founder Rami Abdel Rahman said residents reported the boys’ bodies were “suspended from a crossbar” near the so-called Islamic State’s religious police headquarters.

“Apparently, they were caught eating,” he told the AFP news agency, adding that the signs hung around their necks claimed they broke the Ramadan fast “with no religious justification”.

Islamic State, The Independent 5 Comments [7/1/2015 2:46:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: JeanP
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110328

Today the Theory of Evolution is very popular.  That theory says that you weren’t created, you’re just the random product of countless meaningless coincidences.  Evolution teaches that everything that exists only exists as a freak accident.  Evolutionists look around at the vast complexity of the universe and insist that there is no evidence that God exists.  Yet if you take those same Evolutionists into your house, show them the simple design of walls and a roof and ask them how it got there, the Evolutionists will say it’s obvious that someone with purpose and intelligence constructed the house.  This is the irony of Evolutionists: they can find two rocks stacked on top of each other in a field and observe certain details about the rocks that make it clear to them that someone intentionally placed one rock on another a very long time ago.  Then they get super excited about their finding and right a bunch of books about it.  Yet when they look around at the vast complexity of the universe, they say the whole thing exists by random chance and they adamantly insist that it is impossible to ever prove the existence of an intelligent Creator.  How can people talk so stupidly and not even hear how ridiculous they are being?  Well, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we are all stupid, and even when we’re surrounded by a ton of evidence for something, we can’t recognize it.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 9 Comments [7/1/2015 2:50:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110343

[Another fundie has said that animals never engage in homosexual sex.]

That's why I've been saying that promiscuous straight are as bad as animals while homosexuals are WORSE than animals.

WarriorX, Rapture Ready 13 Comments [7/1/2015 3:19:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: documentingtehcrazy
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110322

"O Yahweh, ... in wrath remember mercy." (Habakkuk 3:2)

Perhaps now Christians will wake up to the fact that we've been had and cease promoting the document responsible for this decision: The biblically seditious Constitution.

Consider the following sampling of reasons the Constitution stands as the genesis for today's horrific decision:

1) Unlike their 17th-century Christian Colonial predecessors, the 18th-century founders failed to expressly establish government and society upon Yahweh's unchanging morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, including those regarding the perversion of homosexuality.

2) Article 3's usurpation of the biblical magistrate appellate system for the Constitution's unbiblical litigant appellate system without which this issue would have never been before the Supreme Court to decide, in the first place.

3) Article 6's Christian test ban by which biblical qualifications were all but eliminated and without which it was inevitable that America would end up with today's Supreme Court Justices who are responsible for today's decision.

For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

Then Chapter 5 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation."

Then Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land."

Find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a free copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

Ted R. Weiland, Christian News Headlines 9 Comments [7/1/2015 2:49:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110346



TO TOLERATE HOMOSEXUALS IS EVIL.
This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!



Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.


Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \'re-pr?-?bat\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.
Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.
2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.
They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."




Yosemitest , Free Republic  15 Comments [7/1/2015 3:20:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110330

I don't know about over across the pond, but here, we have facilities where you can simply leave a new-born, no questions asked. That's it, just leave it.

I've used this before: Every rose has its thorns. Sex has the potential of bearing a child, it is a risk that both parents are aware of. (Of course, rape is excempt from this argument). Might as well adopt a child and kill it a year down the line for being a brat.

We need to be teaching society to accept consequences, not put them over onto somebody else (ESPECIALLY the victim!)

I was almost aborted as a child because the doctors didn't get much of a heartbeat going and suspected I had died. And yet, my mom said "I'll come in next week" and plop, there I was, heartbeat and all. Different circumstances, sure, but I was most definitely alive and it would have been quite painful to have my body crushed, even in the womb.

A fetus is a living organism. Though dependent upon the mother, the fetus can move with (very slightly) free will. And yet thousands of these lives are ended and uncared for. Tossed to the fucking garbage, a human life for fuck's sake. Functioning organs, developed nervous system, etc. And yet the fetus has no choice. You are not pro choice, I am pro choice. You are pro murder.



[[ A lot of animals are also killed so you can eat, having had a life that wasn't very enjoyable. What makes you say humans are so much more important?What makes the government allowed to force a woman to go through a lot of pain and even putting a child upon her that she may not even be able to afford or want to take care of. Adoption isn't something you do easily either, there is always an emotional scar. Giving up a baby after it's born can be very hard, however if you keep it then it changes your life forever. ]]



The thing is, we don't eat babies for our survival. That argument is irrevelant, since the slaughtered animals go to use whereas slaughter babies do not.

And the government shouldn't have to tell the woman what do do with her child's body. Not her body, her child's. But that is not the case. Because two people are stupid enough to not use protection in having sex, you think the government should kill the victim? (the child). Sure, save the woman some short time of pain, but make the majority of the child's life a living hell. That is humanitarian.




[[ The child does not feel a lot of pain. I don't know how it's done in the US though, but here..Also, short is relative. The woman is in pain longer than the child for a second. Births can take several hours upto a day even.What happens when people have used protection but it fails, as it does in some small percentage of all cases? ]]




1: More pain than the woman at least. It's the one being killed.
2: The baby is in pain more than a second (especially during partial birth abortions). And that time in comparison to its whole lifespan versus the 1 day of a woman in her whole lifespan puts, I believe, the baby at the disadvantage.

Go through the one day of suffering and allow the child to live, grow, and die by its own accords. It's one day to save a life...





whitey, Fallout Studios 7 Comments [7/1/2015 2:52:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110327

[Samuel James Twitter]

Tweet of the day.

[Charles C. W. Cooke]
I’m looking forward to next year’s blockbuster SCOTUS ruling determining that “four year term” and “no more than twice” mean “indefinitely.”


Samuel James and Charles C. W. Cooke, Twitter 11 Comments [7/1/2015 2:50:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: AJ Williams
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40