Do you have conservative friends? How can you be friend with

File: rr2r2.jpg (91KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 750x750px

Other than one liberal all my friends are anarchists.
They're cool with it. They're cool with most anything as long as I ain't imposing authority on people for no reason like some insane dickweed.

File: 1501979229485.jpg (86KB, 468x391px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 468x391px

I have no friends at all

>>8793228
Since when do conservatives think trannies shouldn't marry?

>>8793254
A lot of people much farther on the right try to hide their ideologies by claiming to be "conservatives", "centrists" or "classical liberals" when this is simply untrue, it's a mask, unfortunately this has ruined the public image of these groups, people not associate them with the extremists using them as a cover story to hide their true beliefs.

>>8793268
Except the "far right" are extreme leftists.

>>8793228
Most people who would use the conservative label these days don't give a damn about what you do in your personal life. Neocons on the other hand...

>>8793299
>the far right = the far left
Of course. Yes. Only truly educated radical centrists (who are really just extreme right wingers under a false label) are enlightened of course, of course. This is because obviously, the far left is the far right, and the far right is the far left. The anarchists and the fascists are the same, the social democrats and the libertarians are the same, it all makes sense now.

File: 1395368689291.jpg (132KB, 988x783px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 988x783px

>>8793243
unironically this, why the fuck else would you come to 4chan

>>8793307
Stop being retarded.

>>8793322
Yes, if you don't know the obvious truth that left=right and right=left then you're retarded.
I'm so smart, redefining everything to fit my niche narrative, god I'm so smart, let me go smell my own farts for a bit because I figured out that up=down and down=up to justify my own false centrism.

>>8793329
Name one single right-wing thing about the "far-right". Protip you can't.

>>8793337
Privatization.

>>8793341
Since when has the "far-right" supported privatization?

>>8793344
Since they invented it. In Germany. You'll never guess when.

>>8793329
I think what that anon is saying is that NAZIs and Communists are all from the same school of though and have way more similarities than differences. Communism is international socialism while Fascists/NAZIs are national socialists. They still operate on the same premises and moral axioms. I don't see why we would place them on the opposite political spectrum in that case. The far right would therefore be the Anarcho capitalists, the exact opposite of the socialists.
These of course are the extremes, the guys beating each other in the streets, all I see in this is fascists and communists fighting over which socialism gets to rule.

>>8793346
So you don't like... you know... books or history or basic knowledge do you?

>>8793348
They're not from the same school of thought. They come from different people from different times and advocate totally different things, the only similarity is the use of a large government, but that's where the similarities end.
Nazis are not socialist they literally invented privatization, they are actually a form of advanced capitalism.
Mind you I'm no communist either, as an insult I tend to call them "red fascists" but I'm not going to go and pretend that they're something they're not, it's just an insult, I recognize that they nationalize their economy, they don't privatize it. This is the main economic difference between the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right.

>>8793355
>gets btfo
>nuh uh you're wrong for no reason
Yes, praise mr right=left, also 2+2=5 :^)

>>8793346
[citation needed]

File: 12506589_10203759902558192_2115005868_n.jpg (30KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 436x436px

>he thinks that conservatives care about what is and isn't natural
they own cars and houses too. they don't give a shit about what is or is not natural

>>8793364
Everyone knows this. Everyone.

>>8793362
I don't think you can call fascism privatization. In NAZI Germany it was only private in name but the "owners" did what the national planners told them to do. That is not what I would call private. If we want to talk about the ultra privatized economy the closest it ever came to that was the US during the industrial revolution. I can't agree that fascism invented private property/economy it was around long before they were.
As far as Communists and Fascists coming form the same school of thought I think of Mussolini he was a Marxist and when the great promise did not happen on it's own he took ques from Lenin and put his own spin on it. Take what you will from that.

>>8793379
The concept of privatization fucking began there m8, I can and will call it that because anything else would be trying to rewrite history, I don't rewrite history. I don't care what you would want it to be called, it is what it is.
They didn't invent private property they invented privatization.
If Mussolini was a Marxist then wouldn't you realize that Marxist ideas began with Marx? And Marx took his ideas from elsewhere, the communists, to my best knowledge, started with the paris commune in 1871, while the fascists rose to power mostly in the early 1900s and defined themselves a lot by the stark contrast to the socialists of the time. They are the "alternative" now just as they were the "alternative" then.

Not necessarily conservative friend but at my first job I had a manager who was clearly uncomfortable with lgbt stuff. On my first day of meeting him he grabbed one of the female co-workers and said "you know anon a man needs a woman". I wasn't identifing as gay, and certainly hadn't begin to think about transitioning. We got along as co-workers should, but one day as I was experiencing strong dysmorphia, he joking grabbed me and held a knife to my throat. Because of that I repressed massively and basically kept to myself afterwards

>>8793398
I still have to argue over privatization as I stated that the state still controlled the actual production of these private companies down to what they made and how much they could sell it for. I see nothing private in that when the governments are calling the shots.
Of course there is a progression with Marx stemming from the French Revolution. Mussolini was even an editor of a Marxist news paper, or magazine, I can't remember which, but he was heavily influenced by those ideas and those of communism. He started the more fascist side when he saw that Marx's predictions of the natural transition to communism did not happen.

>>8793435
It may not have been "perfect" (assuming we both want privatization and would call it perfection even if we don't) but it still opened up the path for private entities and organizations to own what would previously not be an option for them to own. It may not have been ideal but it was certainly not true nationalization of the economy.
I think Mussolini going and changing his mind like that speaks for my point about them defining themselves by opposition to each other, I don't remember who it was maybe Mao but somebody presented the idea of supporting, politically, all the things your enemy denounces. That sort of attitude I feel really encapsulates the relationship of the Fascists and the Communists, even if their ideas share common people, common actors, the core of it, the meat of it, comes from wildly different interpretations of more basic collectivist ideas. One of them being internationalist collectivism/nationalist collectivism, though I'd say the USSR-era commies definitely failed at the whole "not being nationalist" aspect of communist thought.

>>8793456
I can see that and now I think I understand your point a little better. The reason I say they are pretty much the same coin just different sides is that they come from the collectivist schools of thought. When I think left I think collectivist and when I think Right I think individualist which is why I stated in my first post that the anracho-capitalists was the extreme right, not the NAZIs. The aught to be setup this way individualist thought vs collectivist thought.

>>8793468
It's less in my mind a collectivist/individualist dichotomy because, some systems claim to merge these two concepts, some would even say it's necessary to merge the ideas if you want either of them. I'd say the deal with the right and the left both being able to be authoritarian or libertarian has merit, the word libertarian actually comes from old school leftist anarchists for example. The difference between left and right I would say is the focus on the desires of people on different ends of the social hierarchy.

For example, your anarcho-capitalist will focus on freedom from the perspective of bankers, landlords, ceos, and such, it will be their idea of freedom, while your anarcho-communist will focus on freedom from the perspective of farmers, factory workers, the homeless, and other such downtrodden types, it would be their idea of freedom instead. This is also shown in the difference of their authoritarian sides, with the stalinist, state communist left having a lot of rhetoric about the ideal "working man", a person who is below the rest, and the authoritarian right having a lot of rhetoric about the ideal nation or about god, two things that are above the rest.

>>8793495
This is pretty well done and I see what possible mistake I am making I will have to think a little more on this and do a little more reading.
The only other thing I have to argue against is the perspective on the anarcho-capitalist, I fit into this category quite a bit and my idea on it is simple a person who wants to keep products of their labor whether that is money or an physical product. I could care less about bankers I only want to be left alone to pursue my own ends and life. If that means the bankers CEOs and landlords get to do the same then so be it. That is just me personally however and it may not fit a label by it's proper definition and with so many definitions for everything these day it can be hard to have a discussion with out each person defining the terms as they see them, which unfortunately leads to a lot of initial issues.

>>8793546
I wouldn't impose and tell someone what they think, others have done that to me and it's very frustrating but I do want to suggest you look into or give a chance to mutualism or other more modern forms of market anarchism, because in your explanation of your own ideas you sound a lot like my one market anarchist friend. I don't follow mutualist/market anarchist thought too much myself but the general idea I've gathered is ownership through use but not through coercion, so you can keep the product of your labour but you can also compete in the free market. Dissimilar to socialist modes of production where you keep the product of your labour but there is no free market, or capitalism where there is a free market to enjoy but unfortunately many are denied the product of their labour. It seems like a healthy middle ground.

I really have to agree that language is a horribly limiting thing, there's too many connotations and assumptions made with most of our labels. It's why I think we should all be stating our plans, not our ideologies. For example if I say "post-leftist" this will create an emotional response from leftists who feel threatened by our theories, but if I say "focus on the politics of our daily lives and the direct negation of hierarchies which effect us" suddenly the leftists don't want to hang me anymore.

>>8793593
That makes a lot of sense with mutualists it reminds me of voluntarism in a lot of ways in the way you explain it.
You could not be more right on the language issues. It is why a thread like this can even exist. Throw out political word that incites emotional knee jerk reactions with out having to confront the nuance of the ideas held by someone who may use or have that label put upon them.

I'm a conservative (I'm also in love with a girl who is bi) but I think if you think less of gays you can fuck off with your greater than thou bullshit, Everyone should be judged based on their attitude not their sexuality ( Also because the alternative is to be a building burning autism machine)

File: 3e9249ab2c8182310581d3e5dd93a7fc.jpg (42KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x315px

>>8793695
>Everyone should be judged

>>8793362
>They're not from the same school of thought
they both seek to impose their vision of utopia upon the rest of society

>Nazis are not socialist they literally invented privatization
ok stop. troll or genuine stupidity; this convo is going nowhere. good day sir

>>8793228
Conservative people really don't care bud.

Why do you seem to think everyone cares about what you do in your personal life?

Guys I personally see no merit to the concept of individuals who can accumulate massive amounts of wealth by control and ownership of the means of production, essentially only trading in imaginary concepts written on slips of paper with those among their own class. They don't really put forth meaningful effort or have equivalent merit as individuals so what is their claim to ownership and possession? The mere existence of the wealthy class seems itself to be an anathema to my ideals because it doesn't truly seem to make them any more happy to achieve it, simply more insane, detached and hedonistic if anything, while those who stick to the bottom of the economy become more content with their misery if they can dream of making it big. In that sense, where would I be on the spectrum if I think the nation should ultimately control the distribution of wealth and production, assigning individuals based on ability and respect, rewarding them with the power to make greater decisions of what to do with that potential and the respect of their fellow countrymen for success? I don't see the point of a luxury that exists in excess of a person's ability to produce, they should only receive that which is equivalent to their actual merit or that which is considered permissible and necessary by the dictates of human need and dignity. The systems that are in place now all seem archaic in light of the potential for a government that sustains absolute freedom and ubiquity of information.

>>8793709
It's hilarious that the Jews write this, but they don't follow it. They just want you to do so. It's not even the original content, it's a rewrite!

>>8793744
>they both seek to impose their vision of utopia upon the rest of society
This is literally everyone except the nihilists, who propose that there is no future and we should destroy everything. Except for them, everyone is pushing their utopian vision.
>ok stop. troll or genuine stupidity; this convo is going nowhere. good day sir
Ignorance is not justifiable, pathetic.

>>8793754
You can't mitigate the catastrophe that is class structure with a more responsible class structure. It's like fighting cancer by smoking.

Last I checked libshits were the ones bringing all the fucking muslims in to preach sharia, leading to us getting thrown off rooves and stoned to death.

>>8793775
It doesn't matter if it's a bad idea, enforcing and elevating responsibility is the only solution that seems like it will work to me, even if the result is that it turns the nation itself into a megalomaniac. We have to create a meritocracy that's somehow measured by morality and transparency before the situation degenerates beyond repair.

>>8793231
>anarchist
>cool with most anything as long as I ain't imposing authority on people for no reason
hm

File: 1480809105280.jpg (155KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x1280px

>>8793228
I have a pretty close friend whose a TERF, which is arguably a lot worse than a conservative ( although she's not the kind of "will back stab other feminist causes just to screw over trans women" type of TERF, so that helps).

If she knows I'm trans (idk if she does) she's never commented on it, and she has no problem with me IDing as a lesbian (she's straight herself).

File: 2084a1c70b96d3c63629b4b129fe8360.png (827KB, 897x1100px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 897x1100px

I have friends with conservative views but when it comes to the gays and trannies they don't really care. Only alt-right turds and old people care about this shit.

>>8793228
>How can you be friend with people who reject your very being, think you aren't natural and shouldn't marry?
With this logic you should not have straight friends at all.

File: Capture.jpg (58KB, 653x618px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 653x618px

>>8793228
>conservative friends
I have those, including two lesbians. My mother and half my family as well. Registered Republicans, regular church-goers etc. However, they're all accepting of me and gay marriage. You can be a conservative on a number of issues but not be homophobic, racist etc. like the alt-right. It's not even uncommon, as pic related shows.

>>8793228
I am conservative.

>who reject your very being
Stop being a dramatic faggot.

>think you aren't natural
Stop being a dramatic faggot.

>and shouldn't marry?
We shouldn't, marriage exists for the purposes of having and raising children.

>inb4 adoption
No, children deserve a mother and a father

>inb4 childless people marry
Society's standards lowering overall is not an excuse to abandon the principle.

>>8793228
i had friends who just stopped talking to me and having contact with me and i never really noticed. i think its a shame because i'm very traditional(i am monogamous, recently got married, want to be a mom) and i envy the life my friend has (she has a husband, she has babies, she has a nice place, they're grounded people). the only thing is is that i like girls, i have a wife.

i think its really stupid and sad to cut someone off. we want the same life, we have the same goals, but she doesn't want to be friends anymore. i was at her wedding, but she wouldn't go to mine.

I am semi-conservative (centrist?) and married to a super conservative guy. We waited til marriage and go to church every Sunday and everything. So I don't know what you are talking about? Not everyone on /lgbt/ is a gay dude.

>>8793228
> its a liberals think conservatives operate on a hivemind chapter

Religious conservatives are wanning in power. Modern young conservatives are pro LGB

The trannies should kill themselves tho desu

File: Zabivaka.jpg (89KB, 642x814px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 642x814px

Uh, everyone's ultra-conservative here where I live. You westerners should really check your first world privilege.

>>8793921
Except plety of straight people don't reject homosexual.

>>8794158
>We shouldn't, marriage exists for the purposes of having and raising children.
It doesn't.

>>8793921
Yeah, that's one of the many perks of sticking up for what's right.

File: 2009-05-27-prop8cartoon.jpg (111KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x465px

>>8794158
>We shouldn't, marriage exists for the purposes of having and raising children.
>My nonsensical definition of marriage should apply and be the law
Okey.

>Society's standards lowering overall is not an excuse to abandon the principle.
Yes, people not having children is definitely a lowering os society standards.

>>8794224

Different anon but it does, sorry.

File: pic.png (933KB, 957x1024px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 957x1024px

>>8793228
Cis Only

https://discord.gg/u5zr42q

>>8794242

>that image
2 drunk people, 2 people looking for publicity (wtf), divorce and remarriage, a man and an "oblivious woman" and 2 strangers would not be considered a valid marriage in the church. The only "valid" marriage on that whole shitty picture is the rich old guy and the good looking young woman because who cares?

>that post
Marriage is rooted in the propagation of life. If you want a casual sex friendo then go get one.

>>8793921
?

>>8794254
>in the church
Who gives a shit about the church?

>Marriage is rooted in the propagation of life.
Except it isn't and it doesn't even make sense because people can do what they want once married.

>>8794254
>Marriage is rooted in the propagation of life
Weird, I could swear I've been married for 15 years and I never had children.

>>8794384
>Who gives a shit about the church?

Far far far more people than those who live in any earthly nation outside India/China.

>Except it isn't and it doesn't even make sense because people can do what they want once married.
1) Yes it is
2) No people can't "Do what they want once married" what are you even talking about?

>>8794394
If you aren't open to having children then your marriage is invalid, same as a "gay marriage". Having two broken marriages doesn't magically make them fixed.

>>8793228
I had one conservative friend. When I came out of the closet, he tried to be acceptable and pretend nothing had really changed. But after a couple of months the friendship ended. He was my best friend, and it hurt alot, but I'm not mad at him.

>>8794395
>Far far far more people than those who live in any earthly nation outside India/China.

The separation of church and state. No one gives a shit about your religion again, stop imposing your belief on others.

>1) Yes it is
No, it isn't. Nowhere in the law is written you need to have children to get married. It's something you can do if you want or you can die at 90 without any heir.

>2) No people can't "Do what they want once married" what are you even talking about?
Yes they can? They can divorce and chose to not have children. Heck, they can cheat on their spouse and have children outside of marriage.

>>8794403
>you aren't open to having children then your marriage is invalid,
This doesn't make any sense, what?

File: wives1.jpg (38KB, 489x459px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 489x459px

>>8794254
Wrong, marriage is between one man and as many wives he can.

>>8794224
It does. The origins of the word involve connections to the terms for cross-breeding, words for "girl/woman" in various languages, and the concept of "promise." In other words, to "marry" is to promise your life to a woman with whom you will create a child.

>>8794242
>nonsensical
>it doesn't make sense because I don't like it!

>Yes, people not having children is definitely a lowering os society standards.
I'm sorry, was that image supposed to be a COUNTER-argument, or...???

>>8794452
>It does. The origins of the word involve
lol

>connections to the terms for cross-breeding, words for "girl/woman" in various languages, and the concept of "promise." In other words, to "marry" is to promise your life to a woman with whom you will create a child.
So lesbians marry since they can create a child?

>>it doesn't make sense because I don't like it!
Because it doesn't.

>I'm sorry, was that image supposed to be a COUNTER-argument, or...???
lol

>>8794428
>The separation of church and state. No one gives a shit about your religion again, stop imposing your belief on others.
You're the one "imposing your belief". I just say the truth and you are the one flipping out. Every "state" inevitably rises and falls, the Church has outlasted every earthly state and easily contains more people than your own state (again unless you are Chinese, and neither China nor India recognizes gay marriages either). The Church will certainly outlast your government and your law and your fake "marriage".

>No, it isn't. Nowhere in the law is written you need to have children to get married.
Marriage exists outside of the law. At least real marriages exist outside of the law. Your """marriage""" might well disappear without the law, but that's because its not a real marriage to begin with.

>Yes they can? They can divorce and chose to not have children. Heck, they can cheat on their spouse and have children outside of marriage.
Valid marriages can not be dissolved and always are centered on children. Adultery is a mortal sin. Next.

>>8794432

I don't know how to say it any more simply than I already did. Do you need a word defined for you?

>>8794446

Nope, marriage is monogamous.

>>8794463
>So lesbians marry since they can create a child?
I don't know what planet you live on. But on the one I'm communicating from, lesbians cannot create children together without some incredibly fancy medical technology that really shouldn't be put in service of creating fatherless homes.

>Because it doesn't.
I just explained why the concept of marriage does not include gay people. You can accept it or pout, I don't really care.

>lol
Nothing says, "I can't argue my point" like saying "lol" in response to a direct question.

>>8794470
>You're the one "imposing your belief"
No one is telling you to get gay married.

>very "state" inevitably rises and falls, the Church has outlasted every earthly state and easily contains more people than your own state

Your religion is barely 2000 years old and had significant shift though the ages. Unless you are implying women still belong to their husband and protestants aren't a thing.

>(again unless you are Chinese, and neither China nor India recognizes gay marriages either)
You know than are far more religions than Catholicism, right?

>The Church will certainly outlast your government and your law and your fake "marriage".
This straight up doesn't mean anything.

>Marriage exists outside of the law.
It doesn't.

> At least real marriages exist outside of the law. Your """marriage""" might well disappear without the law, but that's because its not a real marriage to begin with.
At contrary, you marriage is entirely artificial because it's based on your religion.

>Valid marriages can not be dissolved and always are centered on children
People can get divorced.

>Adultery is a mortal sin.
lol

>Next.
I wonder why catholic always spend so much time on these boards.

>>8793299
Far right isn't just nazis, you tard

>>8794494
>fancy medical technology
Sperm banks are not "fancy", it's an incredibly simple procedure.

>really shouldn't be put in service of creating fatherless homes.
It's not in your power to dictate a woman right to get pregnant.

>I just explained why the concept of marriage does not include gay people.
But it does. Gay people can get married nowadays in America. Heck, gay people have been getting married through the world since ancient age.

>Nothing says, "I can't argue my point" like saying "lol" in response to a direct question.
Not my fault you are too stupid to understand a simple pic.

File: 1432448638778.jpg (183KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 600x400px

>>8794470
>Valid marriages can not be dissolved and always are centered on children. Adultery is a mortal sin. Next.
>It's a sky wizard believer again


You know there is no heaven and once you die you are not going in it, right?

>>8794503
>No one is telling you to get gay married.
You're telling me to accept fake marriages as real ones. I won't. Sorry.
>Your religion is barely 2000 years old and had significant shift though the ages.
Not really, she's had minor shifts.
> Unless you are implying women still belong to their husband and protestants aren't a thing.
Protestants are not "my religion" and women never "belonged to their husband" (lol)
>You know than are far more religions than Catholicism, right?
Of course. And?
>This straight up doesn't mean anything.
I'm just saying, far far far more people care about, have cared about and will continue to care about the Church, so your entire "nobody cares about the Church" thing is just wrong. The Church trumps every single earthly institution.

File: 4i2u86S.png (693KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 720x480px

>>8794534
>>8794470
To add to this, it's this dude again:
>https://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/8633782/#8634298

Same identical posting style. Loves to come to /lgbt/ to get told about marriage.

>>8794534
>You know there is no heaven
Yes there is.

>once you die you are not going in it, right?
I may or I may not, but if I go to Hell it won't be because Heaven isn't real. It'll be because I did a shit job of following the Church.

>>8794213
We both know that's bullshit.

>>8793228
Exactly the opposite, actually. I'm extremely fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I'm married to a center-left man whose friends are all liberal. I listen their rant about Trump every time we meet, but they all say I'm a wonderful guy and a nice person, even though I openly advocated for deporting every single illegal and other stuff. I really want to know why they hate Trump and other "stupid conservatives", but like me.

>>8794545
>You're telling me to accept fake marriages as real ones. I won't. Sorry.
No one cares what you believe. People have laws. You should respect those laws. Oh by the way, people are not forced to recognize your fake marriage too because god doesn't exist.

>Not really, she's had minor shifts.
You clearly need to study hystory.

>Protestants are not "my religion" and women never "belonged to their husband" (lol)
See up here.

>Of course. And?
No, you clearly don't.

>The Church trumps every single earthly institution.
Except it doesn't if you don't believe in the church. Oh and it also doesn't make the church has no power to make laws.

In short, your "church" has no power at all.

File: 2csclll.jpg (38KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 562x437px

>>8794559
>Yes there is.
Oh yes! Sky wizard! Totally exist.

News at 11: God doesn't exist and you marriage is a make-believe pact with no legal power without the state help!

>>8794545
>Not really, she's had minor shifts.
>“Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.
20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.

>>8794584
1 - “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
2 - “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

3 - “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

4 - “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

5 - “So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

6 - “In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

>>8794589
7 - “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

8 - ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

9 - “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

10 - “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

File: vattican.jpg (136KB, 1584x1038px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1584x1038px

>>8794559
>I may or I may not, but if I go to Hell it won't be because Heaven isn't real. It'll be because I did a shit job of following the Church.
I agree, we all know the Church is all about the gay sex nowadays.

>>8794571
>No one cares what you believe.
You apparently do or you wouldn't be flipping out.
> People have laws. You should respect those laws
I respect the laws so long as the laws are not requiring me to commit sin. As taught by the Church. I won't recognize a lie as the truth though, because the law doesn't have power over that.
>people are not forced to recognize your fake marriage too because god doesn't exist.
Yes he does, and no people aren't forced to recognize anything. Not even love, beauty or the truth herself. Its their loss though.
>See up here.
Where?
>it doesn't if you don't believe in the church
The truth exists independently if you "believe in" it or not.
> Oh and it also doesn't make the church has no power to make laws.
She certainly does and she has, for example, canon law.
>In short, your "church" has no power at all.
LOL she literally has the power to bind and unbind.

>>8794584
This quote was never part of Church law it is a Jewish law.

>>8794589
1 is very much part of Church law.
2, 3 were never part of Church law and are Jewish laws.
4 isn't a law at all, its a line in a poem wtf.
5, 6, 7, 8 aren't laws at all, they are just things that happened.
9, 10 are not direct laws and were never treated as such but exemplify a spirit which are still reflected in the law.

If you want to look at what the Church teaches you need to google up something called the CCC.

The Church has shifted slightly in her approach and in certain small t traditions in order to best serve the people of a given time and place. She's never shifted "greatly" in anything.

File: and_i_said_whayayayayayyaayayayayayyaayaytdothlife_by_pencilfromcydonia-dagf4pp.png (37KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 300x250px

>>8793243
Same here but everyone else I know (by face of course) hates all lgbt. They'll never know.

>>8794752
>You apparently do or you wouldn't be flipping out.
Irrelevant. You intent to impose your make believe law over actual law.

>I respect the laws so long as the laws are not requiring me to commit sin.

Irrelevant. If you don't like, go live in the Vatican, I suppose. Otherwise, anyone would come up with religion reasons to not do anything.

"My religion requires me to kill your first son, comply because I cannot commit sin"

This is you.

>Yes he does
Your marriage doesn't exist. If you are not married by the law, you are effectively just playing a make-believe game.

>The truth exists
There is no truth. Your church has now power over the law.

>She certainly does and she has, for example, canon law.
lol

>LOL she literally has the power to bind and unbind.
What can your church do to me?

>>8794777
>1 is very much part of Church law.
Entirely false, especially this part:
>1 - “I do not permit a woman to teach

>If you want to look at what the Church teaches you need to google up something called the CCC.

I know what the church teaches. I went to catechism. It teaches you plenty of OT stuff. You don't sound a very knowledgeable christian.

>The Church has shifted slightly in her approach and in certain small t traditions in order to best serve the people of a given time and place
Woah, sounds like definitions and rules change after all? Not that it matters, you can keep your fake marriage and nonexistent god, just don't pretend you should have any power over other people.

If you don't live, leave your country and go live in the Vatican. People shouldn't be subjected to your imaginary god and laws.

>>8793695
Then what do you mean by conservative?

>>8793754
I like how well you put that, gonna steal a couple of those sentences. That being said I don't know if I agree with your solution. Single point of failure systems cannot be trusted. Who would be in charge of assigning work and dispensing rewards in your scheme?