Would this be a good idea for a show?

Would this be a good idea for a show?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i3zVTGQfdHc
youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I'd watch that show.

Biblical laws are pretty sweet, though

I'll get to stone me some faggots

Like stoning sodomites and adulterers?

Under the old Biblical laws, you can hardly even breath without offending God. That would be entertaining to see with anyone.

>biblical laws

like what? Old testament jewish laws? The ten commandments? The couple of social rules jesus and the apostles suggested?

And if I rape your daughter, all I have to do is find two goats to give you as bride price to marry her.

A reality show about people having to live under laws of older civilizations would be pretty interesting. That's actually a really good idea, someone should make it.

Nah, I get to stone you.

>implying christians are against gays because of biblical "laws"

You need to be religious to be against gay marriage. This is fact.

No, that's not how it works. If I fail to pay the bride price, you get to castrate me or take the hands that touched her. Stoning me even though I paid for your daughter would be murder, which would get you stoned to death.

>let he who is without sin cast the first stone

There wouldn't be any stonings. Unless Jesus showed up which would be kino

Fun Fact: It's possible to oppose gay marriage without being a christian who gets his political justifications from the bible

what was her point again?

On what grounds? I'm interested.

lets have a show where pro refugee liberals get to live under sharia for 6 months

Why not both? Getting both sides of this argument would be a valuable learning experience. And living under sharia law and old testament biblical law is basically the same thing, so...

I'm sensing potential for some spin offs here.

How about a show where anarchists have to live without using any services provided or part funded by the local or federal government for six months?

What about people who oppose gay marriage because they are disease vectors and turbo degenerates? I didn't care until I saw a gay pride parade in person, now I think they should be put in camps.

how about there being no reason to socially or worse politically support it?

>its an ancaps get to argue over roads episode

That's the entire point the tweet is making.

That it would be entertaining to watch them struggle

If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, what harm does it do? There's no reason to oppose it outside of religious or personal prejudice either.

a reality show where liberals have to live under islamic laws for 1 month

...

Not him but I guess anyone is allowed to have a negative opinion of marriage in general.

Imo, marriage is an overrated meme.

It grosses me out to see openly homosexual people because I've grown up being told that it's wrong and horrible.

wow, imagine how bad life without fag marriage must be.

No him, but look at the USSR, China, and North Korea all state atheist countries that were anti-religion and you don't/didn't see gay marriage there.

Japan has no Christian history but gay marriage isn't legal (I heard one ward in Tokyo made it legal, but the legality of that decision is questionable)

India isn't an historically Christian nation, but I doubt same-sex marriage is legal there.

I would assume the grounds would be it isn't natural, most of the ethnic, laws, and taboos of Christianity aren't limited to the Abrahamic religions. Societies have historically tried to keep things in order and ostracize those who go against the norm.

Assuming New Testament since OT is Jewish? That would be pretty much the entirety of civilisation up until about 6 years ago. Or in America's case, up until whenever it was they legalised abortion.

Except no liberals are in favor of religious-based laws, unlike backwoods Christcucks.

>Would this be a good idea for a show?
yes

>WE DONT SUPPORT RELIGION OF ANY KIND
>STOP BANNING MUSLIMS
>REFUGEES WELCOME
>a massively disproportionate amount of Muslims rape children and a majority of them favour homosexuality being outright illegal?
>YOU FUCKING ISLAMAPHOBE

Because marriage is between a man and a woman

You don't have to be a Christian to believe that, and you don't have to have any justification other than the fact that It's not normal and you believe marriage should stay the way it's always been.

For what It's what I don't have anything against civil partnerships between gays or gays, assuming they meet all other criteria, adopting children (But would obviously be on a lower priority than straight couples).

Cartoons are now historical fact. Fascinating.

Being a muslim, for example

Christian here,

Christian law is subjugated to cultural transformations every single generation and the exact biblical laws in the Bible haven't been followed on a large scale since the actual writing of the Bible. There are some dogmatic beliefs that are pretty much safeguarded by Christianity throughout the ages sure, but none of them have anything to do with gay marriage, just marriage as a whole.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuals can't get married, just that marriage is between a man and a woman which was pretty much the only coupling that marriages saw back then. Also what about Islam, statistically they hate homosexuals more than Christians.

>allowing gays to adopt children when they're only 1% of the population yet responsible for 30% of child molestation
You're fucking mental.

You got any sources to back that up?

Muslims wouldn't have any problem living under their ancient religious laws, since they do it every day. Christians are out of touch and practice with the old barbarism of their faith.

>Imo, marriage is an overrated meme.

Yeah, but at this point it's just a good idea based on the tax breaks. Sup Forums loves to argue about divorce and alimony and blahblahblah, but it's the same as entering a business relationship. Don't enter one unless you're certain your partner is committed to see it through, and even if you are get some contracts to protect you in case things go south.

Otherwise what you're left with is money on the table. If you're in a committed relationship and you're certain you love each other you'd be fucking dumb to not get married. The government has rigged it so far in married couple's favor that it's silly to even discuss not doing it.

>Christian here
stop reading there
nice blogpost godfag

>don't fuck around
>go to church on sundays
>don't eat meat on fridays
>don't work on saturdays
>take communion at least on easter
>respect your elders
>don't be a cunt
That's 100% Bliblical laws for you. Average family can pull it off without problems.

>USSR
>China
>North Korea
Homosexuality is a bourgeoisie disease

>Japan
Conservative society strongly influenced by 19th century Victorian era

>India
They are definitely against it, but I don't know why. It's probably against their religion or something. There are also many Muslims there. It's actually getting better, though. In the 1990s they were burning theaters when a film about lesbians was screened.

Not him, but the only reason the state promotes marriage is to create a stable family structure so that the mother and father can procreate and make future citizens who aren't entirely fucked up. Children generally do their best in households with a daddy and a mommy who are biologically their father and mother. I get that there are exceptions to the rule. There are people who were raised by both biological parents and were fucked, and there were people raised by one parent or by gays who turned out fantastic, but they're an exception.

So what use does the state have for gay couples? What purpose do they serve? Why should the state promote it and support it? They can adopt, but so can a straight couple, and adoption is sub-optimal, a way of dealing with a problem that really wouldn't exist if every baby born were raised by both biological parents (the preferred method). The answer is there's really no use for gay marriages to the government.

Honestly, though, I kind of feel that it's a moot point. The ease of divorce has already made even straight marriages practically useless. In my opinion, the state should just get out of marriages altogether.

>what harm does it do
you could replace gay rights with literally anything else and the "what harm does it do" argument would still make you look like a complete idiot.

That's nice straw-manning, but literally has nothing to do with allowing sharia law to run government.

Try again, sweetie.

Pick a country. Check it's statistics. It's weirdly the same the world over. You'll even see the stat in pro-gay articles, where they'll claim gay child rape isn't gay for some reason. It's bizarre.

Nope. If you include the Old Testament it's getting complicated.

Not him, but does it even matter?

Girls and boys get molested, mostly by men. That would be x amount of them prefer girls (I guess straight in this case) the others boys (meaning teh gays).

I'm not really sure what you could extrapolate from that, people usually separate pedophilia from homosexuality though, as you would from heterosexuality.

People live under islamic laws everyday and thats way harder. It wouldn't even be a challenge unless youre a degenerate.

>Christians
>old testament

>assuming they met all other criteria

The fucked in the head, sucking a new dick every other night faggots who like to groom little boys obviously wouldn't be able to adopt

Ideally children will be raised by their mother and father, or If that's not possible (death, etc), raised by friends and family

But realistically some children are just born and abandoned or have to live with single parents.

I believe two gay parents who are in a stable loving relationship, however unnatural, will raise more productive, healthy and successful children than a single parent or some kid that doesn't even have a home.

>importing muslims until they're a majority has nothing to do with Sharia Law
Oh deary deary me.

>sweetie
I bet you're balding and have a beard.

Why should you get to determine what other people do? Isn't that what you always accuse liberals of doing?

Marriage wasn't invented by Christians, and if we followed Christian law, then divorce would be illegal and Buddhists wouldn't be allowed to get married.

Nice way to avoid answering the question. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry if they want, regardless of gender.

>OT
>Christian
Lmao

This is where you take that quote from Matthew and don't understand it.

There's several Islamic offshoots that don't like to live under ancient Islamic laws, but in general they are far more open to practicing their faith without question yes.

I wouldn't exactly say we're out of touch with Christian barbarism, Christianity has been the center of philosophic debate for a much longer time and Christians have stopped murdering their opposition a long time ago. This changed the way even Christians look at Christianity and what its very core meaning entails.

I'm sorry you feel that way user.

Yes, Old Testament is part of the Bible.

>>importing muslims until they're a majority has nothing to do with Sharia Law

True.

But also a stupid statement since Muslim immigrants do not outnumber native populations in any region of the world that wasn't already Muslim.

>getting to live in the Vatican

Not bad

I'd prefer the show where Islam apologist have live in the middle east under Sharia law for six months.

Old Testament is for jews, it's clearly stated in new testament as Jesus death marked the new covenant, which sure, carried over some elements from OT, but the most retarded part of it were replaced. Theology 101.

>The fucked in the head, sucking a new dick every other night faggots who like to groom little boys
Good to see you agree that gays should never be allowed to adopt.

And I bet you're projecting. My hair is past shoulder-length. Neither my dad or my granddad went bald, even after chemo.

I do have a beard though.

Faggots are one thing. Gay men are another.

>WARNING US ABOUT WHATS COMING IS STUPID BECAUSE IT HASNT HAPPENED YET
Imagine being you.

But this thread is about Biblical laws, not about Christians.

So no source, then?

never shared any of my feelings with you

>you could replace gay rights with literally anything else and the "what harm does it do" argument would still make you look like a complete idiot.

You still haven't answered the question, retard.

>but dude christainity did was bad shit like...hundreds of years ago

>Why should you get to determine what other people do?

Because I like my society a certain way and I intend to see it stays that way. Gay marriage devalues the idea of marriage, which I believe is an important institution of civil society. Changes I disagree with represent a degeneration.

>Isn't that what you always accuse liberals of doing?

You don't me. Burn that strawman of me you've created in your head because It won't help you in an argument.

>Marriage wasn't invented by Christians, and if we followed Christian law, then divorce would be illegal and Buddhists wouldn't be allowed to get married.

I'm not Christian

let me guess you guys dont have an issue with pedophilia too since it doesnt hurt anyone?

>Makes claim
>Doesn't have any sources
>Does it even matter if i have any proof or not ?????

idiot

He really did address the question, though, by explaining why it was a useless question to ask.

No, they're not. Faggots are faggots are faggots. Every last one of them. The only people who say this shit are people who have never spoken to a single faggot and think they're all the way NPH projects himself to be.

>thinning hippie hair
>beard
>trying to seriously claim hair survived chemo
Embarrassing.

>WHATS COMING

It's not even a trend. Even the cities with the highest percentage of Islamic immigration are still overwhelmingly white.

Nor does it have anything to do with Sharia Law. Just admit you were wrong. It will feel better.

You can still hate brown people, I swear.

youtube.com/watch?v=i3zVTGQfdHc

Israel changed quite a lot. In many ways it's a Western country. Can you imagine a film like this made in any Arab/Muslim country?

>Old Testament is for jews
the entire OT is derived from Jewish religion, which is derived from Zoroastrianism in ancient Iran.
>some elements
you mean everything, stop cherrypicking. The only thing he removed was animal sacrifices. He introduced more mercy.

I meant sorry my post makes you feel not like reading it user, have a great day.

When did I say that? Also, you're an idiot for comparing homosexuality, which involves a consensual sexual relationship between adults, and pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, who cannot give consent.

I must be a temperamental faggot, because I am still super bothered when arrogant naysayers have no fucking clue how Christianity or the New Testament work. I mean I can't ask for everyone to have religious education but when people say 'oh religious people are basically stupid retards, so I, sure I can assume religion is whatever dumbest shit I can think of' just because they deny that anyone who think homosexuality isn't productive must be a hypocrite with zero internal consistency. Religion is meaningful and important, feel free to move on from it or make it obsolete, but it's a sensible relationship with the universe that's a part of where we came from. It's cool.

Also, Amish society is some of the best and most wholesome stuff.

Marriage as a concept and institution is not sacred as long as divorce is legal.

im talking about being a pedophilia in and of itself not the action of an adult getting with a kid

by your logic being a pedophile is okay cause it doesnt harm anyone

>let me guess you guys dont have an issue with pedophilia too since it doesnt hurt anyone?

Young children can't consent to sexual activity, so yeah I do have an issue with pedophilia.

Marriage is a covenant centered around procreation. Homosexuals can't procreate, hence homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

Also, there's this:

youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU

Wrong. The most important institution of civil society is individual freedom. People like you are everything that is wrong with this country. The arrogance of thinking everyone should have to live by your standards.

>I just posted that I'm Christian so I'll roleplay as a saint for the rest of the thread
it's okay user, you can say mean things online. You know you did it in some other thread

I must be a temperamental faggot, because I am still super bothered when arrogant naysayers have no fucking clue how Christianity or the New Testament work. I mean I can't ask for everyone to have religious education but when people say 'oh religious people are basically stupid retards, so I, sure I can assume religion is whatever dumbest shit I can think of' just because they deny that anyone who think homosexuality isn't productive must be a hypocrite with zero internal consistency. Religion is meaningful and important, feel free to move on from it or make it obsolete, but it's a sensible relationship with the universe that's a part of where we came from. It's cool.

Also, Amish society is some of the best and most wholesome stuff, and they did have shows about people speeding time I those communities.

see

>and adoption is sub-optimal, a way of dealing with a problem that really wouldn't exist if every baby born were raised by both biological parents (the preferred method)
Sure, but it's a problem that will continue to exist, since the preferred method is idealistically hopeful in the modern era. And unadopted children are a burden on the state, and since there clearly aren't enough male/female couples looking to adopt to relieve that burden, the next best possibility is letting same sex couples adopt. Give them similar tax breaks afforded to married heterosexual couples as an added incentive to stay together, and give them a further break if they adopt, instead of using a surrogate. The cost of feeding, clothing and paying for a child's education for its youth would far outweigh the loss in taxes, so it's a good deal for the government.

>by your logic being a pedophile is okay cause it doesnt harm anyone

It does when it's put into action though. Same way that fantasizing about murdering someone is still technically "okay" but that doesn't make the action of murder okay either.

Also stop moving goalposts to talking about pedophilia.

Pedophilia is a trickier subject than homosexuality because the target of your attraction isn't mature enough to respond. Being a pedophile only causes no harm if the pedophile remains strong willed enough to avoid molesting children.

There's no point giving them tax incentives, though, when they provide nothing to the government.

Government wants a man and a woman to get married and have kids and to raise those kids together. If you want to do something else, do it on your own dime because you aren't benefiting the government.

Really? You're taking a hard stance against beards?

And my dad literally had hair throughout the entire process. Don't hate because my genes are superior.

I do agree that we should do away with no-fault divorce

>People like you are everything that is wrong with this country.

I'm not even American either. Go fuck yourself. Enjoy your country slowly deteriorating and fracturing as demographics cause parts of the country to no longer feel any connection to each other.

Here.

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

You'll notice all the numbers add up to gays being paedophile, but at every turn the article will deny these numbers in some way ("it's not gay to molest a child of the same sex", "it's not TECHNICALLY paedophilia", "the paedophile weren't 100% gay" etc.)