quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

I'm under the impression northern Idaho has similar views.

You have a point--and perhaps about the majority--but it's not ninety percent bigots here.

I do not agree when it's claimed that those who oppose non traditional marriage between persons of the same gender are bigoted. Wrong? Maybe, mistaken? Could be.

If it's not bigotry, then why persecute and discriminate against gays?

They're fellow human beings. Do you believe Jesus would have accepted them?

quote:

Foisting your uninformed and uneducated opinion, Wymple, just makes you look foolish.

My opinion of Kirk is based on his own rhetoric. This forum has given you plenty of examples of his mindset. You refuse to see it, that's on you.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Shanks.

If you are simple and plainly calling the murder4 of Kirk evil, then Ok, I agree.

But I took your thread and post to mean the democrats are evil. In the same vein as ME calling republicans Fascists.

If that wasn't your intent then I read it wrong.

One thing's for sure Shanks, Cenk looked clearly uncomfortable sitting there thinking about the dozens of times he and the Young Turks made the dehumanizing comparison to Shitler, Yahtzees (sic) & Fascists.

.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If it's not bigotry, then why persecute and discriminate against gays?

They're fellow human beings. Do you believe Jesus would have accepted them?

I believe that like myself and all men, Jesus would have accepted all with open arms. Because Jesus accepts all doesn't mean He accepts our sins.

Jesus told the woman he rescued from being stoned to death, "go and sin no more."?

Jesus told the rich man to give away all his wealth and follow Him?

quote:

Jesus told the rich man to give away all his wealth and follow Him?

Tell that to our Republican friends. Ledvm? Any response to those words?

I can see I shouldn't have brought Jesus into the discussion. Let me ask it this way:

If someone says Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry... would you call that person a bigot?

If not, does the word "bigot" mean anything to you?

Ones sins are a matter between you and God, not for the rest of us to pass judgement on. There would be a good deal less acrimony in this world if people who think they know what’s best for everyone else just kept their mouths closed.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
One thing's for sure Shanks, Cenk looked clearly uncomfortable sitting there thinking about the dozens of times he and the Young Turks made the dehumanizing comparison to Shitler, Yahtzees (sic) & Fascists.

.

And so he bloody should. As should others.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Jesus told the rich man to give away all his wealth and follow Him?

Tell that to our Republican friends. Ledvm? Any response to those words?

I can see I shouldn't have brought Jesus into the discussion. Let me ask it this way:

If someone says Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry... would you call that person a bigot?

If not, does the word "bigot" mean anything to you?

Why not? Jesus can be central to any morality discussion.

Jew not allowed to marry is a decision based on race, their birth. Of course that's bigotry.
But Jew and Judiasm is a prehistoric culture yes? Jews have been marrying since Adam and Eve or so? History, tradition, custom and culture is overwhelmingly on the Jews side.

Homosexual marriage has no such history.

And why are we banging our heads together over a tiny fraction of society?

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Ones sins are a matter between you and God, not for the rest of us to pass judgement on. There would be a good deal less acrimony in this world if people who think they know what’s best for everyone else just kept their mouths closed.

To be sure. "Judge not less you be judged."

Ten percent of society are a tiny fraction? It's okay to discriminate if it's against tiny minorities?

I believe that nature or the Creator made gays the way they are. Every one of them I've talked to says it wasn't a choice for them. They believe they were born the way they are.

I didn't have a choice about being attracted to girls. I was the way I was.

Sounds like you believe homosexuality is a sin. You have your beliefs, they have theirs. Maybe your God is not theirs.

Live and let live.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Ten percent of society are a tiny fraction? It's okay to discriminate if it's against tiny minorities?

I believe that nature or the Creator made gays the way they are. Every one of them I've talked to says it wasn't a choice for them. They believe they were born the way they are.

I didn't have a choice about being attracted to girls. I was the way I was.

Sounds like you believe homosexuality is a sin. You have your beliefs, they have theirs. Maybe your God is not theirs.

Live and let live.

I 100% agree, live and let live.

Yes, 10% is a tiny fraction and I believe it a huge mistake to focus a nation on ten percent of this, that or anything.

Our nation and it's government should be focused on and prioritize the issues that burden 100% of our fellow Americans. Public Education, Public Works and Public Safety top that list for me.

Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage doesn't cost the government anything more than any other kind of marriage.

It's only an issue because Bible-thumpers make it so.

Or it's only an issue because the gay folks that want to get married make it so?

If someone wanted to take away my right to marry, I'd protest loudly too.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Gay marriage doesn't cost the government anything more than any other kind of marriage.

It's only an issue because Bible-thumpers make it so.

Is it morally accepted and really nothing to do with Bible-pushing or any other religious dogma; or just natural common sense?

Their "offspring" will be brought up as brainwashed kids following in their "parent's" footsteps who in future generations will produce colonies of gays.

Dammit, had Adam & Eve been Chinese, Eve would have eaten the fucking snake and we wouldn't be landed with this shit.

Yes of course, absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Who gives a shit?

Marry who you want, treat your neighbors well, love your family.

I have so much more pressing things in my life than worrying about someone else's love life.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If it's not bigotry, then why persecute and discriminate against gays?

They're fellow human beings. Do you believe Jesus would have accepted them?

Of course Jesus would have accepted them and loved them just as much as any other. I accept them as well.

What Jesus would not have done is marry them or condone the marriage.

Matthew 5:17 — Jesus states that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Shanks.

If you are simple and plainly calling the murder4 of Kirk evil, then Ok, I agree.

But I took your thread and post to mean the democrats are evil. In the same vein as ME calling republicans Fascists.

If that wasn't your intent then I read it wrong.

You are not wrong. While I won’t condemn them all…the majority of today’s Democrats and their agenda is evil. As many many classic writings have depicted…life is a battle of good vs. evil. Evil killed Charlie. Charlie was a very good human being. While many are suffering the consequences now…the net is full of Democrats celebrating or at least justifying Charlie’s murder. Look at our own POS Wymple…he is justifying it. Charlie had a huge young following. They are awakened. One of my old colleagues who is still a veterinarian at Texas A&M sent me a picture of a candlelight vigil held there…thousands (maybe 10’s of thousands as Kyle field will hold over 70K) turned out to peacefully celebrate the life of Charlie Kirk.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Ones sins are a matter between you and God, not for the rest of us to pass judgement on. There would be a good deal less acrimony in this world if people who think they know what’s best for everyone else just kept their mouths closed.

Remember the stupid religious man advising Bush 2 saying “KILL THEM! KILL THEM! KILL THEM FOR JESUS CHRIST!”

He was the ISIS equivalent of Christians.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am aware of what the Bible has to say.

So for the record…

1) Does quoting an chapter and verse out of the Bible qualify as “advocating for the stoning of gays.”

2) Is Stephen King’s post acceptable?

BTW…I vote to protect his rights to say it. I am not advocating suppressing him. But I am for calling him out as a POS and seeing the left for what they really are with their lying evil rhetoric.

Only you would be able to miss the irony here. Advocating the stoning of gays by quoting the bible is OK but criticism of that statement is "lying evil rhetoric."

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am aware of what the Bible has to say.

So for the record…

1) Does quoting an chapter and verse out of the Bible qualify as “advocating for the stoning of gays.”

2) Is Stephen King’s post acceptable?

BTW…I vote to protect his rights to say it. I am not advocating suppressing him. But I am for calling him out as a POS and seeing the left for what they really are with their lying evil rhetoric.

Only you would be able to miss the irony here. Advocating the stoning of gays by quoting the bible is OK but criticism of that statement is "lying evil rhetoric."

Quoting the Bible is not advocating the “stoning of gays.” That is the part you get wrong. Agreed, you are confused.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am aware of what the Bible has to say.

So for the record…

1) Does quoting an chapter and verse out of the Bible qualify as “advocating for the stoning of gays.”

2) Is Stephen King’s post acceptable?

BTW…I vote to protect his rights to say it. I am not advocating suppressing him. But I am for calling him out as a POS and seeing the left for what they really are with their lying evil rhetoric.

Only you would be able to miss the irony here. Advocating the stoning of gays by quoting the bible is OK but criticism of that statement is "lying evil rhetoric."

Quoting the Bible is not advocating the “stoning of gays.” That is the part you get wrong. Agreed, you are confused.

Defending the indefensible requires some serious mental gymnastics, eh Lane?

Do you think Charlie Kirk was being critical of the bible when he quoted the verse? Or, was he using it to bolster his arguments against gay folks?

Keep digging.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am aware of what the Bible has to say.

So for the record…

1) Does quoting an chapter and verse out of the Bible qualify as “advocating for the stoning of gays.”

2) Is Stephen King’s post acceptable?

BTW…I vote to protect his rights to say it. I am not advocating suppressing him. But I am for calling him out as a POS and seeing the left for what they really are with their lying evil rhetoric.

Only you would be able to miss the irony here. Advocating the stoning of gays by quoting the bible is OK but criticism of that statement is "lying evil rhetoric."

Quoting the Bible is not advocating the “stoning of gays.” That is the part you get wrong. Agreed, you are confused.

Defending the indefensible requires some serious mental gymnastics, eh Lane?

Do you think Charlie Kirk was being critical of the bible when he quoted the verse? Or, was he using it to bolster his arguments against gay folks?

Keep digging.

It is only your failing to understand the Bible that makes your post laughable while you believe you have a point.

Of course Charlie wasn’t being critical of the Bible when he quoted it. It is God’s word. But quoting Leviticus by no way is “advocating for the stoning of gays.” The Bible is a whole and must be understood as a whole.

If you are truly interested in learning the Bible let me know and I will explain it to you so can see the error of your thought process. Otherwise I’ll just leave it as you know not what you speak.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am aware of what the Bible has to say.

So for the record…

1) Does quoting an chapter and verse out of the Bible qualify as “advocating for the stoning of gays.”

2) Is Stephen King’s post acceptable?

BTW…I vote to protect his rights to say it. I am not advocating suppressing him. But I am for calling him out as a POS and seeing the left for what they really are with their lying evil rhetoric.

Only you would be able to miss the irony here. Advocating the stoning of gays by quoting the bible is OK but criticism of that statement is "lying evil rhetoric."

Quoting the Bible is not advocating the “stoning of gays.” That is the part you get wrong. Agreed, you are confused.

Defending the indefensible requires some serious mental gymnastics, eh Lane?

Do you think Charlie Kirk was being critical of the bible when he quoted the verse? Or, was he using it to bolster his arguments against gay folks?

Keep digging.

It is only your failing to understand the Bible that makes your post laughable while you believe you have a point.

Of course Charlie wasn’t being critical of the Bible when he quoted it. It is God’s word. But quoting Leviticus by no way is “advocating for the stoning of gays.” The Bible is a whole and must be understood as a whole.

If you are truly interested in learning the Bible let me know and I will explain it to you so can see the error of your thought process. Otherwise I’ll just leave it as you know not what you speak.

More mental gymnastics and stupid platitudes. Only you can understand the bible, right? Lane, the sun hasn't risen on the day where you'd ever have a chance at "explaining" something to me. You're thrashing around here looking like an idiot because your narrative has fallen apart. You know it, I know it, everybody here on the board knows it other than half-wits like 4WD.

Get over it.

quote:

It is only your failing to understand the Bible that makes your post laughable while you believe you have a point.

Of course Charlie wasn’t being critical of the Bible when he quoted it. It is God’s word. But quoting Leviticus by no way is “advocating for the stoning of gays.” The Bible is a whole and must be understood as a whole.

If you are truly interested in learning the Bible let me know and I will explain it to you so can see the error of your thought process. Otherwise I’ll just leave it as you know not what you speak.

Using the Leviticus admonition to stone gays to buttress your argument certainly does sound like you're endorsing the stoning of gays. What alternative meaning is reasonably inferred?

Give up the tap-dancing and gymnastics, Lane. You're not good at it.

You say the Bible should be interpreted as a whole. What other passages mitigate the Leviticus punishment? Be specific please.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yeah, it was a tragedy for sure.

But it was also an act of war…

…the everlasting war of good versus evil.

Charlie was loved and this heinous act will elicit opposing actions. Hopefully, a peaceful and long lasting conservative awakening.

I came on here to post this.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WEyL6c5BIVQ

because what Kisin says should be listened too by the likes Of ME and his fascist rhetoric.

But.

all that wind was taken from my sails when I see you use the comparison of good v evil, which is the same level of BS.

First - it's not MY fascist rhetoric. Calling out fascist rhetoric is not fascist rhetoric. It's not the same thing. as Kisin says.

In part, an essential narrative of fomenting fascism is declaring the war between good and evil.

It's the same thing as someone calling "them" the enemy because they don't fall in line with the True Believers, "us". Soon, with enough of the BS and threats and pushing, "them" indeed become the enemy, to which the "us" says "I told you so".

Jesus, supposedly, would turn the other cheek. Rightists, OTOH. just say kiss my other cheek.

Quote:
"the comparison of good v evil, which is the same level of BS"

No. It's not the same level. Fascism can be measured objectively, factually, its path and trajectory, its language, its intent.

Lane's war of good vs evil is entirely subjective, indoctrinated, IOW fucked up.

Lane uses contradictory words and terms in the same context - "war" of good vs evil "elicit opposing actions", "peaceful and long lasting conservative awakening", and declaring liberals evil. He's just trying to nicely say kill them all and let God sort it out.

Of course you would choose not to understand.

Probably dosen't want to let the new transformer and fresh bottle of neon go to waste.

.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
One thing's for sure Shanks, Cenk looked clearly uncomfortable sitting there thinking about the dozens of times he and the Young Turks made the dehumanizing comparison to Shitler, Yahtzees (sic) & Fascists.

.

And so he bloody should. As should others.

It's clear to most anyone with a brain.

DEHUMANIZING-->SCAPEGOATING-->UNALIVING. In that order.

.

So now kabob "knows" what lane really means.
Yet does not know that calling whole groups of people he has no personal knowledge of, fascists and maggots is dehumanizing.
Selective knowledge I guess?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

It is only your failing to understand the Bible that makes your post laughable while you believe you have a point.

Of course Charlie wasn’t being critical of the Bible when he quoted it. It is God’s word. But quoting Leviticus by no way is “advocating for the stoning of gays.” The Bible is a whole and must be understood as a whole.

If you are truly interested in learning the Bible let me know and I will explain it to you so can see the error of your thought process. Otherwise I’ll just leave it as you know not what you speak.

Using the Leviticus admonition to stone gays to buttress your argument certainly does sound like you're endorsing the stoning of gays. What alternative meaning is reasonably inferred?

Give up the tap-dancing and gymnastics, Lane. You're not good at it.

You say the Bible should be interpreted as a whole. What other passages mitigate the Leviticus punishment? Be specific please.

By taking things in isolation from the OT you can justify a lot of wacky beliefs, same goes for the Koran.

Different jewish communities disagree on the meaning of some parts (Leviticus being part of the Torah).

By breaking down a generalization of something said, you can turn it into whatever you want.
It does not mean it was how it was originally intended.

And there seems to be a lot of that going on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/art...-said-202000321.html

Stephen King was right: Charlie Kirk said stoning gays was 'God's perfect law'
Elaina Patton
Fri, September 12, 2025 at 4:20 PM EDT
2 min read

Excerpt:

In a post on X Friday, King wrote, "I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages."

King was referring to his since-deleted post from after the shooting that read, "He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin'." And he followed that apology by posting responses to people, including conservative politicians Ted Cruz and Sebastian Gorka, calling the celebrated horror novelist a variety of insults in response to his initial comments.

Cruz, for instance, referred to King as "a horrible, evil, twisted liar" and then — after making a claim that the Democratic party sent $100 billion to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — asked, "Why are you so dishonest & filled with hate?"

In addition to spreading unfounded claims about LGBTQ+ people, including blaming transgender people for inflation, Kirk did in fact make calls for violence against the community in recent years. And in at least one instance he alluded favorably to stoning gay people to death — a point that those reacting indignantly to King's comments seem to have forgotten or willfully overlooked.

In 2024, reacting to a video from YouTuber Ms. Rachel, in which she talks about the importance of "love thy neighbor" in the Bible, Kirk paraphrased a passage from Leviticus that advocates for stoning gay people, calling it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."

"By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours," he said to camera. "In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is…in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'."

=========================================

https://www.google.com/search?...6DX6sxG5estQ&csuir=1

Did Charlie Kirk say "In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is…in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'."

Yes, Charlie Kirk made this statement in June 2024 on his podcast, in a segment criticizing children's TV personality Ms. Rachel.

The full exchange was:
Ms. Rachel had posted a video online quoting Leviticus to say Christians should "love thy neighbor," suggesting it should include gay people.

Kirk responded, addressing her directly and sarcastically, "By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser-referenced part of the same part of scripture is—in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'".

It is important to note:
The reference was to Leviticus 20:13, not 18. While Kirk initially cited Leviticus 18 in his response, the passage calling for the death penalty for homosexual acts is actually in Leviticus 20. Leviticus 18 prohibits homosexual acts but does not mention stoning.

Controversy over interpretation. The comment drew controversy, and after Kirk's death in September 2025, author Stephen King mistakenly claimed that Kirk "advocated stoning gays". King later apologized and clarified that Kirk had actually demonstrated how some people "cherry-pick Biblical passages".

Kirk's rhetoric. Kirk has a history of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and is known for regularly condemning same-sex marriage and transgender rights.

==================================================

The question rephrased: Did Charlie Kirk say Leviticus 20:13 is God's perfect law?

AI Overview
Yes, Charlie Kirk referred to Leviticus 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for male same-sex relations, as "God's perfect law" on sexual matters. He made these comments in June 2024 during a podcast discussing a pro-LGBTQ+ YouTuber.

Key details regarding Kirk's remarks:

In the podcast, Kirk cited the passage while criticizing the YouTuber, suggesting that a section of Leviticus before the "love thy neighbor" verse affirms "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters".

He later clarified that he did not advocate for stoning gay people in modern society.

He did, however, express praise for Uganda's anti-LGBTQ laws, calling them a "step in the right direction," but also noted they were "extreme".

Following Kirk's death in September 2025, author Stephen King mistakenly claimed Kirk advocated for stoning gay people. King later apologized for misstating Kirk's position, explaining that Kirk "demonstrated how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages" but acknowledging that Kirk had, in fact, paraphrased and referred to the Leviticus passage in the context of it being "God's perfect law".

===============================================

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29...t-community-intl-cmd

Uganda passed one of the world’s harshest anti-gay laws. LGBTQ people describe living there as ‘hell’
Larry Madowo
By Larry Madowo and Bethlehem Feleke, CNN
6 min read
Updated 1:47 AM EDT, Thu June 29, 2023