What is you thoughts on this illustration?

1. 63

   cruelkindnessposted 11 years ago

   What is you thoughts on this illustration?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 0

   CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years ago

   I think the Devil paid the lawyers, lobbyists, and judges in New York a visit before he found this poor distraught man on his knees.

   replyreport
3. 83

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   The illustration is a projection of extremist sociopolitical stereotyping.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...no kidding!

      replyreport
   2. 67

      ptosisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why is Satan wearing polka dot speedos? Is he going for a swim in the lake of fire?

      replyreport
   3. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Funny and clever, Ptosis...thank you. :0)

      replyreport
   4. 63

      cruelkindnessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 87

   krillcoposted 11 years ago

   It's very clever; can be read several different ways. I read it as the man on his knees in collusion with the devil, spreading hate mongering anti-Christian, wolf-in-sheep's clothing poison. Let's see how fast others jump on my comment.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Starmom41posted 11 years ago

   my thoughts?  honestly?  that the world & its population would be much better off without extremists--  and that includes those hiding behind "the bible."

   replyreport
   1. 59

      ibbarkingmadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Extremists, zealots & fanaticism is faith without love. Dehumanization of others is the reason so much evil happens in the name of religion. Fortunately Jewish & Christian individuals of that persuasion are not as bad as others. Its still no

      replyreport
6. 72

   breathe2travelposted 11 years ago

   I agree with Attikos - a projection of extemist sociopolitical stereotyping-- endeavoring only to further polarize a nation.

   replyreport
7. 59

   ibbarkingmadposted 11 years ago

   It tells me several things. First, the devil loves it when people hate for religious reasons. Second, there is an assumption that people of faith (like myself) who oppose same sex marriage are some how hate filled bigots. This is not the case. It implies that people of faith (or at least of Catholic like faiths) are haters when it comes to same sex marriage and homosexuality in general. I am not of those particular faiths, but I feel this implication is very false. Finally, the issue behind the illustration skirts the true issue at hand. Should the government be involved with regulating who can marry who.
   The issue is rather simple in my mind. The state (government at any level) should not regulate marriage. Marriage has been and always will be a religious based social contract. All the government should be involved with is keeping records of marriages. Then, if a gay couple wishes to be married all they need to do is find a faith (or non-faith) to marry them. That moral issue is between them and what ever god(s) they choose to believe in. If it turns out that it is wrong morally then it is between them and their god(s). So long as an individual is not harming another there should be no laws allowing or disallowing such a behavior. Once another is harmed such a behavior is governable by law.
   A point of clarification by the way. I think atheism is a religion. It is a firm belief that there is no god(s). That life is the result of scientific principles and that is it. Since the existence of God has not been proven nor disproven this in my mind shows a level of faith in the lack of a god(s). This view is not intended as a condensation. They are welcome to believe what they want. But this classification would allow for people who are atheist to be married by other atheists if being married is something they wish to do.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      cruelkindnessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 87

      krillcoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I would disagree in your assessment of marriage as a primarily religious act. For hundreds, if not thousands of years, it was a primarily socio-political-economic contract between families. Only later was it 'blessed' by religion(s).

      replyreport
   3. 59

      ibbarkingmadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Agree to disagree. Be it a shawman, preist or witch doctor, anthropologically the evidence for my premiss is on my side. Government has too much power. Give equality by taking the ability to legislate morality out of the government's hands. Simple.

      replyreport