Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hmm I like shockers....

So why don't you google search it?

Hey VerseChorusVerse, provide an ISBN number instead of URL's because anyone can post on the internet. An ISBN number is more truthful because a publishing company will not waste money to publish a book if it has broad statements that were not backed up by scientific fact. If you don't know what an ISBN number is, google search it.

You need to provide more information please....

What ISP are you using right now?
What is the ip address your computer is getting over the wireless connection? Wired?
What is your SSID on the wireless connection?
Do you have encryption on the connection?
Do you live in an apartment?

At 2/3/05 11:18 PM, The_FUNK wrote:

At 2/3/05 10:40 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:
What is your view on heterosexual married couples that never conceive a child? Are they an invalid marriage because of this simple fact? Can the state deprive them of their marriage license because they are 50+ and cannot conceive?

Simply put, YES. There is EXTENSIVE legal precedent of annulment due to infertility. Henry the VIII, for one. Hell, it's even in the Bible, the precedent goes back that far. However, an annulment also requires consent of at least one partner, so if the couple is happy with having no children, there's no real need for litigation.

Read my last sentence I wrote and think again on where I was going. So with your logic, 50+ year olds can't get married, as well as women who have had their tubes tied, since there is a good possibility it is irreversible.

Simply put, NO. Yes if there were false pretenses before the marriage that there would eventually be child bearing and there is failure of either parties to do so, then there is a possibility for divorce/annulment. That's because of false pretenses.

You act like "false pretenses" are a direct attempt at deception. How do you know you're fertile until you try to have a baby? YOU DON'T. You could have a perfect relationship in every other way, but if you fail to bear children, the marriage can be declared annulled.

You are thinking differently then what I am thinking. I am thinking in a perfect relationship when it is capable for the couples to have a child, and one party refuses, even if they said before the marriage that they would like children. This is grounds for annulment, false pretenses. Infertility on the other hand is not a grounds for annulment in the a lot of the states in the United States.

My question to you is why are infertile couples allowed to marry? If the basis of marriage is to create children, then why aren't there bans to PREVENT marriage of infertile couples? We're getting ahead of ourselves with talking about divorces and so on, because we haven't reached that point yet.

Scientific fact= gays can't marry..... hmm I can't see the coorelation. I can see the coorelation that gays can adopt a child, and raise a child, as well as the fact that they cannot conceive a child. I just can't see marriage as in any science except in social science. Also, I'd like the ISBN number of a book that says that it's scientific fact that gays can't marry.

Try highschool health, for one. Man+Woman+Sex=Baby. Man+Man+Sex=No Baby. Woman+Woman+Sex=No Baby. Marriage is for having babies. Marriage is a social institution. Social institutions have a functional purpose. Gays can't have babies, so they can't have the social institution of marriage.

Functional purpose= adoption. There's about 117,000 kids that are eligible for adoption. (Link ) I'm still waiting on that ISBN number too.

Civil unions? Fine. Wanna call that civil union a marriage? Fine. Will it be a real marriage? No.

Then let's call all civil unions, homosexual and heterosexual, a marriage and end the debate here.

At 2/3/05 09:03 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: The "ban" on gay marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. Marriage is a legal union for BREEDING couples. BREEDING. Failure to produce offspring is grounds for anullment, and always has been. Because a marriage is not valid until offspring is produced, gay couples can never validate their marriages legally, nor can the institution of marriage perform its designated purpose in that situation.

Because a marriage is not valid until offspring is produced, gay couples can never validate their marriages legally,

What is your view on heterosexual married couples that never conceive a child? Are they an invalid marriage because of this simple fact? Can the state deprive them of their marriage license because they are 50+ and cannot conceive? Simply put, NO. Yes if there were false pretenses before the marriage that there would eventually be child bearing and there is failure of either parties to do so, then there is a possibility for divorce/annulment. That's because of false pretenses.

Gays can't marry because they can't breed. It has nothing to do with religion; it's scientific fact. There's no law saying "GAYS CAN'T MARRY!" It just happens to be a scientific fact.

Scientific fact= gays can't marry..... hmm I can't see the coorelation. I can see the coorelation that gays can adopt a child, and raise a child, as well as the fact that they cannot conceive a child. I just can't see marriage as in any science except in social science. Also, I'd like the ISBN number of a book that says that it's scientific fact that gays can't marry.

At 2/1/05 09:45 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: Um, the constitution? There shall be no state religion.

Actually the precedent of seperation of church was implied in the constitution and verified by Thomas Jefferson.

At 2/1/05 09:38 PM, RoboFrog wrote:

At 2/1/05 09:33 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Don't cut your eye blind.

WhiteHouse.Gov

just because they have the programs doesn't mean there working in favor of the lower-middle citizens

Give me a link, or better yet, give me an ISBN number of something that says otherwise.

And FunkBRS:
And you misinterpreted what I said. I was referring to taxes helping out in all of those benefits, and that gangs usually do not do so. I see that other people got the point, and I'm sure you did too. It's just you dodged what I was saying to make a stab at a reference to something in your life to make your opinion seem more authentic.

If the government did it's job, there'd be no power vacuum for gangs to fill.

So really what is your point in saying this? Do you want more government? Nah, that's more taxes; you don't want that. Do you want less government? Nah that'll provide a void that will be consumed by gangs. Really, what do you want?

At 2/1/05 09:29 PM, RoboFrog wrote: unfortunatly our curent adminstration isn't doing any other those either

Don't cut your eye blind.

WhiteHouse.Gov

At 2/1/05 09:06 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: When it really comes down to it, taxes ARE just a fancy way of saying you got robbed by the world's largest street gang, isn't it?

It really depends,the world's largest street gang doesn't fund the roads that you drive on, does it? Or what about the largest street gang providing resources for schooling? Another thing the largest street gang doesn't do for the US is that they don't feed the poor, protect citizens rights, provide research for various medical problems, or protect us from something that conservatives have been flinging in the faces of Americans for a long time, terrorism.

I was about to say the same thing. Learn how to use some functions and how to pass values between functions. Extremely easy and very very helpful.

At 1/23/05 03:57 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: "I think all bullest should cost 5000 dollars" -Chris Rock

"Because then there wouldn't be no innocent bystanders"

At 1/19/05 05:45 PM, Z17 wrote: We don't live in a pure democracy. Ever heard of the electoral college?

~Z~

Let me ask you, what determines the electors vote? The people. It is a winner-take-all for each individual state.

Ahh the wonders of a limited democracy. Why do I say limited? Everyones votes are generally limited to choosing 2 candidates, one from each party. I find that culprit here. Not enough diversity, which causes people to think they are wasting their vote.

"Better of the two evils"; that is one of the quotes I am beginning to dislike strongly. In a truly democratic system we would not be limited to such chooses. Is it a failure of the system that we have in place right now? I believe so.

There's a law called Duverger's Law . Basically it states that in an election in which the person who receives the most votes wins the election, there will be in result only two parties. What if this person only received 40% of the votes, and the other 60% truly dislikes him but voted for different candidates? Would this truly be fair to the majority of the population?

What I have in mind is changing the system to allow freedom of choice. This system which could possibly improve the current situation that we are in right now is called IRV, or instant runoff voting. If you vote for a candidate, and he loses the "first round", then your second choice becomes your vote. So in all actuality you never waste your vote on a 3rd party.

At 1/17/05 03:35 PM, BeFell wrote: Changing the regime was how we intended to eliminate the threat.

So to take out a non-existent threat we must do a regime change?

Brought to you by the same guy that brought you the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I personally hope this isn't true, but if it is true it most likely won't be a full scale invasion and more like what we did with Iraq in the 90's; bomb suspected WMD sites.

CNN.com

As I know of, there are no legal torrents besides Linux iso's. I might be mistaken though.

At 1/14/05 02:21 PM, Proteas wrote: I wonder if you could do this with dry ice?

I have no clue, but I've been thinking about doing that shaving cream trick for a long long time. It should be able to work with dry ice because shaving cream slowly comes out whenever it's about 25 degrees outside. Ahh too bad I didn't take a picture of that....

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

In order for a theory to be taught in school it must be thoroughly researched. Put some research behind it and it just might be incorporated into some aspect of learning.

At 1/13/05 05:01 PM, Gunter45 wrote: There are religious groups that believe in human sacrifice, but the government can't possibly justify supporting that. Same-sex marriage does not have to be supported by the government just because a religious supports it.

The thing about human sacrifice is that it is detrimental to society. This is because it disallows the person to be a contributing factor to society. Sure imprisonment does the same thing, but this is because the person was committing harm to the society, and as such it would be better for the overall good of society to have him removed from it.

BarferPro
Wow. Who'd athought that the finale would be solved on a hentai-supported teen-populated internet forum.

Relax

At 1/13/05 06:27 PM, TwinsenDude wrote: The fact that you just realized this and don't understand and are posting it as if you are the first to think of it is why we democrats are so pissed off.

If you would look at my post history, you would notice that I have been pro-gay rights for a long time. I am not posting it as I am the first one to think of it. I never started with "I got a brilliant idea!" or any other that would denote that I was the first person to think of it. As for being pissed off, you need to realize that in politics things need to be repeated over and over again in order for what you arguing for to become the majoritarian thought.

At 1/13/05 08:13 PM, TitusRevised wrote: Yes, it may collide with the ammendment, but then it collides with gay marriages.

Huh? No comprendo, usted explica por favor?

if a religion did accept that kind of behavior, itd be a screwed up one.

That is your opinion, that is not everyones opinion.

A theory is not a law. Let me explain...

A theory is something that explains a possibility of why something occurs. Notice the word why. It uses the scientific method to come about to these conclusions. Through data collection from fossils to DNA analysis of current species, the conclusion of evolution comes about. The idea of creationism, that god created the universe, is entirely religious based. It comes from the Bible! There is little evidence that you are providing that concludes that the current space in time that we are experiencing has come about through god besides quoting a book that was written by various amounts of men and passed down orally through a couple generations.

A law states how something occurs. It is definite and final. There is no debate because it simply says if this occurs then blah blah blah will come a result of it.

Theories are constantly changed through different data and from different perspectives. Laws only change if data is conflicting with the law.

Throughout the entire debate of gay marriage, I always wondered what would happen if a religion allowed gay marriages to be performed. What would come of this? The first amendment implies the seperation of church and state and Jefferson solidified this suggestion of seperation of church and state. So if marriage is a religious ceremony, then prohibiting it would be against the first amendment. Prohibiting gay marriage, which the Metropolitcan Community Churches (a christian church that supports gay, lesbians, and transgenders) most likely would perform, is in essence against the first amendment. Any legal ramification against gay marriage then would be unconstitutional.

In conclusion, disallowing gays to marry is unconstitutional due to the real possibility that religious people could perform the religious act.

At 1/9/05 12:55 PM, Bobsonz wrote: I think it's likely that people knew an earthquakle was coming and just kept their mouths shut about it. In the end, the companies who get to rebuild what the earthquake destroyed are gonna get some good cash out of it.

That's implying that it was a conscious decision by a group of people to have an earthquake. This is highly doubtful because an earthquake was imminent due to pressure between the tectonic plates. What I'm saying is that oil drilling could possibly have a possible impact on the earthquake due to the surverying techonology and drilling techniques, and that any possibilities should be researched upon so that we can better protect humanity.

Well it wasn't artificial earthquakes, it was just the steel beams vibrating, which caused the workers on the construction site to think there was an earthquake, my bad.

At 1/9/05 11:05 AM, drDAK wrote:

At 1/9/05 10:28 AM, SkyCube wrote: It is not a conspiricy theory since no-one is claiming a conspiricy.

Yes, it's a conspiracy. Anyone with half a brain can notice that.

conspiracy (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. conspiracies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Which definition is it?

As for the possibilities of this happening, it is slightly possible this had a minor effect on it; to what degree should be researched upon. This tsunami/earthquake can give us useful information on how tectonic plates function if we research every possible thing that could've had an impact on the earthquake. Here's a link about Nikola Tesla and his artificial earthquakes caused by resonant frequencies. Read the entire thing please, especially the part about the petroleum industry using this techonolgy to find oil deposits As such, I say that oil drilling should be looked into to see whether it had an impact on the earthquake or not.

At 1/8/05 05:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: When you give 2.5% of your yearly income, you'll be able to compare yourself to bush.

I gave 5%, I make only a grand a year. Yeah I've got a crap job but it's the only job I could get.

Ahh should've put a paragraph break somewhere in there so that it didn't sound like mindless rambling....

Dude, I'm a liberal and I'm saying a lot of websites like that are bullshit. Anyone can host a website like that. Because he did not put his name on any of his articles, I'm saying that he doesn't want his name to be put aside that kind of stuff. Why wouldn't he want to take credit for it? My question is, why can't everyone subject this recession due to the natural occurences of the economy? If you look at the pattern of the past 40-50 years, this recession fits very well with what has been occuring. Go to bls.com and look through the unemployment charts, since they have less fluctuations and show market situations in long term.

Get rid of the first want in the first sentence and it will make sense....

I want just want to make sure that everyone knows something. The original pledge created in 1892 did not have the "under god" part in it when Francis Bellamy. Strange thing about Francis Bellamy is that he was a Baptist preacher.

Also, the pledge was added during the Cold War to differ ourselves from the Soviet Union, which they were atheists. The group that crusaded to get this done though was the Knights of Columbus. This occured in 1954.