Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The argument of consent is irrelevant.
I can keep animals in disgusting conditions [battery farming], mutilate their bodies [beak clipping, neutering, cosmetic adjustments], and then I can kill them and eat them.

Now, tell me I can't put my dick in that thing I own and can, quite legally, abuse in other ways.

At 12/29/08 05:52 PM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote: cause you cant get a boner over something you dont like, ive seen beastiality before, those dogs are given those chicks hell

I don't know about you, but I get chubby at the drop of a hat.

At 11/19/08 03:21 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Guns are used as offensive weapons at times. Should all guns be illegal?
Cars can kill people and can be used to aid illegal activities. Should cars be illegal?
Alcohol is unhealthy, leads to addiction, tears families apart, leds to dangerous activities, impairs judgment, etc. Should alcohol be illegal?

Just because a right can be abused doesn't mean authoritarian measures that restrict rights to such a degree to be taken, especially if such measures affect only a certain demographic of society.

That's kind of non-sequitor.
How did this go from being about whether or not the definition of the components necessary for a lawful marriage affect different sex couples, to being about whether or not something should be banned on the basis that it can be abused?

The point I made, was that by defining marriage as being only a man and a woman, same sex couples of any sexual orientation, or combination thereof are prevented from marrying, and that the privileges of marriage are not available to them.
In terms of quantity, I'm sure it will piss off a lot more same sex couples than different sex couples, however there may still be same sex couples who are not bi/homosexual who are disadvantaged by this.

Glad you liked it.

I apologise if I seem at all obtuse. I just like to see statements qualified.

I just don't understand how someone would think that gay marriage would noticeably change their way of life.

I suspect that they are unaware of exactly how it would happen.
I expect that if asked, people in the 1950's would have no idea how the world might become like it is today.
Such changes are often so gradual as to be imperceptible except in hindsight, which is probably what scares people the most, the idea that they don't know exactly how it would change things.

Homosexuality is a theme that is already prominent in culture, beginning in life as soon as children can speak and enter social institutions such as school. I learned what the term "gay" meant in 2nd or third grade. Years later, I learned that I have two relatives who are gay, an aunt on one side, and an uncle on the other side. Upon learning this, I responded with a shrug, and basically dismissed it. There was nothing I could do about it, and I didn't care either way. All it meant to me was that I would have fewer cousins. I also have acquaintances and friends who are gay/bisexual, so I am in contact with the gay demographic to an extent, as small as it may be.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether gays can be married or not, the affects will be felt by society as long as homosexuality exists in the first place. Anti-gay marriage proponents say that by allowing gays to marry, parents will have to explain it to their children. Yet, at the same time, if gay marriage is not legal, it won't prevent them from having to explain why a friend or relative is not married at the age of 40, and lives with someone of the same gender. That's still pretty awkward, is it not?

This I agree with.
Either way parents should be willing to answer any questions their children have about patterns of behaviour that the child may observe, whatever they may be.

As for judicial activism, I am tired of hearing that term. Judges may indeed sometimes go for activism, but that term is thrown around whenever a judge rules against the status quo or even against certain agendas.

It may be over-used, but a lot of people feel that it's relevant in the case of same sex marriage in California.

At 11/16/08 03:53 PM, beast-unleashed wrote: sorry if i misspelled that. anyway i never been circumsized and my family is religous im suprised they never did it. i wanna know if theres any benefits or anything i loose from not being circumsized.

Your foreskin contains [something like] the second highest concentration of nerve endings in your body. You will lose out on the sensation of your foreskin sliding back and forth across your corona.

The foreskin protects the penis head from rubbing and abrasion that may cause keratinization, leading to a hardening of the skin on the glans, similar to the formation of calluses on the hands and feet.
This doesn't happen to everyone, as those skin cells are constantly shed and replaced, so those who get their helmet rubbed less, will experience less keratinization.

The hygiene argument only holds if you don't wash your dick at all. Smegma (aka dick cheese) actualy kills many types of bacteria that are potentially harmful to you, aswell as causing dessicated skin cells to stick together, making it convenient to remove them with a simple rinse. It also contains some skin oils and such. Generally smegma is good for hygiene if you don't allow it to build up.

The main benefit of circumcision is a slight drop in the chance of contracting a viral std.
Of course you can avoid them better by choosing partner's wisely.

At 11/17/08 01:56 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: BBC is mostly unbiased

I'd say they're good at disguising it.
There are some news stories they won't touch with a barge pole, and some they sanitise more than others if you compare them directly.
Mostly they're constrained by their mandate, but very often their reporting tends to have an angle.

I bleive the rationale behind it is that prostitution leads to the spread of disease, is difficult to regulate, and is somehow intrinsically linked to drugs and organised crime.

At 11/14/08 06:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: You're using an unrealistic and unlikely scenario that is probably going to be seen rarely, at BEST, and using it as an example of people "losing out".

If diahrea only rarely kills people, does it not still kill people?

Because to deny gays the right to marry is essentially unconstitutional and federally illegal.

1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

14th amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given that the constitution or bill of rights do not ban gay marriage, and that a ban on it by individual states would abridge the privileges of gays, and that the main opposition towards gay marriage is religiously based, I'd say that gays are well within their rights to choose marriage. Gays are people. Given that they are U.S. citizens, they should be able to enter into a two person marriage.

Much better, I would have been happy with something much shorter, but I am impressed with the detail of the response. Thank you.

You're just being difficult here and arguing about self-interest of people in general. You know damn well that what you're talking about is not the concern of the voters.

From an individualist perspective, no it's not.
However, most of these voters are thinking in more collectivist terms.
They percieve same-sex marriage as something that will undermine and diminish marriage.
Without going too far into their reasoning, they believe [rightly or wrongly] that it will have a negative impact on the whole of society. They see it as the preservation of a way of life that stands to be harmed if activist judges are allowed their way.

In before Jeremy Clarkson.

At 11/14/08 06:01 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 11/14/08 05:47 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 11/14/08 05:35 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Gays, on the other hand, are the people the issue obviously affects most. They have a right to the same benefits straight couples do, and DO have something to lose depending on how the issue is decided.

Currently they are entitled to exactly the same benefits as straight couples.
It's the components of the marriage that the legislation is based on, not the sexuality of those involved.

If I should like to marry my [hypothetical] heterosexual flat mate [who is the same sex as me] in order to benefit, given that we plan to remain single for the foreseeable future, then we are as much disadvantaged by the definition of marriage as any homosexual(s).

Heterosexuals have plenty to lose from this.

That's just ludicrous. Heterosexuals could just as easily marry a person of the opposite sex for the benefits without intent of honoring the marriage.

That doesn't change the fact that they lose out.

A homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex for benefits as well, but the point of the matter is that they clearly should be able to marry for love AND be eligible for the same benefits straight people have without being denied religious affiliation.

Why should they?
I understand that they want to, because it benefits them, but why should that be the case?
Please qualify the statement.

To propose that heterosexuals lose out because they would have fewer chances to engage in farcical marriages for the benefits is absurd.

And yet, it's factually correct.

As if that's something people consider when voting on the issue.

The reason that people vote on something does not determine its effect(s).

At 11/14/08 05:35 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Gays, on the other hand, are the people the issue obviously affects most. They have a right to the same benefits straight couples do, and DO have something to lose depending on how the issue is decided.

Currently they are entitled to exactly the same benefits as straight couples.
It's the components of the marriage that the legislation is based on, not the sexuality of those involved.

If I should like to marry my [hypothetical] heterosexual flat mate [who is the same sex as me] in order to benefit, given that we plan to remain single for the foreseeable future, then we are as much disadvantaged by the definition of marriage as any homosexual(s).

Heterosexuals have plenty to lose from this.

At 11/13/08 06:49 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Personally my view on the womans right or murder is that its ok I honestly don't care however I do believe the abortion is a good form of population control even though there is some other options but oh well.

I might as well bring this up (sorry if this has been repeated if it is) Why is it whenever a woman doesn't want to take care of a child she is "making a choice" however whenever a man doens't want to mtake care of the child he is an "evil satanic hellspawn who god hates" and other crap.

Following on from this, why has the constitutionality of forced child support payments not been challenged yet?
Many of the concerns in Roe Vs Wade apply equally to the father of an unwanted child when it's born, such as the economic impact and the social stigma associated with being a "dead-beat dad".

Yet this has not been challenged in a court of law.

At 11/12/08 03:50 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: keeping thousands of people from pursuing happiness.

Are same sex couples incapable of being happy without marriage to their preferred partner being recognised by the state?

The main reason someone would be against legalizing the option of gay marriage would be that they are personally uncomfortable with it. This is selfish. Terribly selfish. They would deny happiness to thousands so that they wouldn't have to feel a little "uncomfortable"? That is pitiful. That is weak. That is fucking sad. To be so concerned about the values of others to that point makes me sick.

Here's the funny thing, same sex couples want to get married for entirely selfish reasons aswell.
They want it because it benefits them. Not because it's right, not because there exists any inequality, but because they want tax breaks and legal privilege, adn all the other stuff that comes with having a legally recognised marriage.

I'm not saying that's wrong. I hold that kind of self interest to be wholly legitimate.
However, you're calling the kettle black.

Human beings are self interested by nature. The people who supported 8 were acting in what they believed to be their legitimate self interest. To damn them for that whilst calling for same-sex marriages to be recognised is hypocritical.

Fuck You Assholes.

I understand that you're dissapointed by this, but outbursts like that only serve to reinforce the "us vs them" mentality prevalent in many of the world's people. They want an opponent or an enemy to fight, and giving them one will not change their mind about same sex couples.

Democracy gives us an incentive to educate people who are "ignorant".

At 10/10/08 06:38 AM, Ben-Fox wrote: Under an outright abortion ban, the uterus of the woman becomes, in effect, property of the State, the woman herself being rendered insignificant, a mere housing for the State's property.

How do you feel about child support?
Currently a man has to pay child support if he has fathered a child.
It doesn't matter if he did it willingly, because he was drunk, because whatever contraception was used failed, or if he was somehow raped by a woman.

In many places child support payments will even be subtracted from unemployment benefits.
The father is effectively enslaved to the mother, because she chooses to have the child, with absolutely no say in whether or not that child is brought into the world.

Do you agree with me that forcing men to pay child support is dehumanising?

Come one, it's been three years. You waited this long to start a conversation about it?

At 6/11/06 12:01 AM, jlwelch wrote: I am debating whether or not to report this post to the FBI's online unit...

DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!
DO IT!

At 6/10/06 02:58 PM, Turandot wrote: What democratic Government on a daily basis shells another soverign country? Killing civilians on a daily basis and destroying any chance of the country recovering.

Source please?
(how did this get so many posts without anyone asking for the relevant news story?)
(and where the fuck are skunk and that israeli guy?)

At 4/10/06 10:38 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: No, there isn't. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Around 5% of Penguin pairs found in zoos are homosexual.. Your "opinion" is wrong.

Just out of curiosity, are there any studies into the sexuality of animals that take into account the possibility of emotional trauma, or other adverse effects on the animals that may have occured prior to their becoming sexually mature?

I need better fingers. :(

At 4/4/06 08:03 PM, Joodah wrote:

At 4/4/06 07:57 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: This is really pissing me off. "Jap" is a RACIAL EPITHET. Stop using it!

work with the times, gunny.
I'm trying to fit my mindset the same as the american command at the time.

Why did you have to go and fuck up my reply?

You're forgetting that this is not the 40's, people use the term Jap as an abbreviation of the term japanese, not to be disrespectful, but to make it easier to type.
The same goes for brit, argie, and yank.
It's quite unreasonable to demand that somone cease using a word when you've clearly neither considered the intent nor enquired about it.

I'm here to save you all form yourselves. With a dictionary!

Freedom Fighter:
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
terrorist:
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Since terror is not an effective medium for affecting well protected government, political and miliatary institutions, and never a match for significant military might, it can only be used against civilian populaces in the hope of them influencing the government.

A freedom fighter must specifically be fighting an oppressive regime, or oppression by an established authority.

A person can reasonably be considered both a freedom fighter and a terorrist if they use terror (generally being the use, threatened or otherwise, of violence intimidation or mass destruction) in order to influence a civilian population which overwhelmingly supports/practices such oppression.

Wether or not someone is justified in what they are doing, and the morality of the issues at hand are entirely subjective matters, and therefore independent of whatever labels we choose to apply.

On the NG politics forum we all lose.

I suppose we are dependent upon America to deploy our nuclear arsenal. I'm hoping we can establish an independent nuclear deterrent with the Trident update/upgrade.
Not so much out of distrust of the yanks, just preferring to be as self-reliant as possible.

Teh guvunmunt is toterly gay. we need to becum anorkists so dat da wurld wil be a betu pleac.

Insert generic anti-establishment speculation here.

At 11/17/05 06:39 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 11/16/05 09:09 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And since it does things comparable to a chemical weapon, we can compare them? Ok then, I say bullets and knives are chemical weapons also. They are made of chemicals and they deform other chemicals (namely flesh).

?? Are you even trying to put forth any sort of argument at all, or is your sole purpose in this thread to make yourself look stupid? When you create a knife that oxidizes immediately and burns until it's deprived of oxygen, then we can compare it to white phosphorus or a chemical weapon.

I think the comparison here is that knves and guns are both capable of killing indiscriminately, depending upon the context and the person wielding the weapon.
A bullet can destroy internal organs, causing suffering seasily comparable to that of some chemical weapons. Depleted Uranium shells, while not chemical weapons themselves can cause poisoning.
Chemical weapons are banned primarily because of the way they behave, not their precise effects on the human anatomy. Were it possible to deliver and control them with such precision that civilian casualties were minimized, and that most combatants were killed resonably quickly, they wouldn't be a problem.

The issue here is that WP can cause burns and suffering, since it is an incendiary weapon. WP can be delivered with a greater deal of accuracy than a cannister of mustard gas, resulting in a cloud that follows the wind wherever it blows. As such, WP is not comparable to traditional chemical weapons without also becoming comparable to the effects of traditional ballistic weapons.
So, to say that using WP is anything like using chemical weapons, is to say that using guns is as bad. Clearly that is not the case, since not only can it be (and it was) delivered with a notable degree of accuracy, but the American military also gave advanced warning of the attack, gving friend and foe alike the opportunity to leave the area, and apparently went on to corral the insurgents in such a manner as to reduce the potential for civilian casualties.

About the only thing the American military could have done to further reduce casualies, short of not pushing into falluja, would be to transport enough of the solution [that reacts with the WP to prevent it burning] into the city to grease up everyone remaining there, and force them to apply it at gun point.

Were they right to use it? No, but they weren't wrong to do so either.

Was it hypocitical? No. The invasion was largely based on the premise that Saddam's regime was breaking international laws, targetting his own people with banned chamical weapons, and disobeying the will of the United Nations. To be Hypocrytical, the use of WP would have to be illegal, deliberately indiscriminate (as were Saddam's chamical attacks in the Kurdish areas), and/or be in direct contravention of the terms of a UN resolution prohibiting the use of, and demanding the dismantling of whilst under UN supervision, said weapons.

Will saying sorry bring back the civilian dead, or heal their casualties? No, but niether will a bunch of thirteen year old anarchist wannabes on some website flaming America and her military for using weapons that they're entitled to use, and going about it in almost as humanitarian and surgical a manner as they realistically could.

At 11/16/05 05:09 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote:

At 11/16/05 04:24 PM, smith916 wrote: Refusing to fight a war is called, surrendering. Unless you want to be killed, or become islamic it's not as pretty as you think.

And I'm not sure I understand how attacking Iraq was a move against Osama bin Laden.

I don't believe he was talking about Iraq in particular.

At 10/8/05 02:35 PM, smith916 wrote: Nothing in the bible sugjests that god think's homosexuality is evil.

I don't know about that. Straight off the top of my head there's Romans and Leviticus.

At 10/2/05 09:15 PM, madzakk wrote: One thing they keep forgetting about gay adoptions, the child. What is he or she going to hear from the other kids?
"Your parents are queers, your parents are queers!" BAM! BAM! BAM!

Kids always catch crap from others for some reason. Wether it's the clothes they wear, their choice of hobbies, being fat or any number of other things. If they get ripped on for having gay parents, then they either learn to deal with it, or they don't. Same with any other kid who's ever been picked on for any reason.

At 10/8/05 11:58 AM, Dulnar wrote: Attraction is in-born. There are certain things that can happen in your environment that brings out that type of behavior, but whether or not you're actually gay is in your genes. Just because we haven't pinpointed the group of genes or mutagens that cause such a happening doesn't mean that we don't have sufficient evidence provided saying that homosexuality is genetic.

So, what you're saying is that even though it hasn't been proven, we should just assume it anyway?
How exactly can you have "sufficient evidence" of something, when you don't have an established, observable, explainable, specific causal relationship?