Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/23/09 12:43 AM, HecticCircleCrap wrote:

At 6/21/09 10:29 PM, Dekagaru wrote: We shouldn't make a non-government institution do anything they do not want to.

And making a government institution to do something they do not want to do is a federal offense. Either way, you are fucked, buddy.

There are plenty of churches out there that are open to everyone, and forcing a bigoted church to perform a ceremony they oppose just seems un-American to me.

Nobody said you had to get married at a church. In fact, it is not official until a judge is present. A gay marriage can be performed just as easily in a courtroom. Also, which America do you live in?

The government doesn't have "wants". All it should "want" to do is protect the people they represent. All US citizens deserve the same protection. Apparently you are to LAZY to read the previous post I was responding to. As I was responding to somonones crazy suggestion that we start forcing churches to perform the cerimony. I am fully aware a church is not required, I was simply stating that there is no shortage of willing churches should a couple want to use one. Try reading before posting. Sheesh.

At 6/22/09 07:05 PM, zephiran wrote: But in all seriousness, can we do a new take on this entire gay marriage thing? I know for a fact that I personally isn´t all that read up on my bible, BUT, what if, and mind you this is just a suggestion, what if we were to discuss the hurdles for homosexual marriage WITHIN the christian faith? I just thought it would be an interesting new take on all this... Came to think about it when I heard the swedish church is about to marry queers, so there´s more than a bit of theological debate within said church at this very moment. That debate is becoming quite interesting, and thus I drew the conclusion that this place (referring to thread here) also might benefit from embracing a new spin on the situation... For kicks, if nothing else.

´S cool though if nobody´s up for this, it´s not like I´m in the kind of position to make demands here...

No. For many reasons. First of all is that religion has nothing to do with marriage. Second, this is a political debate forum not a theological debate forum. The whole reason this entire situation exists in the US is because most Americans are too STUPID to separate religious issues with civil liberty issues.

At 6/22/09 04:55 PM, Ericho wrote: Do they perform gay marriages?

You would be surprised the number of churches in all 50 states that perform weddings. Its just sad that in 44 states the government treats such a serous and life changing ceremony as if it were a birthday party. =(

I think that Dragonmad's post was made before he clearly thought out the issue. I honestly don't think he thought through the implications of forcing religious institutions to hold ceremonies they are against. It would be the same issue as a white supremacist "church" that had a no black policy. While it is distasteful the government shouldn't send police there and make them allow black people to attend. And when it comes down to it why would a gay couple want to get married in a church that is hostile to them?

At 6/21/09 09:40 PM, Dragonmad wrote: This would mean that while the church wouldn't need to recognize gay people as married, they would be required to perform the ceremonies.

I'm actually gonna have to disagree with you there. We shouldn't make a non-government institution do anything they do not want to. There are plenty of churches out there that are open to everyone, and forcing a bigoted church to perform a ceremony they oppose just seems un-American to me.

At 6/19/09 06:02 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/19/09 04:56 AM, fli wrote: This, I got to say for Dante, who --for some unknown reason-- says that the 14th Admendment wouldn't allow gays to marry because he's playing Devil's Advocate:

I was trying to say the 14th amendment doesn't cover Gay marriage (i'm sorry I wasn't specific) Like how the Constitution doesn't cover Gambling or Abortion its a Gray area.

Actually the Constitution covers ALL of those things. It was a court case called Roe V. Wade cited the 14th amendments right to privacy clause as basis for protecting that. As for gambling, that falls under the section of the Constitution that allows sates to govern within the Constitutions framework.

As for gay marriage, I personally believe that the 14th amendment DOES protect that. The clause I am reffering two is this one...

..."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."

But since I'm not a judge my opinion means diddly squat.

But you, Dante, ARE being discriminated RIGHT NOW.
You and the rest of the heterosexual population.

You and your heterosexual population have don't have the ability that gay men and women. Gays can marry the opposite-sex, but Heteros can't marry same-sex partners.

Heh, never looked at it that way. Thanks for cheering me up!

At 6/19/09 02:58 AM, fli wrote:

At 6/19/09 02:38 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: you haven't explain the 14th amendment to me yet

I read your post, and I don't understand your explanation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nor do I.

By that logic we should have no laws at all. ANARCHY!!!!!!!
I am so fucking tired of that additude from gun advocats. By all means protect your own but it does not end with that. The only reason you have the security that grants you these rights is because you exist as part of society larger than yourself. If you want to go back to tribalism that's fine but you wouldn't be writing on the internet about that.

It seems to me everyone wants to think in extremes. Some think it should be anarchy, while others think that it should be so difficult to obtain a legal weapon that only a select few can own one. For this issue I saw we look towards the middle ground. I think existing weapon laws in most states are fine. Some may need to loosen up while others become more strict.

At 6/18/09 07:22 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/18/09 06:36 AM, Dekagaru wrote: I think the right to own firearms is a major symbol of the freedom this country is supposed to represent. You shouldn't own a gun if,

*You are trying to purchase anything BIGGER than an assault rifle. (I think M-14s are awesome)

By definition an assault rifle round is an intermediate calibur, bigger than a handgun round but not as big as traditional high-powered rounds that are used in deer hunting. For example, the 5.56mm round used by many assault rifles shoots a bullet not much bigger in diameter than a .22.

So there is a need for guns that shoot a bigger round than an assault rifle. At close range an AK-47 (semi-auto and w/a 5 round magazine) is perfectly acceptable for hunting deer. But if you're hunting long range...you need a full-powered round. If you're hunting anything bigger, like Moose or Bear, you will need something far bigger than an assault rifle round.

On a side note, a M-14 is not an assault rifle. Instead, it is a battle rifle since it uses a full-powered round instead of an intermediate powered round.

I was not refering to cartage size, I was simply stating that there is no need for a civilian without a license to own a chain-gun or grenade launcher or 50 cal rifle. Thats what I meant by bigger than an assault rifle.

At 6/18/09 12:53 PM, Non-existant12 wrote: Cause dudes making out is gross dude... seriously gross. ew god no gross.

-P

Making out in public is extremely rude, gay or straight. So unless you were at a gay bar, peeking through a gay persons window, or attending their wedding, then I'd say you have every right to yell "Get a room." So you point is irrelevant to this conversation.

I think the right to own firearms is a major symbol of the freedom this country is supposed to represent. You shouldn't own a gun if,
*You are a convicted/pending felon
*Have a history of mental illness
*You are trying to purchase anything BIGGER than an assault rifle. (I think M-14s are awesome)

That is all there should be. Laws requiring a few days waiting periods are smart, they prevent people from buying and using weaponry on a whim.

I am also for laws that require permits to carry weapons in public places. People should at least receive education about when and where lethal violence is truly the answer.

There are two types of liberals out there, ones who actually care about freedoms of ALL types for EVERYBODY. And those who foolishly envision this absurd utopia free of violence and without the need for weapons in the first place...

I would appreciate it if people would leave out polygamy and incest, as they are NOT relevant to this conversation.

At 6/17/09 02:51 PM, Blue-Bullet-Bill wrote: I really, honestly don't see why it has to be called MARRIAGE.
Give them rights and all that, BUT DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE! This goes against the Christian religion, gays would find support doubled if they were not so stubborn on the term.

You just don't get it do you? Its not about what the institution is called, its about a double standard that exists. There is NO such thing as separate but equal. And having two systems, Marriage and Civil Unions, creates too classes of "marriage" with the latter being lesser in significance. You have no idea what pride it fills a LGBT individual to be asked, "Are you married?" and simply reply, "Yes." Rather than "Well, we are almost married, we have a civil union, so I guess that's pretty close." Marriage was around long before Christianity was, so you have NO right to stake a claim on the institution. There is a separation of church and state for a good reason, so that you cannot put what YOUR idea of a marriage on what MY idea is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinio n/16tue1.html

I cannot believe I supported this guy. This hurts... really hurts... Sometimes I really hate my country.. and wish I could leave.

At 6/11/09 02:52 PM, GoronMaster wrote: I try to keep a very open mind about this subject but yet I do apose it beacause it is a moraly wrong lifestyle they are pushing on america. The liberals support it for various reasons here are some of my therys

1. So they will be identified as Gays and lesbians just as in the holocaust of WW2. So when the arabs take over the american front they will be publicly exicuted

2. to give the liberals a scapegoat to show there "open minded" when most are really racist[why do you think black people are always using the N word]

Tell me what you think!

I think you are a bigot and have no idea what you are talking about. I deserve the right the to marry one human I have decided to devote my life to just as you have.

At 3/5/09 12:20 PM, EKublai wrote:

:Perhaps this object turns out to be sentient as well. But since 4-D beings will only recognize other living beings as Expanses of Time (4-D object) then they draw 3-D objects (Single points in expanses of time) It is not aware it has created a living breathing being in a different dimension, and we are not aware that we have been created.

I don't mean this in a negative light, but I seriously want some of what you were high on when you wrote this! Ive seen people on acid make more sense.

Zelot-types seem to be against it... untill they or somone they love could benefit from it. Then they have a "change of heart" or "see the light". Really makes me sick sometimes.

A word in and of itself is neither ok or offinsive. It is the meaning behind it and the context in which it was used. If "shawty" is used in an affectionate manner, and that is the meaning and intent placed behind it, then in my worthless opinion thats totally fine.

At 2/26/09 08:20 PM, Minglle wrote: A sleeping flame war...

Except for one nasty troll I think this thread has remained rather civil.

At 2/26/09 05:47 PM, dySWN wrote:

Kidding aside, I still don't see why we can't have civil unions for the state, marriages for the church, and just leave them at that.

Well, some homosexuals will argue that it creates a "seperate but equal" situation. Since heterosexual couples can get a mere civil union as well. Personally, I could care less, and would take what I can get. The sad thing is that we dont even have civil unions where I live, which is sad. =(

Ooooo! Ooooo! I gotta good one!
In this video he clearly flicks off McCain, you gotta wach carefully though. I thought this was hilarious!

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=211973

At 2/25/09 07:58 PM, Fierce-Deity wrote:

To sum it up, gay couples should be able to be bound legally, but they shouldn't try to destroy religious beliefs by forcing religions to accept gay marriage.

Like I said, you can call our union whatever you wish. As long as the government gives us the same protection and rights as a married couple. There are thousands of churches that will willingly perform gay marriges. And if in the eyes of the state my marrige is called a "civil union"... whatever.. I could care less. I will still call my mate my husband, even if the government calls him my "domestic partner."

I think anyone who undergoes a background check, and acquires a license should have the right to own high powered weapons. Perhaps a psych evaluation wouldn't hurt too, included in the cost of the license fee.

At 2/25/09 07:28 PM, PBass wrote: Thanks for the discussion, but I have to run for now, I'll talk to you later! :)

Farewell, and God bless.

At 2/25/09 07:04 PM, PBass wrote:

I respect your beliefs, and even if you personally consider gay marriage wrong, I would hope you would consider the lives of 1000's of people who want to legally bond with the person they love.

Thanks for the very respectful response, I don't get that very often when people know that I'm a Christian. But because of my belief, I am opposed to the union of homosexual couples. When I think that something is morally wrong I believe it to be the rules of the world and not just those who fall into my religion. However I'm not going to force them on others, just oppose what I believe is wrong, and if people choose not to accept what I say then that's that, they shouldn't be treated inhumanely (Westboro Church I'm looking at you). It seems though we're at an impasse in our discussion and can only agree to disagree on whether or not homosexuals are granted union, legal or otherwise and can only hope for ourselves that our own ideals are carried out in the end.

But I must ask you this. It has been settled that this country has a seperation of church and state. And if that is the case what is the argument behind not allowing homosexual couples to have legal protection? If the basis of the argument is the bible, then while thats plenty of reason for a church not to marry a couple, it should have no bearing on government protections. What would happen if the majority religion of this country were muslim. And they forced women to wear shawls over their faces.... if you were a woman you would ask: "Why must I wear one? I am not a muslim." And everyone told you, "The Quaran says so." This is not to say I have anything against muslims, tis only an example.

It is the DUTY of our government to protect ALL of its citizens, gay, straight, christian, athiest, heck even neo-nazis. Me joining with the man I love would have no impact on your life. The definition of marrige has changed many times, first it meant women were property. Then it meant a man and the woman of the same race. Only recently was it expanded to allow different races. If you disagree with gay marrige, then dont marry your own gender! =P

I wish I could explain to you what its like, all the crap you have to put with. Im probably not going to convince you otherwise, but God made me the way I am for a reason. Why I do not know. But I have somone who loves me and I am very happy with my life. I dont belive in a God that doesnt want me to be happy.

At 2/25/09 06:47 PM, PBass wrote: This whole fighting for gay marriage is really just a fight for the right to call it marriage, and keep it as a trophy while the religious people of the country want to keep the sacrament they once had as their own. And despite me thinking homosexuality is a sin, those who are gay should never be treated differently. Sure, I think it's wrong, but so is lying, and I do that all the time and I can't stop. The best way to word my opposition to gay marriage is "I really wish you wouldn't".

I have nothing against people's belief systems. And if you think that me faithfully loving and wanting to spend my life with another human being is wrong, so be it. The government should not be in the marriage business at all, its is a religious institution and it should remain that way. However, my future husband and I deserve the same rights and protections that a heterosexual couple have. If you want to call our union a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, that's fine by me.

I respect your beliefs, and even if you personally consider gay marriage wrong, I would hope you would consider the lives of 1000's of people who want to legally bond with the person they love.

At 2/25/09 06:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

Perhaps you have all been seduced by Satan and unable to comprehend the long term peril you are putting yourselves in. I want to help you. I want to save the unsaved. But there is a limit to how much blasphemy I can tolerate. I bid you ado.

Fap fap fap fap fap!

=P

My its easy to push your buttons.

At 2/25/09 05:48 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

Perhaps you were not paying attention sir, but I announced that the previous post was to be the last word on the topic. Get with the program, the final answer has been given! Moreover, I find your insinuation to be insulting as I harbor no faggotorial tendencies, and take great offense to those that do. More to the point, I would not allow my son or daughter to commit such abominations, they would be raised properly.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? Why dont you go back to fapping to your bible eh?

At 2/25/09 05:22 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

NO ONE IS BORN GAY. WE ALL HAVE TEMPTATIONS, AND SOME PEOPLE ARE TEMPTED TO COMMIT ONE SIN MORE THAN ANOTHER, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS BORN HELPLESS TO COMMIT THE SIN. ANYONE WHO EXPERIENCES HOMOSEXUAL TEMPTATIONS CAN OVERCOME THEM THE SAME WAY THE REST OF US DEAL WITH OUR VICES, THROUGH DISCIPLINE AND REPENTANCE. I WILL NEVER ACCEPT A DAY WHERE THOSE WHO PROUDLY COMMIT ACTIONS THAT THE BIBLE PLAINLY REFERS TO AS AN ABOMINATION WILL BE ACCEPTED AS MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. THEY BELONG IN PRISON ALONG WITH ALL THE PEDOPHILES, MURDERERS, AND OTHER LOW LIVES THAT COULD NOT OVERCOME THEIR TEMPTATIONS EITHER. PROBABLY SHOULD CASTRATE THEM TOO, TO PREVENT THEM FROM FURTHER COMMITTING SUCH AN ACT.

========================================
========================================
========================================
======THIS HAS BEEN THE FINAL WORD====================================
========================================
=========

May God have mercy should your son or daughter be gay. And from the way you sound you probably have latent homosexual tendencies yourself. I hope one day you come around and accept the way you were born.