Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/25/09 07:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: i oppose marriage in general. marriage was originally a way to get more land or be able to have kids so that they could work on the crops and farms. marriage should only be for profit. that was how it was in the first place.

...history says otherwise, but ok.

religion is a personal choice and the ideals of which should not be forced onto others through laws that stop you from expressing yourself..wether it is seen as a "sin" to be gay to some groups is irrelevant in a truly secular nation. all people should be free to express.

I think gay men are quite scary sometimes... Sort of disturbing and you don't know what to say to them.

At 1/24/09 07:13 PM, Memorize wrote: I like how the definition changed from "man and woman" to "2 adults".

Where are the polygamists when you need them?

Changing it to "two or more adults" would require a total restructuring of the law. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to ever do, but it is something that would take a while.

At 1/24/09 11:02 AM, jakobhummelen wrote:

At 1/24/09 08:43 AM, colintabulous wrote: A marriage is a holy and religous union between a man and a woman.

Two words that I hate to see related to anything regarding the law..

I believe gays should have the right to a legal union, but shouldn't have one in a chapel with a preist and such.

Well yeah, I guess the church frowns upon homosexuality.. but there is a problem: to what extend is the church able to refuse people? isn't it discrimination if you start refusing to marry gay people?

No, it is within a church's right to refuse to marry certain people, just as they can excommunicate someone (if you are Catholic). My wife had to go to nearly ten churches before she talked to a preacher that was willing to perform the ceremony for us. For many reasons ranging from me being Athiest, her being divorced in the past, and the fact that I wasn't in the area to talk to them prior to the wedding. But we found one that would marry us, and we've been happy ever since.

Some churches now accept gay marriage as well, and I'm pretty certain more will in the future also, so they homosexual couples will just have to either get married by a judge, or in a churc that accepts their lifestyle.

changed the book definition (look up it up) of marriage and i'll be okay with it. but its not really marriage if not a guy and a girl make it like... farriage or somthing

What do people have against gays? Here's how I see it, gay marriage should be legal in every single state in America......BUUUUTT..........each individual church should be able to decide whether or not they want to wed two men or women. I think that would work much better. Also, if you hate gays people just because of who they love......go die in a fire.

i don't judge a book by its cover everybody has their own human right to do what they want!

Why is there a Religious objection to homosexual marriage yet Agnostics, Atheists and people of two different Religions have no objections?

Funny how it works isnt it?

At 1/26/09 09:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: Why is there a Religious objection to homosexual marriage yet Agnostics, Atheists and people of two different Religions have no objections?

I'm concerned people wont get what I said so I'll rephase.

I've never seen any religious objections to marriage between the three latter groups I mention above.

The only problem I have with Gay marriage or same sex marriages are that no religious intstitutions should be forced to do so.
I don't care about any of the varied religious groups out their what so ever, BUT I do believe that if the congregation who are the backbone & heart of any religious group are opposed to it, then that should be their right.
Just like if any religious group wants to marry same sex couples, then that should also be 'their' right to do so.

Also I find it troubling that the state (ie; Government) would decide to enforce laws that do not allow same sex unions. Let people marry who they want, as long as we continue to protect, or have laws to protect children from underage marriages; then I don't really care who marries who.

and please spare me & the rest of us your comments about "ok , then it must be ok to marry animals or the dead...I'm not speaking about anything like that, just consenting adults who wish to marry each other.

The real reason the US government has yet to legalize homosexual marriages (or whatever substitute term you prefer) has little to do with religion. Conservative politicians will quote religion and claim religious bias, because that's what their voting base believes in and wants to hear, but the real rationale is money. Insurance lobbies are very much against extending legalized spousal benefits to encompass homosexual relationships, both due to a general desire to keep costs down and to the preconception (right or wrong) that the homosexual segment of the population is more prone to various expensive health problems. Also, insurers are strongly afraid that if gay unions became legal, we would see random college roommates and best friends getting fake-married just to get benefits, until they meet a suitable mate later and get divorced so they can get real-married.

The libertarian view is a good one. The government's intereset in marriage should end at what a marriage is, from a purely legal, governmental perspective, absent religion. In that scenario, marriage is a contractual obligation that changes people's tax, insurance, and probate defaults, and makes it so you don't have to testify against your spouse in court. The government can grant this contractional relationship without requiring any religious institution to recognize anybody's marriage. If two gay people get civilly married, it would violate religious freedom for the government to force a church to accept their membership. The church, being a private religious organization, is free to exclude whoever it wants, without governmental interference. We'll see if we get there, thoguh.

i'm against gay marriage because im against marriage alltogether. the less marriage the better.

Gays can get married of they so please, I don't mind them unless they are after my ass.

I miss the good old days when you could just pick up your club and go over to the neghboring village/tribe whatever and just Kidnap a wife and well in this case maybe you wanted a husband whatever ahhh the simpler days the cave man days

At 1/25/09 07:10 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/25/09 07:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: i oppose marriage in general. marriage was originally a way to get more land or be able to have kids so that they could work on the crops and farms. marriage should only be for profit. that was how it was in the first place.

...history says otherwise, but ok.

..................No

I just don't get all these really old republican guys "Oh, it will ruin America" Bullshit. I can disprove all of their arguements. Just watch me.

"They can't get married because they can't reproduce."

Barren women can't reproduce. And they get married.

"If gays get married, than other people will want to be gay."

.......do YOU want to be gay? Will two men who love each other make YOU gay? No....you would have to be fucking wasted to even come up with such a thing.

"Gays can't be parents. Gay parents raise gay children."

Yeah, because straight parents only raise straight children, right? If THAT was true, we wouldn't even be having this problem.

"Gays still can't be parents! Kids need a mother and a father figure."

And that's exactly why we banned single parenting, right? If you're not married, no family for you!

"Being gay isn't natural. Animals don't do it."

Actually, it is natural. Homosexual activity has been recorded in over 1500 species. Not that it really matters, though, because WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!! We are smarter and more evolved than animals. Animals don't have neulear wars, do they? HA!

"The bible says that it's wrong!"

True, but we are not a nation that is forced to believe the same thing.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman! If we have to change the Constitution, we will!"

If you have to CHANGE the Constitution just to make your argument right, then aren't you pretty much wrong? Isn't that what this whole thing is about?

See, I can disprove all your arguments. If you have one I haven't heard of, then bring it on. I will prove how shitty and retarded it sounds, Okay?

At 1/27/09 07:48 PM, Yamor wrote: Gays can get married of they so please, I don't mind them unless they are after my ass.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure your ass is safe.

See, I can disprove all your arguments. If you have one I haven't heard of, then bring it on. I will prove how shitty and retarded it sounds, Okay?

How about I just say that being gay is not natural because they can't reproduce. :D

Seriously though, what you said was only common sense. People just don't want gay marriage because humans are naturally afraid of people that arn't like them (americans and other places whether it's small or great has history of bigotry or racism somewhere along their lines). Personally, I don't give a damn, but don't expect me to be at their wedding (not at least without a barf bag).

Im for gay marriages.
But i when you decided to be christian, you need to do christian things, the good things, with the bad things. If you're gay you can get a non-christian marriage, it doesn't make sense to be married in a church if you're gay. Imo.

At 1/24/09 02:09 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: does the Constitution not say separation of church and state? So, throw it out.

Actually it does not. That's a world view held by Jefferson if I remember right.

But that's beside the point because I actually agree with you on the subject of homosexual unions. (and hell no I'm not calling it gay marriage)

But the question becomes this: How many people who oppose gay marriage also oppose the removal of the word "marriage" from government affairs because of tradition?

At 1/26/09 09:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: Why is there a Religious objection to homosexual marriage yet Agnostics, Atheists and people of two different Religions have no objections?

Funny how it works isnt it?

To be honest i've always thought why athiests even get married.

I mean maybe the whole white dress and general big ceremony are attractive for alot of people who would like to go through with it. Still going to a religous church, saying vows infront of a god you don't believe in and basically having a priest present for some reason to.

I can see it's traditional around the world that a christian wedding is the most common for those who are athiest but you cannot deny the down right hypocrosy of it all.

At 1/28/09 01:34 PM, Jinzoa wrote:

At 1/26/09 09:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: Why is there a Religious objection to homosexual marriage yet Agnostics, Atheists and people of two different Religions have no objections?

Funny how it works isnt it?

To be honest i've always thought why athiests even get married.

I mean maybe the whole white dress and general big ceremony are attractive for alot of people who would like to go through with it. Still going to a religous church, saying vows infront of a god you don't believe in and basically having a priest present for some reason to.

I can see it's traditional around the world that a christian wedding is the most common for those who are athiest but you cannot deny the down right hypocrosy of it all.

Tradition!! extended benifits....and maybe even to fit in makes sense to me.. also you dont have to have a big fancy wedding ive been to lots where they just sign the papers. The priest it there because only a couple people have the authority to wed people. and also just because it has some elements of a christian wedding doesnt mean it is a "christian wedding"

I say if gay people wana get married, find a gay priest n go ahead, theyre not going to force churches to let them get married in them n i dunno if thats even a problem anymore.
But anyway, gay marriage is wrong by the ooooold ass tradition that pretty much the whole world has had for thousands of years, one man n one woman.
But hang on a sec...couldn't they create some separate form of marriage? I mean people dont want gay marriage to be in the same fashion as regular marriage, n before people get pissed, I'm talking about ACTUAL MARRIAGE, the one between a man n a woman, that is the only one in the category, gay marriage should be in a separate one thats all im saying.
If you wana be gay then go ahead, I will not.

.

But hang on a sec...couldn't they create some separate form of marriage? I mean people dont want gay marriage to be in the same fashion as regular marriage, n before people get pissed, I'm talking about ACTUAL MARRIAGE, the one between a man n a woman, that is the only one in the category, gay marriage should be in a separate one thats all im saying.
If you wana be gay then go ahead, I will not.

that's......that's actually a great idea.....well why the fuck DON'T we
just do that? good idea, man. cus the main reason people are pissed off is that they don't want gays having the same type of marriage because of traditions and all that crap.

At 1/28/09 11:53 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I say if gay people wana get married, find a gay priest n go ahead, theyre not going to force churches to let them get married in them n i dunno if thats even a problem anymore.

The problem is usually with conservative Christians who don't agree with you. Conservative Christians tends to be against gay marriage no matter what, even when the marriage is on the other side of the content, with two people who love each other, with a priest who approves.

But anyway, gay marriage is wrong by the ooooold ass tradition that pretty much the whole world has had for thousands of years, one man n one woman.

Actually, if you go back in time, marriage has often been between one man and several women. Oh, and divorce wasn't possible either. So marriage HAS changed a lot.

But hang on a sec...couldn't they create some separate form of marriage? I mean people dont want gay marriage to be in the same fashion as regular marriage, n before people get pissed, I'm talking about ACTUAL MARRIAGE, the one between a man n a woman, that is the only one in the category, gay marriage should be in a separate one thats all im saying.

Conservative Christians wouldn't stand for it. The fact that you use the word "marriage" alone disqualifies your idea. It's barely so that people approve of "unions".

I don't really care whether gay marriage is legalised or not but the way things are going it will be legal soon. So it's best to pass the legislation and shut the opposition up and settle this once and for all.

The separation of church and state is a value that has more or less been upheld (harmless invocations of God notwithstanding) throughout America's history, so I don't see why this is an exception. "Marriage" as defined in the 21st century does not exclusively refer to a religious ceremony. Two people can be married by a judge. Atheists can get married. A marriage license is an entirely secular legal document. As such, marriage is a legal bond first and a spiritual/religious/"sacred" bond only if the couple getting married chooses to make it so. As such, religious doctrine should have no influence on whether or not two people can receive a secular legal document.

That being said, just as religion cannot impose itself upon the government, the government cannot impose itself on religion. If a church is ideologically opposed to marrying two gay people, then so be it. That church is a private institution and it has the right to decide how it will conduct its business. However, state governments are not private institutions, and there's this little thing called the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that states the following:

Section 1- "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Section 5- "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So as I see it, while the government cannot compel religious institutions to allow gay marriage, to deny gays the rights to a secular, legal marriage license and all of the benefits associated with one is flat-out unconstitutional in addition to violating separation of church and state.

I myself appose gay marriage, just like I appose cheating or beating someone up.
Everywhere in the Bible (old and new testements, yeah amazing I bet you didn't know there were passages in the new testaments against it) homosexuality is taught against, IT IS GROUPED WITH OTHER SINS AND SHOWN AS JUST AS BAD AS ALL OTHER SINS, ANY CHRISTIAN WHO HATES GAYS ALSO HAS TO HATE ALL OTHER PEOPLE WHO COMMITS SIN, including themselves.

thankyou.
and goodnight.

At 1/24/09 08:32 AM, AKACCMIOF wrote: It seems to be a controversial topic, but why? I mean come on, what harm does gay marriage do in comparison to the good it does? Seems to me like half the people who oppose it do so because of the knee jerk reaction people have to homosexuality, and then justify it using:

1) Leviticus.
2) Some bogus argument stating that my natural urge = moral righteousness.
3) Trying to state that more marriage means less to go around.

If you oppose gay marriage, why?

i'm with you. i mean, i hate gay people and think they're idiots, but there's no valid legal reason to nit allow agy marriage.