Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/18/09 01:53 PM, KartoTolmex wrote:

At 2/18/09 01:42 PM, thedo12 wrote:

prove it

Forgive me, but I will not look into the bible to find this. I know of it, and you are quite welcome to locate it for yourself.

im not saying to prove that some people think its a gift of god, im saying to prove PERIOD its a gift of god.

Whereas a valid point (not very classily put, but still) you'd have to agree that it is closer to home than same sex marriages.

and?

alot of people just get married becuase its more of a tradition, or becuase there not allowed to have sex till there married.

Which is agreeable with part of my post, the decay of the true meaning.

its seems to me your just making this true meaning up, who decides this true meaning ? where did you get this info from?
why should I trust your "true meaning" over someone else,s?

Again, refer to Google yourself

you made the claim prove it.

I'll lay my cards down, I'm not religious, and I really do not care if Gays want to get married.

ok

There may have been basic principals of publicly declaring a bond prior to organised religion, but it is very difficult to prove this, as religion has always been prevelant as soon as man developed higher thought.

I agree

Egyptians had their Gods for instance, so whereas I can agree Christianity may not have birthed it, it has modified the "rules" into what is acceptable today.

It may have had slight hand in the accepted definition, but like you said marrage is "degrading"(changing) over time. so oviously the christain definition of marrage isnt the end all be all.

The bible also says that lusting etc is a sin, and so is gratifying the flesh selfishly. (again please research it, I promise it won't take long as this is a hot topic).

im not going to argue with you there.

As gay union literally can only be for all intents and purposes a selfish thing, then this is another reason for it being viewed as sinful.

what??

since when is a union between two people who love each other a selfish thing?

I personally feel this is fights for the sake of fights, with marriage meaning less and less, it just seems that the "minority" has chosen this particular battleground for now, and when it is resolved there will just be something they'll want as well.

what, where are you getting this from?

gays just want marrage becuase they belive they deserve to make the same scocial contracts as straights , I personaly dont see anything wrong with that.

Is it right that gays get to use same sex toilets? Perhaps I feel that is a violation. It would be very difficult to police this, but I'm trying to illustrate that both parties need to respect views a little more and pick fights more responsibly.

Ive never heard of a same sex toilet EVER, but if Its run by a private bussness then I think they have a right to exclude toilet privaledges to whoever the fuck they want.

if its the government then no, just no.

At 1/24/09 08:43 AM, colintabulous wrote: A marriage is a holy and religous union between a man and a woman. I believe gays should have the right to a legal union, but shouldn't have one in a chapel with a preist and such.

That is only the religious perspective of the idea of marriage. Not everyone follows those beliefs.

Marriage is defined as a social, spiritual, or legal binding of two people. Religious beliefs are what delegate whether or not the same sex should marry. Since the US has separation of church and state (supposedly) there SHOULD be no way to ban same sex marriage in this country. This also makes the argument of marriage being a "holy union between man and woman" completely mute. The individuals involved my not share your beliefs, and/or may not agree with certain aspects of their own religion. So, the ONLY people who have any say whatsoever in this subject are the ones getting married and the one marrying them (depending on the type of ceremony).

Uh, nice topic :D
I think, gays should get a marriage like everyone else, I mean, why not?
Well there is a church which say, gay marriage is, uhm, bad . Well I'm a catholic but I don't believe in god nor in the church (it's done too much worse in the past).
So for me it's no ethnic question. Just see a maariage as simple as you can:
Two people, love each other, wanna be married.
And why theese people have to be woman and man and mustn't be man and man nor woman and woman.

I don't think that we 'normal' people can't imagine that they may love as we love.
So generally: Let the people love eachother, on which way they want (except pedophiles).

Greetings to all, Zeddi

I would oppose gay marriage except the institution itself has veered to far off it's original meaning that everything save its legal implications have become irrelevant.

At 2/18/09 02:30 PM, thedo12 wrote:

im not saying to prove that some people think its a gift of god, im saying to prove PERIOD its a gift of god.

Seeing as the whole point of God is you can't prove anything, you have to believe, you're asking me to do an impossible thing. Outside of the Bible, Qu'ran, whatever holy book, there is nothing to go by but other people's interpretations. Which is what this discussion has boiled down to.

alot of people just get married becuase its more of a tradition, or becuase there not allowed to have sex till there married.

its seems to me your just making this true meaning up, who decides this true meaning ? where did you get this info from?
why should I trust your "true meaning" over someone else,s?

As mentioned, it depends on your interpretation. My interpretation may be that the point of the union is to create a scenario acceptable to breed. Your interpretation may be it is simply just to allow two people to be acknowledged in love.

It may have had slight hand in the accepted definition, but like you said marrage is "degrading"(changing) over time. so oviously the christain definition of marrage isnt the end all be all.

what??

since when is a union between two people who love each other a selfish thing?

I mean this in the context of my argument. Two gays in union can offer no more to the furthering of the human race i.e breeding. Therefore as this is the case it is viewed as selfish.

Of course they offer things to society like inventing new energy sources etc. But you have to remember that these holy works were written in a time when carpentry was as complicated as anything got. That's why we have these discussions now, humans have evolved whereas "the Word of God" hasn't.

The bible is contradictory, "love thy neighbour" for one is a superb example, but homosexuality is widely regarded as sinful. So whereas I could "prove" one way, it is very easy to find "proof" leaning it the other.

what, where are you getting this from?

gays just want marrage becuase they belive they deserve to make the same scocial contracts as straights , I personaly dont see anything wrong with that.

But that's not how these things work, sure they have the same right to perform certain actions that heterosexuals do, but it won't stop there. The people in power (gay heading) will continue to overthrow, a) because if there's a "fight" going on it draws attention to their existence and b) people with power only want more power.

Ive never heard of a same sex toilet EVER, but if Its run by a private bussness then I think they have a right to exclude toilet privaledges to whoever the fuck they want.

if its the government then no, just no.

In the UK, this discussion has been presented before. With our whole ID card coming out, it was discussed to put sexual orientation, but it was quickly put down, very quickly.

Again this all comes down to party interpretation.

Homosexuality isn't natural, whatever way you look at it, it isn't. And I think this is where most of the issues lie. Why should you celebrate something that isn't natural? That if all the human race conformed to would end it?

However, as I say, I really don't care. Marriage has never fussed me at all, these days all it is is a state of mind, a ring and some paper.
If gays want to marry then let them, but I understand why it is shunned.

At 2/19/09 08:13 AM, KartoTolmex wrote:

At 2/18/09 02:30 PM, thedo12 wrote:

Seeing as the whole point of God is you can't prove anything, you have to believe, you're asking me to do an impossible thing. Outside of the Bible, Qu'ran, whatever holy book, there is nothing to go by but other people's interpretations. Which is what this discussion has boiled down to.

well if you cant prove it either way then then it should no relevence to the disscusion

I mean this in the context of my argument. Two gays in union can offer no more to the furthering of the human race i.e breeding. Therefore as this is the case it is viewed as selfish.

adopting and raseing a child who would otherwise have no parents is something very unselfish they could do

The bible is contradictory, "love thy neighbour" for one is a superb example, but homosexuality is widely regarded as sinful. So whereas I could "prove" one way, it is very easy to find "proof" leaning it the other.

thats why people love religion, they can interpret it however they want ;)

But that's not how these things work, sure they have the same right to perform certain actions that heterosexuals do, but it won't stop there. The people in power (gay heading) will continue to overthrow, a) because if there's a "fight" going on it draws attention to their existence and b) people with power only want more power.

I live in canada where gay marrge is complelty legal, and ive never once heard gays trying to get "more power", having equal rights isnt about "power".

this is starting to seem like a slippery slope fallacy.

In the UK, this discussion has been presented before. With our whole ID card coming out, it was discussed to put sexual orientation, but it was quickly put down, very quickly.

Id card?,

Again this all comes down to party interpretation.

Homosexuality isn't natural, whatever way you look at it, it isn't. And I think this is where most of the issues lie. Why should you celebrate something that isn't natural? That if all the human race conformed to would end it?

1st: what is and isnt natural is completly irelevent, if we only did whats "natural" then we wouldnt be extending our lifes by almost 60 years , through modern medicne and healthcare.

2. homosexuality is natural ,and homsexual behavior has been found in all kinds of animals .

However, as I say, I really don't care. Marriage has never fussed me at all, these days all it is is a state of mind, a ring and some paper.
If gays want to marry then let them, but I understand why it is shunned.

I understand why its shunned, but its not for any legimate reasons.

At 2/19/09 10:24 AM, thedo12 wrote:

well if you cant prove it either way then then it should no relevence to the disscusion

Because I don't have strong faiths or convictions allowing me to prove doesn't mean that it isn't provable. It doesn't negate its standing. The fact marriage takes place in a church should surely be enough proof that it has religious connotations.

I know registry offices etc have been introduced recently, and that's the point, recently.

adopting and raseing a child who would otherwise have no parents is something very unselfish they could do

They don't need to be married to do that. I could adopt a child and raise it solo, so long as I prove my financial backing allows me to.
They can't breed themselves is what I stated, therefore the gift (marriage) isn't relevant to them.

thats why people love religion, they can interpret it however they want ;)

Agreed

I live in canada where gay marrge is complelty legal, and ive never once heard gays trying to get "more power", having equal rights isnt about "power".

this is starting to seem like a slippery slope fallacy.

The issue that seems to be presenting itself here is that we live in vastly different societies, and therefore my opinions and backing shall be lost on you, as yours shall be lost on mine.
My experience is that when a "minority" gains power, they seek to extend that power, whether it is needed or not.

Id card?,

As proven here. ID card is to be introduced in the UK, which each individual will hold and essentially it is the "Eye of Big Brother" on us, whereas it's actually claimed to be for our security.

1st: what is and isnt natural is completly irelevent, if we only did whats "natural" then we wouldnt be extending our lifes by almost 60 years , through modern medicne and healthcare.

It isn't irrelevant, it is the entire basis for why it isn't permitted. And with the healthcare, I completely agree, the world is full of people that should not be allowed to live as long as they should.

2. homosexuality is natural ,and homsexual behavior has been found in all kinds of animals .

It isn't natural, whether it happens in the animal kingdom (this is closer to comradeship than sexual desires) doesn't mean it is. Humans are designed to breed, anything that breaks this purpose isn't natural.
I'll draw an outside example: a bird making a nest from rubbish. This isn't natural, but it occurs.

I understand why its shunned, but its not for any legimate reasons.

The legitimate reasons are entirely in the eyes of the beholders. This time in a hundred years then they might be viewed as redundant, but for now they hold high regard

At 2/19/09 11:06 AM, KartoTolmex wrote: It isn't natural, whether it happens in the animal kingdom (this is closer to comradeship than sexual desires) doesn't mean it is. Humans are designed to breed, anything that breaks this purpose isn't natural.
I'll draw an outside example: a bird making a nest from rubbish. This isn't natural, but it occurs.

Homosexuality is unnatural in the same way marriage is unnatural. Or the same way religion is unnatural.

Except homosexuality is actually done by animals. That means it's slightly MORE natural : D

Let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

If we let gays marry than we going start this parade of horribles chain reaction. No I'm not talk about people marrying animals, I'm talking about stuff that is natural in the animal kingdom and yet we still deny. If we going to secularize the institution of marriage. This is what we let in.

1) inter-familial marriage (animals have been breeding across familial lines for centuries)

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

If gay marriage is allowed, then these by the same logic must be allowed as well. It wouldn't make sense otherwise since the inter-familial marriage does not pose an undue burden on the state and polygamy doesn't either.

At 2/19/09 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote: Let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

If we let gays marry than we going start this parade of horribles chain reaction. No I'm not talk about people marrying animals, I'm talking about stuff that is natural in the animal kingdom and yet we still deny. If we going to secularize the institution of marriage. This is what we let in.

1) inter-familial marriage (animals have been breeding across familial lines for centuries)

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

If gay marriage is allowed, then these by the same logic must be allowed as well. It wouldn't make sense otherwise since the inter-familial marriage does not pose an undue burden on the state and polygamy doesn't either.

The problem is that you got the argument wrong.

The argument doesn't go: "Because animals are gay, it's okay for humans to be gay".

The argument is actually not an argument in itself, but a counter. It's the counter to "Homosexuality is unnatural". It isn't saying that we should do something because it's natural. It doesn't say we should mimic animals. All it does is refute an argument, by showing that it's facts are wrong.

At 2/19/09 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote: Let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

If we let gays marry than we going start this parade of horribles chain reaction. No I'm not talk about people marrying animals, I'm talking about stuff that is natural in the animal kingdom and yet we still deny. If we going to secularize the institution of marriage. This is what we let in.

1) inter-familial marriage (animals have been breeding across familial lines for centuries)

The main reason incestual marriages sholud remain illegal is kids from incest have a much higher rate of genetic disorders.

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

Whats wrong with polygamy? It not be something I would do myself but I don't see whats so evil about it.

At 2/19/09 11:06 AM, KartoTolmex wrote:
Because I don't have strong faiths or convictions allowing me to prove doesn't mean that it isn't provable. It doesn't negate its standing. The fact marriage takes place in a church should surely be enough proof that it has religious connotations.

im not saying it dosent have religous implications, im saying that thoose religous implications should have no affect on peoples rights, since what they say has never been proven.

adopting and raseing a child who would otherwise have no parents is something very unselfish they could do

They don't need to be married to do that. I could adopt a child and raise it solo, so long as I prove my financial backing allows me to.

no one needs to be married to have kids either.

They can't breed themselves is what I stated, therefore the gift (marriage) isn't relevant to them.

so god said if you cant breed then you cant get marreid?

The issue that seems to be presenting itself here is that we live in vastly different societies, and therefore my opinions and backing shall be lost on you, as yours shall be lost on mine.
My experience is that when a "minority" gains power, they seek to extend that power, whether it is needed or not.

i guess I guess I could see that maybe posibly happen.
, I dont see how that possibility shoudl have relevence though.

Id card?,

As proven here. ID card is to be introduced in the UK, which each individual will hold and essentially it is the "Eye of Big Brother" on us, whereas it's actually claimed to be for our security.

ok, im not current on any uk issues really, but that seems really messed up.

It isn't irrelevant, it is the entire basis for why it isn't permitted. And with the healthcare, I completely agree, the world is full of people that should not be allowed to live as long as they should.

healthcare is a completly differnt topic .

It isn't natural, whether it happens in the animal kingdom (this is closer to comradeship than sexual desires) doesn't mean it is. Humans are designed to breed, anything that breaks this purpose isn't natural.

humans arent designed for anything,
we are products of evolution which has no goal nor purpose.

I'll draw an outside example: a bird making a nest from rubbish. This isn't natural, but it occurs.

how isnt it natural?

what definition of "natural" are you using?

but for now they hold high regard

sadly, yes.

i wonder if people realise that marriage (or some other form of ritualized coupling) likely existed before religion.

At 2/18/09 03:30 PM, Died-Z wrote: Well I'm a catholic but I don't believe in god nor in the church (it's done too much worse in the past).

Doesn't that pretty much make you not a Catholic at all? I mean I'm Catholic, and my understanding is that you have to at least be a Christian to be one of us.

At 2/19/09 07:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

Whats wrong with polygamy? It not be something I would do myself but I don't see whats so evil about it.

The problem in polygamy arises when you think about the fact that it leaves a lot of males unable to find a mate, leaving them with no outlet for their needs. What do you think happens to social order when most of your men are horny, jealous, and have no family to keep them settled?

At 2/19/09 08:53 PM, thedo12 wrote:
im not saying it dosent have religous implications, im saying that thoose religous implications should have no affect on peoples rights, since what they say has never been proven.

You're going back on yourself slightly, you asked me to prove whether it had anything to do with religion, now saying you're not in disagreement with the fact that it does. Unless you're being deliberately awkward which I hope is not the case.

Unfortunately whether you feel those religious rights should have an impact or not is irrelevant; the fact is they do, end of. And they have far greater and more serious repercussions for people than two gays not having a piece of paper with both their names on.

no one needs to be married to have kids either.

You're missing the point. As I said in a previous post, all religious works are outdated, and are taken from a time where we didn't have adoption agencies, foster cares, artificial insemination.

All we had was cookie cutter breeding. Yes, noone needs to be married to have kids, teens and co-habitating couples prove that, I prove that (a product of out of marriage).

However, the sole purpose of this gift was to allow couples of that time was to allow two to unify, and provide the next generation. Whereas we now have updated options, as well as the unspoken act of divorce (at the time) leans to the fact that gays will soon have their power.

so god said if you cant breed then you cant get marreid?

Exactly right. Again, refer to my above statement about religious works age etc.

Remember, there was no healthcare, any medical abnormality or anything was left to its own devices and it would go unchecked and/or would die from it.
If it goes unchecked that means it couldn't have been used as a reason for the two to be unified.

, I dont see how that possibility shoudl have relevence though.

It bears every relevance. If gays eventually have the right to openly advocate homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality, it bears a very serious relevance. And don't say this wouldn't happen, it easily could.

healthcare is a completly differnt topic .

Indeed it is, but I felt I'd add my two cents on that since it was raised briefly.

humans arent designed for anything,
we are products of evolution which has no goal nor purpose.

In the grand scale of things: yes, we exist only to exist. In the broken down means for us to accomplish that, our purpose is to provide our genetic code for the furthering of the race.
We are designed to evolve. Survival of the fittest etc, homosexuality obviously bars that progress.

how isnt it natural?

what definition of "natural" are you using?

I wasn't aware there could be more than one;

na%u22C5ture%u2002 %u2002[ney-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

nat%u22C5u%u22C5ral%u2002 %u2002[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

The copy paste above broke,

It is meant to read

NATURE as the first definition

NATURAL as the second

At 2/19/09 09:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i wonder if people realise that marriage (or some other form of ritualized coupling) likely existed before religion.

I'm thinking that a big part of those who rejects the idea of letting gay people marry don't exactly follow history as we do. For them, it started, say, about 6000 years ago, when some dude spoke something about some light.

why do we argue about this? the pro gays will win. interracial marriage was legalized, and this will be too.

But you can't be aggressive like you are towards people with their views, you have to diplomatic in this world.

true, but being diplomatic usually gets me nowhere, if not further back. so i have decided to be aggressive, but fair. to seem like I am agressive, but be just as fair as i normally would be.

how isnt it natural?

what definition of "natural" are you using?

I wasn't aware there could be more than one;

na%u22C5ture%u2002 %u2002[ney-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

nat%u22C5u%u22C5ral%u2002 %u2002[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

it is incredibly natural because it has been recorded in over 1500 species of animals.

At 2/20/09 07:35 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

it is incredibly natural because it has been recorded in over 1500 species of animals.

You've got the wrong end of the stick, if you refer to my previous posts rather than jumping the gun, you would see that I was using the definition to state that it isn't natural for birds to build nests from rubbish.

Unless you mean 1500 species of animals build nests from rubbish?

Please if you're going to try and have a debate with me, make sure you're in the same plane of thought and make sure we haven't already gone over what you're stating, thanks.

At 2/19/09 10:23 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 2/19/09 07:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

Whats wrong with polygamy? It not be something I would do myself but I don't see whats so evil about it.

The problem in polygamy arises when you think about the fact that it leaves a lot of males unable to find a mate, leaving them with no outlet for their needs. What do you think happens to social order when most of your men are horny, jealous, and have no family to keep them settled?

This argument against polygamy resembles the "if the gays take over, no babies will be born!" argument in that, in reality, the effects are relatively irrelevant because most people aren't polygamists.

Humans have developed a very, very strong evolutionary drive to take possession of a mate, and so in much the same way that we've developed an aversion to theft in order to avoid conflict, many of us have developed an aversion to polygamy.

However, as an argument against the legalization of polygamy, this is flawed, because in the case of polygamy, all parties involved are consenting, and so are obviously beyond this drive.

At 2/19/09 10:23 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 2/19/09 07:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

Whats wrong with polygamy? It not be something I would do myself but I don't see whats so evil about it.

The problem in polygamy arises when you think about the fact that it leaves a lot of males unable to find a mate, leaving them with no outlet for their needs.

Do you really think that polygamy is that common? Also women can have more than one husband to.

What do you think happens to social order when most of your men are horny, jealous, and have no family to keep them settled?

4chan?

At 1/24/09 08:43 AM, colintabulous wrote: A marriage is a holy and religous union between a man and a woman. I believe gays should have the right to a legal union, but shouldn't have one in a chapel with a preist and such.

so homosexuals can't have a marriage parallel to their religious beliefs?

I don't oppose it nor think there's anything wrong with it.

At 2/20/09 08:33 PM, westonsarver wrote:

At 1/24/09 08:43 AM, colintabulous wrote: A marriage is a holy and religous union between a man and a woman. I believe gays should have the right to a legal union, but shouldn't have one in a chapel with a preist and such.

so homosexuals can't have a marriage parallel to their religious beliefs?

Maybe he's thinking that churches should have their liberty of no marrying people?
In that way, some churches can marry and others won't marry.

I got married at Metropolitan Community Church, which performs marriages for both gay and heterosexual couples alike.

I think Ron Paul put it best when he was on Bill Maher's show last night. He said that this a country of freedom and as long as an act doesn't hurt anyone, you should be allowed to do it (although in that case he was talking about marijuana). I honestly don't see how gay marriage.

Heck, with the high divorce rates, this could be a way of boosting morale!

What most fail to realize is that is impossible to understand being gay unless you were born that way, as I was. So of course it seems "unnatural", because your brain doesn't work the way a gay person does. Here is a simply analogy. If you are right handed try writing with your left, you will be hesitant to do so and it will feel "unnatural". Yet you often see people who are left handed, were they born that way? Did they choose at childhood to use their left? The fact is that it DOESNT MATTER! It is what is right for them, and is what THEY feel is natural.

It would be a dream come true to marry my boyfriend and raise a family. And I know that it wont be long until that happens.