Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I know. And Bush stopped just short of saying that he was going to pass a constitutional amendmant banning same-sex marriages in his speech. State of the union, I believe.
I find that to be a really sad thing. I'd like to see the negative repercussions of legal same-sex marriages, and how it negatively impacts all these people that are against it.
Because if it has no impact on them, they really have no say in the matter. Or at least, they shouldn't.

Actually, a friend of mine and her lesbian partner just got married a while ago (I'm Canadian) and we had a discussion about why she would want to enter into such a historically repressive institution as marriage, given it started out as a property exchange of the woman between a father and his new son-in-law, all of the gender problems, the legal bullshit, etc.... And she said that if she was a "het" she probably would never get married (she is a major intellectual, has a PhD, very successful and thoughtful person) because of the whole politics around it, but because she is lesbian, it is a statement of her right to participate in that legal instiution and enjoy the rights that hets take for granted. Even if a heterosexual doesn't get married but lives with their partner for years, then they still get the same rights and privileges as "common-law" spouses, just because they are hets. I think the U.S. will have to eventually adopt same sex marriage legislation, because as we have been seeing up here in Canada, it would be against the very core values of both the US or Canadian constitutions to deny this freedom to people of all sexual orientations or religious persuasions or whatever. It comes down to being anti-gay, or gay tolerant, and the first option contradicts basic human rights legislation in both Countries. This is one area (ethics and human rights) where Canada is ahead of the states.

At 2/11/04 10:27 AM, H-Dawg wrote: why she would want to enter into such a historically repressive institution as marriage

Oh, it depends on the culture your looking at.

But every culture / civilization has had 'marriage' in some shape or form. And I'm sure in past civilizations, homosexuals probably were involved in some. To bar them now is backwards and asinine.

I don't mind gays, personally. I think they're really cool. But why are they so adamant about the issue of marriage? Why do they find it so necessary to get married? Why can't both sides reach a compromise and have civil contracts? They do it in France, and it has been very successful. Secondly, gay couples are, technically, unable to have sex. Therefore, they cannot consumate their marriages; ergo, the marriage would be invalid. Let it go.

because it is bad. personaly i dont REALLY have anything against gays, but they atleast only get married by a judge, and not a priest. gays are against any religion i can think of. the punishment...a one way ticket to hell

Personally I don't have anything against gays. I don't mind them being gay. I don't hate them for being gay. But they are the spawns of satan, sent here to corrupt good christians. If they can get married, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. By letting them marry, it'll be saying, "yes, good gays. Gay is good." When they are actually hell-spawn. Gayness is a disease, a crippling disease that can be spread by contact! Good thing my gay roommate moved out, because I really started to like the dick! Phew, don't worry though, I'm "all better"!!

At 2/13/04 02:31 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: because it is bad. personaly i dont REALLY have anything against gays, but they atleast only get married by a judge, and not a priest. gays are against any religion i can think of. the punishment...a one way ticket to hell

Oh, that's good. Sleeping with men = Trip to satan.

hell isn't so bad since there are all those nice faggy boys to spruce everything up and redecorate it down here. it's just those damn sadomasocists are always stuffing gerbil's up their asses, and while i'm sure they were very naughty gerbils, no one should have to endure the torment of imprisonment within a gay mans ass.

these gay rights topics are getting so ASSinine and bANAL. can't we just do away with them? even i can't derive any amusement out of them anymore

Really! Gays are evil! They shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals! Everyone already knows that!

At 2/13/04 04:10 PM, red_skunk wrote: Really! Gays are evil! They shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals! Everyone already knows that!

Oh yes, I totally agree with you. It's in this book. Fundamentalism for Beginners. It's really good, and oyu know what? God said so.

At one point, Christianity supported homosexuality, in much the same way the Grecians....or Romans did. I believe it was called "bonding of the brothers".

At 2/14/04 10:13 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: At one point, Christianity supported homosexuality, in much the same way the Grecians....or Romans did. I believe it was called "bonding of the brothers".

It was the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great, who supported Homosexuality in the Army, that conquered about all of the then-known world.

The Greeks supported homosexuality because women couldn't "love" on the same level as two men. Some kings of England were gay, and that's when they "thought" they were appointed by God.

The issue of homosexuals getting married doesn't effect me, but I'm for it; there's no need to be holding back the rights of fellow human beings.

"To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure."
-St. Odo of Cluny, Roman Catholic saint

P.S.: God, Satan, heaven, and hell don't exist.

At 2/15/04 11:31 AM, Kyle_22 wrote: The Greeks supported homosexuality because women couldn't "love" on the same level as two men. Some kings of England were gay, and that's when they "thought" they were appointed by God.

Which of our kings were gay now?

Why don't we say:
William Rufus, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Edward II, Richard II, James I, and William III .

Just to be on the safe side, let's add:
William I de Montacute 1333-1344
William II de Montacute 1344-1392
William Le Scrop 1392-1399
Henry Percy 1399-1405
John I Stanley 1405-1414
John II Stanley 1414-1437
Thomas I Stanley 1437-1459
Thomas II Stanley 1459-1504
Thomas III Stanley 1504-1521
Edward Stanley 1521-1572
Henry Stanley 1572-1593
Ferdinando Stanley 1593-1594
William I Stanley 1610-1612
Elizabeth Stanley 1612-1627
James I Stanley 1627-1651
Charles Stanley 1660-1672
William II Stanley 1672-1702
James II Stanley 1702-1736
James Murray 1736-1764
John Murray 1764-1765

That will allieviate any potential whining as to some kings being left out. Feel free to add the more modern kings.

At 2/15/04 06:42 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Why don't we say:
William Rufus, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Edward II, Richard II, James I, and William III .

Sounds good enough. Mind you, the fact that some famous people are or aren't gay doesn't add much weight to your argument.

Wasn't my argument. I was merely replying with desired information.

marriage in a modern social context is a priviledged legal status that facilitates the creation of a family and aids in the maintenence thereof.
should a divorce occur there are legal guidelines to ensure the children suffer the minimum adverse effects of the break up(in theory at least).
married couples are given certain benefits as an incentive to remain together and perpetuate social norms(social norms which benefit their offspring, and future generations).
marriage is a public commitment to the creation of a family, not as some wrongly assume merely an expression of love(it is this misconception that is largely responsible for high divorce rates).
it is therefore illogical for homosexuals to be allowed to marry a they are unable to produce offspring and perpetuate society. given that there is no benefit to be gained from gay marriages what possible function do they serve?

i do however support the creation of a unique legal status for couples outside of marriage, it would give them some next of kin and inheritance rights without cheapening the incentives offered to couples who marry. likewise i can see an argument for the legalisation of marriages for homosexual couples who intend to adopt a child(or children) as a couple. that way they would be in a beter position to raise the child and to deal with a break up.

At 2/17/04 04:50 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: it is therefore illogical for homosexuals to be allowed to marry a they are unable to produce offspring and perpetuate society. given that there is no benefit to be gained from gay marriages what possible function do they serve?

Purely because there isn't any benefit to us, does that mean we shoul illegalise it? Would you be incredibly upset if gays were allowed to marry, or would you shrug it off?

likewise i can see an argument for the legalisation of marriages for homosexual couples who intend to adopt a child(or children) as a couple. that way they would be in a beter position to raise the child and to deal with a break up.

So they have to intend to adopt a child to marry?

Purely out of iterest, should Infertile people be able to marry?

At 2/17/04 05:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Purely out of iterest, should Infertile people be able to marry?

No, they would not contribute to the cause of marriage, that is, purpetuating society.
</flawed logic>

At 2/17/04 05:45 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/17/04 05:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Purely out of iterest, should Infertile people be able to marry?

No, they would not contribute to the cause of marriage, that is, purpetuating society.
</flawed logic>

in a perfectly logical situation they would be unable to marry, but there are several problems with actually determining who is and is not infertile.

some people will not know about it until they are married, others will lie. you can't go to their doctor because that is an invasion of privacy and violates doctor patient confidentiality, and the cost of investigating every single couple who intend to marry would most likely outweigh whatever benefit could be derived from preventing their marriage. not to mention an infertile [married] couple could still adopt, after all they are the ideal candidates for such an undertaking(given that they have made a public commitment to the creation of a new family and they have the ability to provide for a child who needs parents).

At 2/17/04 08:31 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: in a perfectly logical situation they would be unable to marry, but there are several problems with actually determining who is and is not infertile.

Well, we should stop retarded and borderline retarded members of society from marrying then, correct? But then, if marriage is simply for continuing the race, by logical extension, not marrying would mean that you should not have children.

But I guess the real question I want to ask is: Should we really let just anyone randomly marry someone else, as long as they're not gay, sterile, retarded / borderline retarded or an undesirable minority?

At 2/17/04 08:31 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: in a perfectly logical situation they would be unable to marry, but there are several problems with actually determining who is and is not infertile.

Why on earth? Just because someone can't procreate, doens't mean they shoudn't marry?

some people will not know about it until they are married, others will lie. you can't go to their doctor because that is an invasion of privacy and violates doctor patient confidentiality, and the cost of investigating every single couple who intend to marry would most likely outweigh whatever benefit could be derived from preventing their marriage. not to mention an infertile [married] couple could still adopt, after all they are the ideal candidates for such an undertaking(given that they have made a public commitment to the creation of a new family and they have the ability to provide for a child who needs parents).

A Gay married couple could adopt too, but neither situation results in any MORE babies being born. They're just moved about a bit.

Let them marry. They love each other, that's all you need.

:At 2/18/04 01:10 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

Well, we should stop retarded and borderline retarded members of society from marrying then, correct? But then, if marriage is simply for continuing the race, by logical extension, not marrying would mean that you should not have children.

no, not marrying would mean that one should marry in the event that they intend to have children as marriage is advantageous to their child(ren).

But I guess the real question I want to ask is: Should we really let just anyone randomly marry someone else, as long as they're not gay, sterile, retarded / borderline retarded or an undesirable minority?

obviously not, if two people cannot commit to their new family then they shouldn't marry in the first place. that's the reason couples will go to see a priest, so that if he believes they are not ready for marriage or that there is a strong possibilty that they do not respect the foundations of marriage then he can refuse to marry them. similarly i would like the law to reflect this, people should never get married on a whim, or spontaneously, it should be planned and the two people involved should knoiw exactly what they're getting into. it should always be "till death us do part".

At 2/18/04 05:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Why on earth? Just because someone can't procreate, doens't mean they shoudn't marry?

marriage (within the context of a capitalist democracy at least) is a legal status and a public commitment to the perpetuation of society through the creation of a new family that carries with it certain privileges (not automatic rights). so because someone cannot procreate they should not be afforded these privileges because they are not contributing to society.

A Gay married couple could adopt too, but neither situation results in any MORE babies being born. They're just moved about a bit.

Let them marry. They love each other, that's all you need.

marriage is about procreation not love. and as i said i would support the creation of a special legal status (basically marriage) for homosexual couples who are adopting a child. there are plenty of kids in the world who need parents and don't have them.

so, how do you prove that a hetero sexual couple intends to have children? how do you know they aren't just "milking the system" for priveleges they don't deserve (in your mind) do you believe america, a country whoes laws are based supposedly on the idea of personal freedom to the limit of where it would bring harm to others, should change it's laws to fit your fringe opinion.

now, i'm not a very accurate judge of character, but it seems to me that you are a particularly spineless breed of homophobe, one who is against marraige without procreation (ie. homosexual marraige) but is suddenly backed into a corner, realizing that straight people who don't procreate should marry either under this assumption. you then waffle and sputter as your puny mind frantically searches for the next quip of your frail and diseased arguement. but i digress

what i mean to say is that the idea of marraige as an istitution
solely for the purpose of benefiting ones offspring is entirely figment of your imagination. the institution of marraige, at least in western culture, originated for several purposes, none of them intended for childrearing, considering that must cultures where some form of marraige developed were largely communal, meaning the child was rarely raised by it's parents at all. here are some reasons why marraige was developed

to get the daughter, deemed useless by the family, off of the family welfare. the father would have to pay the groom to take her off his hands, thus the dowry.

to join to families of noble birth, marraige was used as a form of alliance.

obviously these are not the reasons we marry now. if people shouldn't marry for love, why don't we just have arrainged marraiges by the families of the participants. i agree that the institution of marraige is abused by the heterosexuals who take that right for granted, but who, in the end, does it hurt. if a woman has children with an asshole father, well, she should be able to leave him and marry someone else who she has no intentions of having children with.

please crawl back under your rock and rethink your arguement. poor dear.

At 2/18/04 10:16 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: marriage is about procreation not love. and as i said i would support the creation of a special legal status (basically marriage) for homosexual couples who are adopting a child. there are plenty of kids in the world who need parents and don't have them.

No. Sex is about procreation. That's is primary use. Secondary is pleasure. Marriage is about recognising a realtionship between two people who love each other.

I re-ask my question: What about Heterosexual couples who have decided NOT to have a baby, even though they['re both fertile?

At 2/12/04 11:38 PM, LadyGrace wrote: I don't mind gays, personally. I think they're really cool. But why are they so adamant about the issue of marriage?

People in love want to get married at some stage. My girlfriend keeps going on about it, and we're both 14. This is a bit worrying, but it shows that some people like the idea.

Secondly, gay couples are, technically, unable to have sex. Therefore, they cannot consumate their marriages; ergo, the marriage would be invalid. Let it go.

# The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
# Sexual intercourse.
# The genitals.

These are definition for "sex" I found. To have sex would b e under the definition of Sexual Intercourse, and Anal sex is intercourse. Although, I suppose lesbians couldn't, technically.

At 2/18/04 10:16 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: marriage (within the context of a capitalist democracy at least) is a legal status and a public commitment to the perpetuation of society

It is not a commitment to perpetuate the society. Don't think that by looking up some big words, you can obfuscate the issue at hand.