Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."

I bet the thinks everyone likes him too.

At 2/25/04 10:13 PM, blueloa13 wrote: But 70TA im glad your back, its always fun to get someone in here that is so stupid about everything that it makes the forums fun again.

What are you talking about stupid? Oh yeah, just because you're one of them doesn't mean you're right. You, freak, are the stupid one.

At 2/25/04 10:48 PM, Gooie wrote: LMAO yeah, you're right. It's so much more fun with him around.

And look at this tard. You think this is a fucking game or something? Well it aint. Be prepared to be shot down in flames (what you're use to, flames) by what your shitty beliefs are.

At 2/26/04 11:23 AM, 70TA wrote: And look at this tard. You think this is a fucking game or something? Well it aint. Be prepared to be shot down in flames (what you're use to, flames) by what your shitty beliefs are.

Are you saying he's going to hell, or making a veiled threat?

Well, as a politically moderate person, and even though I lean left most of the time, I have to go with a conservititve side and say that I strongly opt against gay/lesbian marriage.

I'll say that there is no reason why, at least under rules of the United States, two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to be together legally. To keep two people who apparently love eachother away from all the legal rights a marriage provides is wrong; at least a form of discrimination in my eyes.

HOWEVER, to say that they have a right to get married under a church is bullcrap. To say that marriage is no longer a religious practice is insane. Making churches comply with that would be going against generations of estabished belief structure. And what for??? If getting married under a church is so important, than one would have to assume that religion is important. You can't just acknowledge one part of the Bible (or book of David, etc. etc.) and ignore the other. So if religion isn't important, then there's every reason strive for a social contract.

This whole mess of religion can be sidestepped by the social contract; you get all the legality privilages without going through the church. This whole mess can be avoided if people would just factor out the church; they're not going to change their scriptures just so they can condone what they believe is wrong.

Whoops, sorry; I ready the first two pages but skimmed over the first. My bad.

Hmmmm, could it take place soon? ....I don't know. This is a lot different than Bush's Political Baloon stunt with the Mission to Mars. He seems pretty intent on persuing this one. Do I support the amendment? Hmmm.....damn, I guess I say I can't. While I'm against same-sex marriage I believe that decision should lie with the churches. I guess we'll see what happens.

At 2/26/04 11:56 AM, darkmage8 wrote: HOWEVER, to say that they have a right to get married under a church is bullcrap. To say that marriage is no longer a religious practice is insane.

When it is possible for two people to get wed without ANY kind of religiousceremony, then marriage is not NECESSARILY a religious issue. It can be, that is true, but it doesn't have to be.

Making churches comply with that would be going against generations of estabished belief structure. And what for??? If getting married under a church is so important, than one would have to assume that religion is important.

Who on earth said tbey want to get married in a church? Registrey Offices are fine.

You can't just acknowledge one part of the Bible (or book of David, etc. etc.) and ignore the other. So if religion isn't important, then there's every reason strive for a social contract.

Please rtemember some people may not acknowledge ANY of the Bible.

At 2/25/04 07:32 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:
when has he exhibited anger over people's opposition to his policies?(if i am ignorant here then please, by all means enlighten me)

first of all, read firebird's post at the top of page three. Bush doesn't think that people really don't like this idea. also, he couldn't fathom why people were against his ideas for "war on terror" and was confused when people weren't happy with the patriot act. or when osama bin laden released a tape and it was interpreted and allegedly had a confession from bin laden, he couldn't understand why people might not believe that it had been translated correctly, saying that there was no reason for the bush administration to lie about it. he couldn't understand that people didn't believe that the tape was a full confession. that's what i meant.

and thank you for bein civil with your comments, 7OTA is an idiot and i appreciate not being attacked like that.

At 2/25/04 04:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/25/04 01:26 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: The real fun fact in my opinion, is that when a president or prime minister in ANY european country would come up with something so incredibly intolerant as forbidding gay marriage he would practically be lynched. What does this say about the tolerance in the country with "liberty and justice for all"?

I've always thought it funny trhat people in "The Land of the Free" have less freedoms than people living under some dictatorships.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone here says, "Oh! We have no freedom because of the Patriot Act, which infringes on our right to act suspiciously, write threatening e-mails, and fund terrorist organizations! Plus, some foreigners with suspect passports are being detained at airports simply because they are Arabic, which is stupid because it is entirely possible that there are hordes of radical Islamic caucasians that live in the Middle East." Grow up and stop bitching.

Anyway, this proposed amendment isn't like Jewish persecution, like some of you have ignorantly mentioned. At least Bush has the balls to take a definitive stand on a controversial issue instead of using classic politician techniques by avoiding the question. Marraige is too traditional a ceremony to be suddenly modified into incorporating such a radically different and fairly newly risen culture. Maybe in 50 years.

hay bush can go burn for all i care i mean if you love some one dose it realy mater if thare gay or not i mean thats an outrage next no bi clubs than whats next kill all bi-sexuals? you know what i think some one should stand uot to bush a kick him in the balls most likley a gay or lesbian preson

At 2/26/04 03:18 PM, Fire_starter_02 wrote: hay bush can go burn for all i care i mean if you love some one dose it realy mater if thare gay or not i mean thats an outrage next no bi clubs than whats next kill all bi-sexuals? you know what i think some one should stand uot to bush a kick him in the balls most likley a gay or lesbian preson

Havin a dokey old tyme with yur compooter tere, Cletus? Shure beats pleasuring the ol' hound dog, ain't it? Whut's evin betta es havin' a nice hee-haw with yur buck-toothed, one-eyed, banjo strummin', ever so purty cousin.

Hick.

At 2/26/04 11:22 AM, 70TA wrote:

What are you talking about stupid? Oh yeah, just because you're one of them doesn't mean you're right. You, freak, are the stupid one.

First of all im not a freak, I am a punk. Second, I am not gay. Third, If i had sex with any man it would be a christian homophobe like you 70TA.

and about the flames, "bring it on"

At 2/26/04 03:13 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Anyway, this proposed amendment isn't like Jewish persecution, like some of you have ignorantly mentioned. At least Bush has the balls to take a definitive stand on a controversial issue instead of using classic politician techniques by avoiding the question. Marraige is too traditional a ceremony to be suddenly modified into incorporating such a radically different and fairly newly risen culture. Maybe in 50 years.

The conservatives are indeed in a more powerful position to take a definitive stance on this, as most of the american public is uncomfortable with the gay community. it's called demagougery, and it doesn't take all that much gall.
as for gays being a radically different and new culture: homosexuality far predates the institution of marraige. it's a naturally occurring deviation from the norm.

i get a real kick out of people who treat homosexuality like this new big thing. i'm actually studying ancient greek culture and mythology and it got me to thinking : the accepted practice of homosexuality is an ancient instution. the tradition of accepting homosexuality, even spurring heterosexuality, is ancient and respected. i don't think the world is ready for this new homophobia thing. maybe in 50 years,

as for marraige being too traditional an institution, well, are civil rights about upholding outdated tradition or providing a just and egalitarian system for the people?

At 2/26/04 02:56 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/26/04 01:20 AM, Scrodedogg wrote: I just posted a flash video, it portrays what i think of bushes gay marriage opposition and other good stuff, its f-ing funny shiznit!!!!!!!!!!! you guys got to check it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, it got blammed. Can't have been very funny...

NO it didnt!!! it is still on the 50 most recent its titled:" bush parody with primus"

check out my almost finished bush video! im still taking suggestions!!!!!!!
Click Here to See it!!

whoo go bush bash those queers

At 2/26/04 03:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone here says, "Oh! We have no freedom because of the Patriot Act, which infringes on our right to act suspiciously, write threatening e-mails, and fund terrorist organizations! Plus, some foreigners with suspect passports are being detained at airports simply because they are Arabic, which is stupid because it is entirely possible that there are hordes of radical Islamic caucasians that live in the Middle East." Grow up and stop bitching.

shep, you DONT have any freedoms left. You can be held indefinately, anywhere, without the authorities notifying anyone about it. Not a lot of freedom there.

Blunkett wants to being in the same laws for Britain. Sucks, doesn't it?

At 2/26/04 06:34 PM, Unfairtoast wrote: whoo go bush bash those queers

Wow, you're ignorant. Anyway 70takesituptheass, just because you are afraid of gay people, doesn't mean they are the devil. Also, calling me gay just makes you look like more than a dumbass than you already come off as. You aren't going to change anyones mind in here, so stop trying to.

Dubya and his buddies are only against same sex mattiages so that Dick Cheney wont have to pay for his gay daughter's wedding.

At 2/26/04 10:07 PM, The_Apostate wrote: Dubya and his buddies are only against same sex mattiages so that Dick Cheney wont have to pay for his gay daughter's wedding.

Yeah, but would it really put that much of a dent in his pocket?

At 2/26/04 10:43 PM, Gooie wrote: Yeah, but would it really put that much of a dent in his pocket?

You know them. Anythibng to save a cent.

Religion. Gay marriages are against any religion i can think of. thats why

At 2/27/04 03:20 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: Religion. Gay marriages are against any religion i can think of. thats why

that's the only reason that bush wants to ban them, yes. but that (ideally, although not really) has nothing to do with the law. marriage is often done out of marriage. hell, what is it, like 15% of america doesn't believe in god? i'm not sure of the number there. anyway, religion shouldn't have anything to do with it.

It shouldnt, i know. but it does. The religious outnumber the non religious (an immence number) to one

At 2/26/04 06:21 PM, Izuamoto wrote:

At 2/26/04 03:13 PM, adrshepard wrote:

The conservatives are indeed in a more powerful position to take a definitive stance on this, as most of the american public is uncomfortable with the gay community. it's called demagougery, and it doesn't take all that much gall.
as for gays being a radically different and new culture: homosexuality far predates the institution of marraige. it's a naturally occurring deviation from the norm.

Yeah, but only recently has homosexuality become so mainstream in our culture, where years ago it would have not been talked about openly.

At 2/26/04 01:20 AM, Scrodedogg wrote: I just posted a flash video, it portrays what i think of bushes gay marriage opposition and other good stuff, its f-ing funny shiznit!!!!!!!!!!! you guys got to check it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes, arrogance, a shortcoming more and more frequently seen among young padawans.

Well what the flaming fuck did you expect from a man that comes from texas?A brain?

At 2/27/04 03:20 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: Religion. Gay marriages are against any religion i can think of. thats why

That's interesting. A gay bishop appointed by the Anglican Church... Ah well, they aren't a proper religion...

At 2/27/04 03:20 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: Religion. Gay marriages are against any religion i can think of. thats why

How about buddhism, or shintoïsm? They're okay with it, I believe.

Anyway, marriage should be about love, not about religion. When two persons love each other enough to get married, they should marry. Just because a lot of weddings happen in a church doesn't make marriage a religious thing by definition. I think it's crap to outlwas gay marriage because you have to "protect the sancity (or how the fuck you spell that stupid word) of marriage". I mean, a marriage is about love, so you protect it's sancity by letting everybody who love each other get married. That easy.

To protect the 'Sanctity' of marriage, I assume divorce will be outwlawed soon, of course...