Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/9/04 07:11 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: since when do people need to get married to love one another?

What is it with you and need? Why can't some thingsa just be about want?

because people want all sorts of stupid shit. if you justify something entirely by desire then you open up the flood gates for all sorts of retarded legislation.

At 4/9/04 07:11 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/9/04 07:05 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: why should homosexuals recieve those benefits?

Because there's no sensible reason denying them it. They fall in love, they should be able to get married.

but their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers.

love is an emotion that has become a successful trait of human beings because it facilitates sexual intimacy, which in turn facilitates procreation. people do it, and keep doing it because the ability to love is a successful genetic trait. love, therefore, exists to facilitate procreation. as such it is not a valid excuse for homosexual marriage.

At 4/9/04 07:43 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: because people want all sorts of stupid shit. if you justify something entirely by desire then you open up the flood gates for all sorts of retarded legislation.

but their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers.

love is an emotion that has become a successful trait of human beings because it facilitates sexual intimacy, which in turn facilitates procreation. people do it, and keep doing it because the ability to love is a successful genetic trait. love, therefore, exists to facilitate procreation. as such it is not a valid excuse for homosexual marriage.

You dont need to be married at ALL to have children. Either one of three things happens. Could you please tell me which one closest matches your view?:

1) No marriage for anyone, gay, straight, male female, just none. You can live together, have kids, but not marry. It doesn't exist.
2) Marriage should be restricted to those who have had children, or will adopt/foster etc. Infertile people will not be able to mary as in your own words "their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers" however, they can marry should they adopt. If you do not wish to have children, you cannot marry.
3) Anyone can marry. Children, no children, gay, straight, lesbian, as long as you're happy.

You seem to have a lot of emphasis on money - "their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers." I value money as a tool to gain happiness. There's £125 in my room, that's sitting there, not making me any happier. However, when I increase that number to £225, and buy my bass guitar, it'll make me happy. Or I might use it in another manner, spend it on something else, to gain happiness. I dont value money.

Value happiness. Yes, it is true that homosexuals do not produce children, and future tax payers and all that jazz, but getting married makes [some] people happy. Some dont want to, that's fine. But if you want to get married, and you can't it's not a good thing.

Even if you DO value money over their happiness, then to get married costs money, and moving money around = good for the economy.

number 2.

the law does not exist to make people happy. it's purpose is to provide a set of objective rules that facilitate societies functions.

people can be quite happy without being married.
the fact remains however that marriage is the ideal environment for procreation and raising children. modern society is founded on the principle of the family. marriage is about the creation of a family. there are incentives to marry, this encourages people to marry. the intended purpose was never for everyone to marry, but to provide the best situation for a family.

happiness can be achieved in any number of ways, the ideal family cannot.

At 4/9/04 09:01 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: the fact remains however that marriage is the ideal environment for procreation and raising children.

No. Love is the ideal environment. Marriage is a bond between two people who love each other.

modern society is founded on the principle of the family. marriage is about the creation of a family. there are incentives to marry, this encourages people to marry. the intended purpose was never for everyone to marry, but to provide the best situation for a family.

Love encourages people to marry. The Ancient Egyptians had marriage, and the origional purpose was to get money from marrying off your kids. Maybe we should update that purpose.

happiness can be achieved in any number of ways, the ideal family cannot.

And if marrying someone makes you happy..? Having an ideal family is unrelated to marriage.

At 4/9/04 07:43 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: because people want all sorts of stupid shit. if you justify something entirely by desire then you open up the flood gates for all sorts of retarded legislation.


but their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers.

love is an emotion that has become a successful trait of human beings because it facilitates sexual intimacy, which in turn facilitates procreation. people do it, and keep doing it because the ability to love is a successful genetic trait. love, therefore, exists to facilitate procreation. as such it is not a valid excuse for homosexual marriage.

I will agree with you on these conditions:

1) You support an immediate nullification of all celibate, heterosexual unions across the entire United States of America and the illegalization of celibate marriage for the future to come.

2) You support the nullification of all infertile marriages, and that marriages become nullified if a man or woman chooses to undergo self-fertilizing operations in order to prevent unwanted child birth.

3) You support a ban on the selling of condoms and other safe-sex products to married couples, thereby preventing ungodly, childless marriages.

Until I hear you firmly advocating all of these positions, I'm quite afraid you'll come off as a hypocrite. Good day.

At 4/9/04 09:01 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: number 2.

the law does not exist to make people happy. it's purpose is to provide a set of objective rules that facilitate societies functions.

Yet you have to keep your public happy or else you are more likely to have a rebellion on your hands.

people can be quite happy without being married.
the fact remains however that marriage is the ideal environment for procreation and raising children. modern society is founded on the principle of the family. marriage is about the creation of a family. there are incentives to marry, this encourages people to marry. the intended purpose was never for everyone to marry, but to provide the best situation for a family.

In the modern society there are a lot of sucessful unmarried familites with single mothers/fathers. Marriage is not necisarry to have this. In the past it was more necisarry, but because of the modern day society, its technology, and the equality of men and women you no longer need a marriage to sucessfully raise children. Some of the best mothers I know are single mothers. They take damn good care of their children, and their children do great in school (not straight A's, but they are still doing great). You good sir, need to stop living in the past, wake up to the future.
Plus what about all of the orphaned children that need homes. Opening up Gay Marriages can make it easier for gays to adopt, and from studies gay parents do just as good, if not better than most straight parents (I'll find the source late if you want me to). While yes I understand that a single person can adopt, but it is easier to adopt as a couple than as a single person.

happiness can be achieved in any number of ways, the ideal family cannot.

The Ideal Family is no longer a necessity.

At 4/9/04 09:01 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: number 2.

the law does not exist to make people happy. it's purpose is to provide a set of objective rules that facilitate societies functions.

the rights associated with marraige do not solely encompass those neccessarily for convenient child rearing. hospital visitation, joint tax returns, inheritance, and other such rights are granted to married couples and have no bearing on any children the couple may have. so yes, allowing people who don't have children to marry is still facilitating societies functions

people can be quite happy without being married.
the fact remains however that marriage is the ideal environment for procreation and raising children. modern society is founded on the principle of the family. marriage is about the creation of a family. there are incentives to marry, this encourages people to marry. the intended purpose was never for everyone to marry, but to provide the best situation for a family.

first of all, it is not a FACT that marraige is the ideal environment for raising children. this is an opinion held by many industrialized societies where the family unit is quite small. in other communal cultures, people would tell you that two people are insufficient for proper child rearing. your opinion that the nuclear family is the ideal family is an OPINION not a fact. it cannot be proven, only argued for or against. and i am appalled that you are so ignorant and assuming to insult other familial structures that operate far better than the highly dysfunctional nuclear family in all its white picket loolipop fantasy bullshit glory.

happiness can be achieved in any number of ways, the ideal family cannot.

again, the ideal family is a fantasy. you speak of your own cultural prejudices, but just because you believe it does NOT make it true.

At 4/9/04 10:14 AM, Adept_Omega wrote: stuff

I was building up to that...

At 4/9/04 07:11 AM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 4/9/04 03:14 AM, adarkerbreed wrote: love is love, ppl cannot deny one of their power to love another, whether it is of the same sex or not. This is the big problem, we all do not know what true love is, wait... shit, I'm starting to get all mushy
I'll make a bit more sense later

since when do people need to get married to love one another?

marriage is the legal enaction of ones love, it shows that two people who love one another can live as a single unit

At 4/9/04 09:01 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: number 2.

the law does not exist to make people happy. it's purpose is to provide a set of objective rules that facilitate societies functions.

Than what is freedom of speach for? Does that help or harm society, truthfully it does both

At 4/9/04 10:14 AM, Adept_Omega wrote: I will agree with you on these conditions:

1) You support an immediate nullification of all celibate, heterosexual unions across the entire United States of America and the illegalization of celibate marriage for the future to come.

2) You support the nullification of all infertile marriages, and that marriages become nullified if a man or woman chooses to undergo self-fertilizing operations in order to prevent unwanted child birth.

3) You support a ban on the selling of condoms and other safe-sex products to married couples

1 is fine, but half of 2 and 3 are quite unneccessary.
the ability to choose when to procreate doesn't prevent a couple from doing so.

At 4/9/04 11:32 AM, Le-Reiper wrote:

In the modern society there are a lot of sucessful unmarried familites with single mothers/fathers. Marriage is not necisarry to have this. In the past it was more necisarry, but because of the modern day society, its technology, and the equality of men and women you no longer need a marriage to sucessfully raise children.

being married does inmprove the chances of successfully raising children though.

Some of the best mothers I know are single mothers. They take damn good care of their children, and their children do great in school (not straight A's, but they are still doing great). You good sir, need to stop living in the past, wake up to the future.

i'm glad to hear that you know good single mothers.
however, regardless of the job they do, their children will miss out on having a male role model.

Plus what about all of the orphaned children that need homes. Opening up Gay Marriages can make it easier for gays to adopt, and from studies gay parents do just as good, if not better than most straight parents (I'll find the source late if you want me to).

i would be most interested to see the source for that information.
i do advocate the marriage of a homosexual couple if they are adopting (jointly).

happiness can be achieved in any number of ways, the ideal family cannot.

The Ideal Family is no longer a necessity.

it never was a neccessity, but it has always been ideal. it won't always be possible either, but because it is the best possible situation people should strive toward making it the norm.

At 4/9/04 02:02 PM, adarkerbreed wrote: marriage is the legal enaction of ones love, it shows that two people who love one another can live as a single unit.

to what end? why do they want to become next of kin, and live together?

At 4/9/04 11:48 AM, Izuamoto wrote:

first of all, it is not a FACT that marraige is the ideal environment for raising children. this is an opinion held by many industrialized societies where the family unit is quite small. in other communal cultures, people would tell you that two people are insufficient for proper child rearing.

strange how the places where these communal cultures exist are far behind the modern industrialized nations.
it is a simple observable fact that societies with a close knit family unit are better off than those in communal cultures.

At 4/9/04 02:39 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: it is a simple observable fact that societies with a close knit family unit are better off than those in communal cultures.

In such a communal village, the entire community is close knit, and by default the families are better off.

At 4/9/04 02:18 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: the ability to choose when to procreate doesn't prevent a couple from doing so.

Ding dong! When you are infertile it's not a question of when you procreate, since you can't procreate at all. According to your thoughts in the matter, people should only be able to marry when they can "contribute" to society by producing a child. So that would mean infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

By the way, I think you contribute to society a lot more when you can't have children but marry anyway. Because then the possibility that you adopt a child who would otherwise suck up tax money or become a criminal is a lot bigger. Besides, the earth's population is growing to much anyway!

I'd say support gay marriage! It's better for the economy!

bombkangaroo would this mean impudent and infertile straight ppl should not have the right to marry, and if person becomes infertile due to age or other circumstances should they automatically divorce for someone who is fertile?
Marriage is mostly about love

how the hell are you contributing to society by overpopulating the damn place with a bunch of bratty drooling children who you don't give a fuck about any way?

couples that adopt are by far contributing to society a lot more because they want the children and are going to make sure they have the time and resources to raise that child and the prospective parents are also screened to make sure they aren't complete losers like most people.

i know a lot of lesbian chicks who are like "i know that adopting children is good, but i want to have my own baby, you know, that's part of me" and some random sperm donor you've never even met. hint: guys who think their sperm is so great they'll put it in a sperm bank are jackasses

i want to slap these bitches upside their stupid heads. The fucking NOVELTY of passing on your seed wears off real quick, , and by the time they're 5 you've either gotten bored and forgotten about them or you're beating the shit out of them. fuck parents, parents are the worst people in the world.

i have hereby decided not to pass on my genes, even though there's nothing wrong with them. i'm reasonably intelligent and have no outstanding medical problems, but even if i did, i'd still survive long enough to procreate. passing on your warped genetics is NOT a friggin' accomplishment. any one can do it now that we have safegaurds to protect the weak and stupid long enough. fuck making more idiot babies. fuck the teenagers who can't fuck with a condom who bring more kids into this world, fuck the catholic moms that have eight, nine, ten kids, fuck the lesbians, who against all odds STILL manage to bring more hideous human life onto this god foresaken rock, and fuck the sperm donors. if you need a sperm bank to get your spoo into some womans egg you must be one sad UGLY mother fucker who jerks off too much

speaking of which, should wankers be arrested, according to bombkangaroo, since they waste sperm by not jizzing in some chicks pussy? i mean, these people aren't contributing to society. from now on, if you wack off, your marraige becomes nullified. actually, that might be too much of an incentive for men to pull their peters. fair enough

At 4/9/04 03:19 PM, Izuamoto wrote: hint: guys who think their sperm is so great they'll put it in a sperm bank are jackasses

I feel it is my duty to pass on my mutated legs to the next generation. Gotta respect the evolution.

fuck parents, parents are the worst people in the world.

Sounds like somebody needs a hug.

:if you need a sperm bank to get your spoo into some womans egg you must be one sad UGLY mother fucker who jerks off too much

I'll thank you not to insult the way I came into being. Just because my father's sperm aren't healthy enough doesn't mean my mother shouldn't have children. There are always other aspects to a story of which I, you, or anyone else can think.

I don't plan to have children because I know I would screw them up badly. But that doesn't mean that other families shouldn't have options or follow their beliefs. If catholic families feel they should have many chilren more power to them. And I don't see why you're laying all the blame on parents. Some children just shoot themselves in the foot all on their own.

Hold it! What if a family only have ONE kid? Then they're NOT contributing by producing more kids, in a way they're DE-Populizing [is that a word?] the country, and theyre REDUCING the population just as if they weren't having any kids.

Marriage should now [according to bombkangaroo] only be for couples, of either sexuality who have two children, or will be adopting or fostering tweo or more children.

Thank god we didn't let those scummy people with only one child get away with the benefits of marriage without contributing to socirty and all that jazz...

At 4/9/04 05:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Marriage should now [according to bombkangaroo] only be for couples, of either sexuality who have two children,

They have to have at least 2.1 children, bum. That's the replacement fertility rate, after all.

Thank god we didn't let those scummy people with only one child

My poor parents...

At 4/9/04 02:39 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 4/9/04 11:48 AM, Izuamoto wrote:

first of all, it is not a FACT that marraige is the ideal environment for raising children. this is an opinion held by many industrialized societies where the family unit is quite small. in other communal cultures, people would tell you that two people are insufficient for proper child rearing.

strange how the places where these communal cultures exist are far behind the modern industrialized nations.
it is a simple observable fact that societies with a close knit family unit are better off than those in communal cultures.

Ok, I realize that you're likely just trying to stir up shit with most of the things your saying here, however...
I just wanted to point out what Michel Foucault in _The History of Sexuality_ has to say about your general argument that the heterosexual, bourgeois nuclear family unit is the "ideal" institution in which to raise children, aka productive members of society. You know, they didn't even invent the concept of homosexuality until just before the 17th century, when the European bourgeoisie class was trying to create itself as the "ideal" race, and all others as inferior. In fact, Foucault calls this whole idealization of a heteronormative, class-based family structure based on the hierarchy of FATHER (highest class), MOTHER (second class citizen) then ME (children, the lowest class) (this is also deeply Freudian and Oedipal, by the way) a form of "bourgeois racism." In other words, in order to try to colonize the public and private life of European people (even down to what they did in the bedroom), the white bourgeoisie class made their own family unit and sexual preferences the "NORM" and all others "PERVERSIONS." This kind of "racism" against other sexual preferences and "pleasures," Foucault points out, is itself the real perversion. (And by the way, Foucault's book on this subject was written 30 years ago - you're behind, buddy! - and is still the most important book on this subject). Hope this helps you see beyond your own 17th century, puritain bourgeois prejudices and join the 21st century. ( I hope Bush reads the book too!)

At 4/9/04 06:00 PM, RotesStinktier wrote: They have to have at least 2.1 children, bum. That's the replacement fertility rate, after all.

Yes, but 2 would be enough to at least keep the popoulation the same.

At 4/9/04 06:14 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Yes, but 2 would be enough to at least keep the popoulation the same.

No, because you have to take into account the slim amount of deaths before they can get to reproductive age.. Thus the 2.1

You would need to order every 10th couple to have 3 children

if we re-elect bush maybe the death toll will increase and we can bring more screaming children into the world to die.
c'mon, vote for the nuclear apocolypse party, you know you love Mad Max.

At 4/9/04 06:39 PM, Izuamoto wrote: you know you love Mad Max.

But I don't think I want to live it, oddly enough.

At 4/9/04 12:48 AM, Adept_Omega wrote: At which point we hear the argument that separate rights can be equal -- isn't that what we heard during the conservative opposition to the desegregation movement? It was clearly defined in Brown VS Board of Education that separate is inherently inequal. Hence, by the literal definition, the institution of marriage is sexist. A woman lacks a man's right to marry a woman, a man lacks a woman's right to marry a man.

That's a nice comparison.

That was part of the South's Jim Crow laws. I hope all of you would agree that separate but equal is not a fair system.

If allowing homosexual marriages would call for "special treatment," would any of you support it? Or would it really be special treatment? Homosexuals would be in a different position (no pun intended) than heterosexuals, so why should the rules be the same?

At 4/9/04 06:00 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

At 4/9/04 05:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Marriage should now [according to bombkangaroo] only be for couples, of either sexuality who have two children,

They have to have at least 2.1 children, bum. That's the replacement fertility rate, after all.

Your logic has a slight flaw in it. The rate or births is faster than the rate of death on the earth. Remember 2 people can live long enough to see multiple generations of children therefore they are still not depopulating by only haveing 1 kid. Now if all parents died prior to the child becoming physically mature enough to reproduce their your logic would be pretty much right on though.

At 4/10/04 02:41 AM, Le-Reiper wrote: Your logic has a slight flaw in it. The rate or births is faster than the rate of death on the earth. Remember 2 people can live long enough to see multiple generations of children therefore they are still not depopulating by only haveing 1 kid. Now if all parents died prior to the child becoming physically mature enough to reproduce their your logic would be pretty much right on though.

If the fertility rate (which is birth rate - death rate) remained at 2.1 for several generations, the populace would remain (apr.) exactly the same - after generations with discrepancies from the 2.1 fertility rate died. This would be (slightly) influenced by increasing or decreasing life expectancy rates, of course.

If the fertility rate drops below 2.1 (without taking into consideration immigration / emmigration) you will see a decrease in population - 40-50 years in the future.

I didn't make the 2.1 replacement number number up =P
It's the closest to a stable population you're going to get...