Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Don't forget, there are even catholics who believe that Gays should be fully able to marry, outside of America. Hell, we have gay BISHOPS here, so marrying people isn't a problem.

Not to be anal about it, but Catholics who believe in same-sex marriage (I'm talking about authority figures, priests, bishops, etc.) who believe in same-sex marriage are going against the doctrines they're supposed to follow and are being hypocrites. You can't have one priest teaching one thing and his higher-up Bishop teaching another, espeically when it's against what they're supposed to be following.

I stress on Catholosism because the institution is pretty strict in nature, thus making the hypocracy more critical.

At 5/23/04 03:27 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Don't forget, there are even catholics who believe that Gays should be fully able to marry, outside of America. Hell, we have gay BISHOPS here, so marrying people isn't a problem.

I thought that in the end Jeffrey John decided himself not to become Bishop of Reading last year because of the controversy,
And that there were not any openly gay bishops in England yet?

There is no equivalent word for homosexuality in Hebrew or ancient Greek. It was first used in 1869 in Germany. The Oxford English Dictionary says in 1912, the word was first used in English. The earliest use in a bible was in 1946 with the publication of the first edition of the Revised Standard Version.

To help explain how oddly interpreted the bible is, look at the words in the New Testament, malakoi and arsenokoitai and their definitions respectively.

Jerusalem (English 1966) - catamites, sodomites
Jerusalem (French ed.) - depraved, persons of sordid morals
Jerusalem (German ed.) - sissies, child-molesters
Jerusalem, New (English 1985) - self-indulgent, sodomites
New American Catholic (1970) - homosexual perverts, sodomites
Ditto Above (1987) - boy prostitutes, practicing homosexuals
New American Standard - effeminate, homosexuals
New Int'l Version - male prostitutes, homosexual offenders
New English - (both) guilty of homosexual perversion
Revised Standard Version (1952) - (both) homosexuals
Ditto Above (1971) - (both) sexual perverts
Today's English Version - homosexual perverts

In some translations, homosexuality isn't a sin.

At 5/23/04 03:44 PM, Gobo718 wrote: In some translations, homosexuality isn't a sin.

Despite what the translations have called it through the years, it leaves the meaning of what's written untouched. When the bible mentions denouncing homosexuality, the relevance of the "technicalities" are lost.

At 5/23/04 03:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Despite what the translations have called it through the years, it leaves the meaning of what's written untouched. When the bible mentions denouncing homosexuality, the relevance of the "technicalities" are lost.

Not exactly. How do you know it's denouncing homosexuality? It could very well be referencing the depraved, persons of sordid morals, or child-molesters. The bible changed through translations.

At 5/23/04 03:55 PM, Gobo718 wrote:

At 5/23/04 03:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: The bible changed through translations.

*gasp* lies.

At 5/23/04 03:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote:

At 5/23/04 03:44 PM, Gobo718 wrote: In some translations, homosexuality isn't a sin.

Despite what the translations have called it through the years, it leaves the meaning of what's written untouched. When the bible mentions denouncing homosexuality, the relevance of the "technicalities" are lost.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm#cau

i believe someone posted this link in a similar thread not to long ago. there is no actual condemnation within the bible of monogomous long term homosexual relationships.
besides the relevance of the bible within the arguement of whether a secular state should legalize anything is nill

At 5/19/04 07:23 PM, spanishfli wrote:

At 5/19/04 07:18 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/19/04 07:01 PM, The_Bi99man wrote: I'm not gay.

Are you sure? You're kinda coming off... alittle fruity.

RedSkvnk is complementing you. And really, it's an honor. Make sure you say thank you.

Wow, explain to me how I sounded fruity in that post, RedSkvnk? And spanishfli, am I really supposed to take being called gay as a complement? Thak you both. Thank you for being such a great couple to help illustate my point. You see people? What's so bad about that? They're happy, why can't you be?

At 5/23/04 03:39 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Not to be anal about it, but Catholics who believe in same-sex marriage (I'm talking about authority figures, priests, bishops, etc.) who believe in same-sex marriage are going against the doctrines they're supposed to follow and are being hypocrites. You can't have one priest teaching one thing and his higher-up Bishop teaching another, espeically when it's against what they're supposed to be following.

I stress on Catholosism because the institution is pretty strict in nature, thus making the hypocracy more critical.

Actually Catholic's teach that homosexuals aren't sinners as long as they don't have sex. Marriage I'm not so sure about. It all comes down to the pope really and I don't know his stance.

At 5/20/04 01:08 PM, Potentking wrote: YOU ARE AN ASS HOLE, I PERSONALLY THINK YOU HAVE NO LIFE AND NOTHING GOING FOR YOUR SELF. YOU ARE A SORRY PERSON AND I FELL BAD FOR YOU. YOU HAVE ANGER ISSUES. I HOPE YOU FIND YOURSELFBEFORE YOU HURT YOUR SELF

You are a queer who hasn't come out of the damn closet yet. Maybe that's because your mom is in the room and if you come out she'll see the cum on your lip and beat you again. But still, don't get all angry because we found out. As I said before, It's okay to be gay. I see nothing wrong with it, and as you can see, most of the people in here don't either. Don't get so mad.

At 5/22/04 08:56 PM, Tgarius wrote: ... If you redefine the family to be any two entities that decide they love each other then where do you draw the line, can you marry your dog, barnyard animals, young children...

You run... you slide... you hit the bump... and take the dive!

The ol' Mudslide agreement... baseless in evidence... no support in fact... "First gay marriage... and then the destruction of the world!"

Children can't consent since they are not adults. Animals are protected in seperate law called animal rights.

Of course I expect that you won't see things logically...

Wow, explain to me how I sounded fruity in that post, RedSkvnk? And spanishfli, am I really supposed to take being called gay as a complement? Thak you both. Thank you for being such a great couple to help illustate my point. You see people? What's so bad about that? They're happy, why can't you be?

Perhaps if you had a point you could illustrate... Your point was???

At 5/24/04 03:31 AM, spanishfli wrote:

At 5/23/04 11:07 PM, The_Bi99man wrote: Wow, explain to me how I sounded fruity in that post, RedSkvnk? And spanishfli, am I really supposed to take being called gay as a complement? Thak you both. Thank you for being such a great couple to help illustate my point. You see people? What's so bad about that? They're happy, why can't you be?

Perhaps if you had a point you could illustrate... Your point was???

My point is that there is no reason why gay people shouln't be allowed to get married. Then you and RedSkvnk have to swing away from the subject at hand to call me gay because I support the gays in this debate. Very mature. Why don't you just keep on the subject and actually present a decent argument instead of going off and insulting people when you can't think of a way to come back that makes sense.

I love the mudslide argument... the "what's next" thinking... the gateway immoralty... what will you people want to marry after same-sex marriages are legal? Children? Family? Other species?... the coupling of a chicken and a pig would be wrong, but delicious.

This ends and begins at "Two consenting adults".

At 5/23/04 03:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Despite what the translations have called it through the years, it leaves the meaning of what's written untouched. When the bible mentions denouncing homosexuality, the relevance of the "technicalities" are lost.

Hardly denouncing, really. All there is is that one bloody line from Leviticus...

Hardly denouncing, really. All there is is that one bloody line from Leviticus...

Hold on, let me get my propaganda together...

That huge-ass chart I posted earlier with was referring to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The gay Christians and equally compassionate Christians interpret these passages as "Don't indulge in sexual behavior that is unnatural for you", meaning, gay people, don't try to be straight, and vice-versa. Do what is only natural for you.

Or, you can look at it as all bunk, and has no place in making laws for the people.

At 5/24/04 05:29 PM, Gobo718 wrote: Or, you can look at it as all bunk, and has no place in making laws for the people.

I'll choose this one.

At 4/26/04 05:53 PM, Zeratul86 wrote: Straight up: what is your opinion on same-sex marriag arrangements?

Gay Marriage? Ew!

PS: Yay! Maddox! Thank you, Zeratul86

At 5/24/04 08:13 PM, KupaMan wrote:

At 4/26/04 05:53 PM, Zeratul86 wrote: Straight up: what is your opinion on same-sex marriag arrangements?

Gay Marriage? Ew!

PS: Yay! Maddox! Thank you, Zeratul86

Ew??! What? That's your debate? I'm kinda personally offended by that, you hat-wearing, Maddox-kissass muthafucka. And you like Queen? What would Freddy Mercury say?

The only real issue here isn't whether or not being gay is a sin, because we're all free to think whatever we want because almost all gay stigma comes from religion. Where the issue comes from is that all important "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" that has protected us from further witch hunts and forcing us into religious practice in school.
This is an issue of A) The gov't can tell us how to live b/c of religious beliefs
or B) SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE...
I'm gonna go ahead and side with the constitution and the progressive founders of our country on this one... how about you?

At 5/24/04 03:26 AM, spanishfli wrote: Children can't consent since they are not adults. Animals are protected in seperate law called animal rights.

Of course I expect that you won't see things logically...

we can redefine "consenting adult" to mean anyone of age 10 and up.
and in the case of animals, and children who cannot consent, their owners/guardians can make the decision for them.

At 5/25/04 02:24 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 5/24/04 03:26 AM, spanishfli wrote: Children can't consent since they are not adults. Animals are protected in seperate law called animal rights.

Of course I expect that you won't see things logically...

we can redefine "consenting adult" to mean anyone of age 10 and up.
and in the case of animals, and children who cannot consent, their owners/guardians can make the decision for them.

You're all invited to my cat's gay wedding. Obviously, all the things you mention could happen. Arranged weddings are popular in oppressive cultures. But, don't be ridiculous.

i'm not being ridiculous.
how does marrying an animal harm anyone?(assuming the relationship does not involve any abuse or anything)

At 5/25/04 02:24 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 5/24/04 03:26 AM, spanishfli wrote: Children can't consent since they are not adults. Animals are protected in seperate law called animal rights.

Of course I expect that you won't see things logically...

we can redefine "consenting adult" to mean anyone of age 10 and up.
and in the case of animals, and children who cannot consent, their owners/guardians can make the decision for them.

you are sick and perverted talking like that

who the fuck would wanna fuck animals

and really think about it most people like full grown bodies if you know what i mean

Bomb, I'd be fine with it if there was proof the animal was okay with it. But there is absolutely no way of not considering that abuse.

At 5/25/04 02:52 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: i'm not being ridiculous.
how does marrying an animal harm anyone?(assuming the relationship does not involve any abuse or anything)

Really, no one else is effected. That is why, I think texas, it is legal to marry a horse. But it is taking advantage of the unwitting animal. That is why it is wrong. The animal has no choice.

Hey, bomb, did you get your circumcision answers from a gay man yet?

You jackass, you're not some dumb kid, you're moderately intelligent! Enjoy the spamming.

At 5/25/04 02:24 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 5/24/04 03:26 AM, spanishfli wrote: Children can't consent since they are not adults. Animals are protected in seperate law called animal rights.

Of course I expect that you won't see things logically...

we can redefine "consenting adult" to mean anyone of age 10 and up.

Yeah, but do you ACTUALLY think that's gonna happen? Children cannot enter in legal contracts or the reason that they are still growing, learning, and most importantly, unable to support themselves without falling out of school and etc. So you can't argue this: "If gays marry, then there will be laws making age of consent at age 10, and then grown ups can marry 10 year old children, and legally have sex with them, and afterword, there will be chaos and civilization will disappear..." This type of argument makes too big of leaps... Mudslide...

and in the case of animals, and children who cannot consent, their owners/guardians can make the decision for them.

Nope. They can't. Animals rights comes down on people who abuse their pets. And since there is no absolute way to know if a your pet dog consents you having sex with it, such an act would be put under abuse. Yes, dogs can learn certain behaviors and they could display emotions just like human beings, but how do we truly know what your dog thinks? In San Jose, a stupid man got a year in jail for tossing a poodle dog into on coming traffic.

At 5/25/04 03:55 PM, spanishfli wrote: Yeah, but do you ACTUALLY think that's gonna happen?

not realy, but it would be hypocritical to not allow it if gay marriages were justified by an argument that also justified paedophilic marriages.

Children cannot enter in legal contracts or the reason that they are still growing, learning, and most importantly, unable to support themselves without falling out of school and etc. So you can't argue this: "If gays marry, then there will be laws making age of consent at age 10, and then grown ups can marry 10 year old children, and legally have sex with them, and afterword, there will be chaos and civilization will disappear..." This type of argument makes too big of leaps... Mudslide...

i never said that. i said that if you use an argument in favour of gay marriage, and it also justifies other preferences, then it is hypocritical to not allow them.
there are people whoare of the legal age of consent that are not equipped to make that decision, but are allowed to anyway, simply because the law says they can do it. i'm sure there are a small minority of ten year olds who are mature enough to make such a decision, like marriage or entering into a contract, and be able to comprehend the repercussions of their actions. why should they be denied the ability to do so? because adults don't trust them?

Nope. They can't. Animals rights comes down on people who abuse their pets. And since there is no absolute way to know if a your pet dog consents you having sex with it, such an act would be put under abuse.

how so? if the animal is not harmed then how is it abuse? by that logic making a dog do tricks it doesn't want to could be construed as abuse. neutering the animal would also be abuse. the owner is given various rights to determine what happens to the animal, how would control of the animals consent in a matter such as marriage or a contract be any different? many things are done against animal's wills, which few people would consider to be in their best interest. why is thatok, butdoing something that could potentially benefit the animal is wrong?

Yes, dogs can learn certain behaviors and they could display emotions just like human beings, but how do we truly know what your dog thinks?

we don't have to, the animal doesn't have to consent because the owner already has enough power to cut off their balls.

In San Jose, a stupid man got a year in jail for tossing a poodle dog into on coming traffic.

completely off topic.