Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/19/13 06:46 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I'm sorry, but that Chew won't believe this story about some guy biting his wife's ear off. What?

"Chew won't believe this" is a pun

The guy bit his ex-wife's boyfriend's ear off.

At 4/19/13 12:37 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote:

I suppose having blindness and other disorders over-represented in a population is just the price of
'freedom' to you.

If their children turn out like that so be it.

However, these people don't want that, thus the 'accidental' part of the incest, and the existence of an app for them to prevent it.

I know, but I was just pointing that out.

At 4/19/13 09:28 PM, naronic wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:37 PM, MushookieMan wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote:

I suppose having blindness and other disorders over-represented in a population is just the price of
'freedom' to you.

If their children turn out like that so be it.

"So be it" sounds like a really dumb way to justify something that's harmful to humanity at large.

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote: If you go back through history everyone's related.

If there's consent, incest really is the same as gay marriage or polygamy.
People should just get over it by now

You are absent of morals and are unlike most all people. Just a suggestion, don't run for public office, you won't like it as much as it won't like you. Morality is only subjective to an extent, there are certain societal pillars that the majority (I'm talking over 90% of people) consider normal or morally just. People don't, by which I mean refuse, to "get over" their moral backgrounds to satisfy a minority's desire for satisfaction and liberal rights.

As for marriage, I honestly have no clue why the government is involved in such things, I believe it is a religious issue. If a religion frowns upon a certain union, that union shouldn't be able to bully its way into existence and insult the very foundations of the religion it uses. If a marriage is truly a consecration of a relationship under God, than if that religion says that their God would not approve and thus not consecrate the relationship, said relationship shouldn't be married under that religion. This goes for incestuous, homosexual and polygamy relations or any and all relations frowned upon by the church.

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote: If you go back through history everyone's related.

If there's consent, incest really is the same as gay marriage or polygamy.
People should just get over it by now

You are absent of morals and are unlike most all people. Just a suggestion, don't run for public office, you won't like it as much as it won't like you. Morality is only subjective to an extent, there are certain societal pillars that the majority (I'm talking over 90% of people) consider normal or morally just. People don't, by which I mean refuse, to "get over" their moral backgrounds to satisfy a minority's desire for satisfaction and liberal rights.

'I am absent of morals?', are you reading what you write? And by extension do you know what you're talking about? What morals are we operating by here, yours? Society's? A half a century ago over 3/4ths of Americans condemned gay relationships as a whole (in Europe it was a punishable offence by law Read: Alan Turning), was being gay any more immoral back then than it is now with most people today opening up their arms and accepting it?

You find it immoral to allow people to have sex with whomever they choose even if it's their sister so long as it's consenting on both sides?
You showcase the same mismatched logic of christian fundamentalists who condemn gay marriage and relationships as a whole, not wanting to see or hear about it based on some antiquated nonexistent higher objective morality that you want everybody to acknowledge.

So be it" sounds like a really dumb way to justify something that's harmful to humanity at large.

So by your logic, legalizing gay marriage is detrimental to humanity because we all just know that once it's legalized everybody will be jumping at the chance to get a piece of their sisters and brothers, rather than only the minority that's interested in the first place.

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: As for marriage, I honestly have no clue why the government is involved in such things, I believe it is a religious issue. If a religion frowns upon a certain union, that union shouldn't be able to bully its way into existence and insult the very foundations of the religion it uses.

Marriage has been more a formal than religious occasion for atleast 100 years, no one even cares about that aspect anymore.

So by your logic, legalizing gay marriage is detrimental to humanity because we all just know that once it's legalized everybody will be jumping at the chance to get a piece of the same sex, rather than only the minority that's interested in the first place.

slight slip up there

At 4/19/13 11:11 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: As for marriage, I honestly have no clue why the government is involved in such things, I believe it is a religious issue. If a religion frowns upon a certain union, that union shouldn't be able to bully its way into existence and insult the very foundations of the religion it uses.

Marriage has been more a formal than religious occasion for atleast 100 years, no one even cares about that aspect anymore.

It also started as an economic/cultural concept rather than a religious one.
I'll give you my daughter if you give me three goats and a blueberry bush.

etc.

At 4/19/13 11:13 PM, zag wrote: It also started as an economic/cultural concept rather than a religious one.
I'll give you my daughter if you give me three goats and a blueberry bush.

etc.

Yeah exactly, its because a typical family unit is more efficient than not having one. but apparently its because of 'muh religious freedom'

At 4/19/13 11:11 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: As for marriage, I honestly have no clue why the government is involved in such things, I believe it is a religious issue. If a religion frowns upon a certain union, that union shouldn't be able to bully its way into existence and insult the very foundations of the religion it uses.

Marriage has been more a formal than religious occasion for atleast 100 years, no one even cares about that aspect anymore.

Ah and isn't that a key point in such debate, how does one define marriage. Although the second half of your statement is just your opinion it does raise the issue. I believe it is a consecration of a relationship under God. That is why it requires a priest and a church. However, the government does use it now for tax breaks and such and have for so many decades, and if that's all it was than why restrict it to those in Marriage? Why not simply give such breaks to family units regardless of the content of the family? My only beef with such things are that if a religion frowns upon it, it shouldn't exist under that religion, what's the point of including religion if that's the case? Why force a religion to betray its own teachings? That's what I want to be respected, the marriage license itself it just a piece of paper with no more significant value morally or otherwise than what the government thinks of it.

At 4/19/13 11:08 PM, naronic wrote:

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote: If you go back through history everyone's related.

If there's consent, incest really is the same as gay marriage or polygamy.
People should just get over it by now

You are absent of morals and are unlike most all people. Just a suggestion, don't run for public office, you won't like it as much as it won't like you. Morality is only subjective to an extent, there are certain societal pillars that the majority (I'm talking over 90% of people) consider normal or morally just. People don't, by which I mean refuse, to "get over" their moral backgrounds to satisfy a minority's desire for satisfaction and liberal rights.

'I am absent of morals?', are you reading what you write?

Yes, not absent of all, just a few regarding sex and probably others. And perhaps absent is a poor word, I should say, very different than main stream society's.

And by extension do you know what you're talking about?

Indeed, if you would care to listen.

What morals are we operating by here, yours? Society's?

Society's of course, did you not read the whole Moral Pillars of Society thing? In America, we operate on popular sovereignty in most cases, thus pillars of morals are formed based on society's beliefs and ethical principals, I know its not scientific or concrete but neither is human thought so... At any rate these pillars are formed and people up hold them for as long as the majority of people think that way. A few pillars are the disapproval of Incest, Gay marriage and Polygamy as well as being very scrupulous over several other aspects of sex. You may ask, why? I'm no expert but it probably has to do with our fundamentalist Christian roots that have shaped American society for decades and shows no real signs of stopping despite what the internet has to say.

A half a century ago over 3/4ths of Americans condemned gay relationships as a whole (in Europe it was a punishable offence by law Read: Alan Turning), was being gay any more immoral back then than it is now with most people today opening up their arms and accepting it?

Yes, it was far more immoral, people saw it as an affront to their religion, to God, a man shall not lay with another man and such. And back when religion was a huge huge deal in America (50's), it was of course, taken very seriously. But the funny thing about culture, like morals, they change with the times. Remember the 60's? (of course not but you know) Morals change all the time, people get more liberal and then they get more so and more so until BOOM, a conservative backlash hits and people re-strengthen existing moral pillars. It ebbs and flows, right now we're back on the liberal up swing. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more states accept homosexuality as marriageable. Now, people are opening their arms and accepting, that much is correct, for how long is indeterminable but by looking at history, probably a few more decades, whether that pillar corrodes or not is entirely up to future generations.

You find it immoral to allow people to have sex with whomever they choose even if it's their sister so long as it's consenting on both sides?

Yes, it's an affront to my morals, and the ethics I grew up with and most people in America would agree (well maybe not the deep south, aha, I kid). As long as popular sovereignty rules, it will continue to be taboo. And for this instance, I don't think it can be comparable to gays as incest is looked down upon even more so, even today.

You showcase the same mismatched logic of christian fundamentalists who condemn gay marriage and relationships as a whole, not wanting to see or hear about it based on some antiquated nonexistent higher objective morality that you want everybody to acknowledge.

I know you want me to be that way: parochial, hateful, showing no signs of being able to listen to reason or some such. But I am not so, I do condemn gay marriage, I have reasons that others would agree with, I do not, however, care if they have relations. Also, your opinion on "some antiquated nonexistent higher objective" is very parochial in and of itself. I choose to believe there is a higher power, most of America happens to agree with me, I know that's not what you want to hear but that's how it is, and that is where most Americans derive their moral pillars. You are in the minority but I can respect your opinion while disagreeing. I hope I answered all your questions.

At 4/19/13 02:57 PM, zag wrote:

At 4/19/13 02:40 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

At 4/19/13 02:29 PM, zag wrote: Psh! I say go through with the incest.
It's way more fun than sex with a non-relative anyway.

which member of your family did you engage in sexual activity with?

My half-sister.

i was expecting something gayer from you, such a disappointment

At 4/19/13 11:49 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i was expecting something gayer from you, such a disappointment

Sorry.
You do know that I'm a bisexual supremacist, right?

BI POWER!

At 4/19/13 11:03 AM, tox wrote: This is evidently a problem

Just remember! Bump them before dem!

uglies

iphones are so fucking stupid

Anyone whose had sex has already been involved in incest

At 4/20/13 12:06 AM, zag wrote:

At 4/19/13 11:49 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i was expecting something gayer from you, such a disappointment

Sorry.
You do know that I'm a bisexual supremacist, right?

BI POWER!

Don't you know? Everyone here is bi.

At 4/20/13 12:06 AM, zag wrote:

At 4/19/13 11:49 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i was expecting something gayer from you, such a disappointment

Sorry.
You do know that I'm a bisexual supremacist, right?

BI POWER!

i though you were pansexual

At 4/19/13 11:47 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 4/19/13 11:08 PM, naronic wrote:

At 4/19/13 10:51 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 4/19/13 12:17 PM, naronic wrote:

Yes, it was far more immoral, people saw it as an affront to their religion, to God, a man shall not lay with another man and such. And back when religion was a huge huge deal in America (50's), it was of course, taken very seriously. But the funny thing about culture, like morals, they change with the times. Remember the 60's? (of course not but you know) Morals change all the time, people get more liberal and then they get more so and more so until BOOM, a conservative backlash hits and people re-strengthen existing moral pillars. It ebbs and flows, right now we're back on the liberal up swing. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more states accept homosexuality as marriageable. Now, people are opening their arms and accepting, that much is correct, for how long is indeterminable but by looking at history, probably a few more decades, whether that pillar corrodes or not is entirely up to future generations.

The existence of popular opinion doesn't mean the existence of objective morality. It simply means a general opinion of a general group at a general point in time, and the fluctuation of such morals of society throughout the years sort of illustrates it's fluidity and subjectivity.

And no, your very simplistic (and incorrect) model of how society works doesn't do your argument justice. Usually how tolerant a society is of something like incest or polygamy is proportional to it's advancement in quality of life and education over the knee jerk "morals" it was founded upon as well as how broadcast they are upon the public at large.

We've gone from murdering and taking rights away from people with birth defects, women, the Irish/German/Japanese, gays and other minorities all throughout old american history, taking 300 years to nick all those injustices in the bud.
There was no liberal fluctuation in that time frame where interracial (indentured servitude doesn't count as a society) and gay marriage was accepted knowingly by a society as a whole and then condemned again, (the very notion that society works as cut and dry that is incredibly naive), were just now making the leap onto conscious tolerance of gay/interracial marriage as people have more access to information about the issue and the two sides arguing for either side of it. I don't think we're going back if these groups manage to assimilate.

And for this instance, I don't think it can be comparable to gays as incest is looked down upon even more so, even today.

Actually yes it can, because as we've just agreed upon, gay marriage was in the same situation not too long ago.

I'm not gay or into incest, but I do want to see laws operating more off of consent rather than what someone else thinks it's moral. I find it wrong that if 2 cousins are in love with each other and would make each other happy, they can't live together or raise children (adoption) without getting vehemently frowned upon. That's an affront to my morals.

Lol what if the app malfunctions and you fuck your cousin on accident.

At 4/19/13 12:29 PM, lithiumsol wrote: that app is pretty flawed if most people in iceland are related if they tried to avoid this eventualy they are going to run out of none relatives like the eskimo tribe in alaska.

And when this happens they'll ether look the other way about immagration or force people to move out.

At 4/20/13 01:00 AM, kakalxlax wrote:

At 4/20/13 12:06 AM, zag wrote:

At 4/19/13 11:49 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i was expecting something gayer from you, such a disappointment

Sorry.
You do know that I'm a bisexual supremacist, right?

BI POWER!

i though you were pansexual

I go back and forth on that.
Besides, more people understand the concept of bisexuality, so it's easier to say.

At 4/20/13 12:59 AM, triplenoob wrote: Don't you know? Everyone here is bi.

Quite a few people here are anyway.
But I'm still under the belief that everyone in the world is bisexual to some extent.
Some just more than others.

Luke and Leia should have used this.

no such thing bro that's fuckin sick bro like fick

At 4/20/13 11:32 AM, PotHeadParadise wrote: no such thing bro that's fuckin sick bro like fick

Fick indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJzOXfrDcYY

At 4/19/13 11:36 AM, mandog wrote: I thought this was going to be about you masturbating then your sister came in right as you cummed and you came in her face.

I thought it was gonna be the same.

In almost every religion, incest is the reason of why we are here. So, basically, according to christianity, judaism, etc. we are all relatives.

Incest is still wincest!

At 4/19/13 11:03 AM, tox wrote: This is evidently a problem

Just remember! Bump them before dem!

uglies

LMAO THE F*CK!!!

Sounds useful in a stereotypical red neck community. Shame they can't afford good phones or care about breaking the rule.