Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/8/06 05:30 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: It's just nasty!
I mean if there are people who get off on watching some hairy guy named Molly get pelvis pumped by some girly man named Betty, then the world has gone striaght to hell.

I believe that would be gay voyerism, not gay marriage, which is what this thread's about.

At 1/8/06 10:55 AM, Draconias wrote: What is always funny about certain topics, like this one, is that the people calling for change think they are the ones with the strong position which the other side must attack, but they're wrong. See, you're calling for a change, so you need to attack the idea that Marriage should remain how it is. Can you provide strong reasons why everyone except for the Gay couples should want to support this major change that goes against much of our religious and cultural values?

Do you actually believe that the marriage that we now have has never changed or that the marriage we know today has always been like this? Do you believe that marriage has always been like this picture: Man meets Woman, they fall in love, and get married. Sometimes the get out of love and then divorce.

Wrong.

Marriage used to be arranged by families. Some still are (Indian families for example.) But some were along the line, it changed. Once you're married, you are married till death do us part. Then comes King Henry 8th and etc and creates legal divorce. Then it used to be that people could marry only within their race. Then came Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving (Loving v. Virginia).

The marriage we know is radically different from traditional, radical and moral values because several people long ago "attacked" the idea how marriage should be, thus creating free will to marry without family consent, the option of divorce, and freedom of marrying other races.

Our marriage is in no way "traditional" because if you go to other countries like India and parts of Middle East, they would gasp how liberal we truly are.

Marriage is facing another major change is because people are changing and certain things needs to accomodate. The only traditional part of marriage is its history of changing.

ok, let me clear this once and for all, marrage means you have sex atleast once. This is the modern world as it is today, if it was just two gay people living together, then I don't have a problem. If they decide to raise a kid, then i have a problem because then that kid would grow up gay ass well, and some loner girl, who's never had a b/f, has just lost another chance to get once, and thus the population willgo down.
I don't want that to happen, i believe sex should be reserved for a reason, making children, who will group up, have sex, make more children.
So to recap this, marrage = sex.

At 1/8/06 06:04 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: So to recap this, marrage = sex.

If it's about sex, then you might as well not get married!
That's an awefully high price to pay for booty--

And gays will still have children, even if they're not legally married. And several of these children grow up fine and not gay.

At 1/8/06 06:04 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: ok, let me clear this once and for all, marrage means you have sex atleast once. This is the modern world as it is today, if it was just two gay people living together, then I don't have a problem. If they decide to raise a kid, then i have a problem because then that kid would grow up gay ass well, and some loner girl, who's never had a b/f, has just lost another chance to get once, and thus the population willgo down.
I don't want that to happen, i believe sex should be reserved for a reason, making children, who will group up, have sex, make more children.
So to recap this, marrage = sex.

marriage = sex: wrong!

Not all marriages are based on sex. And not all married couples have to have sex at least once: The act of consumating the marriage is just another ancient rite that has been removed, like all the things fli just mentioned. In fact not all married couples have sex. I know a couple who are married and have never had sex and prolly won't ever because the woman has herpes and the man does not want to contract them. And they're both happy with their marriage.

You're joking right? How many couples have you seen ever, by the age of 50 have never had sex, ever?

At 1/8/06 06:19 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: You're joking right? How many couples have you seen ever, by the age of 50 have never had sex, ever?

At least the one . . . I don't make a habit of going up to couples and asking "Have you had sex" . . . it just seems to me to be a bit of a faux pas

Ok fine, I'll say gays are should be allowed to get married, so long as they don't have sex.
There, are you happy now?

At 1/8/06 06:24 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: Ok fine, I'll say gays are should be allowed to get married, so long as they don't have sex.
There, are you happy now?

No. There's no real reason why gays should not be allowed to have sex. I personally find the idea of sex with another man to be rather disgusting, but I see no reason to ban it.

At 1/8/06 06:24 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: Ok fine, I'll say gays are should be allowed to get married, so long as they don't have sex.
There, are you happy now?

Yes, let's create a sodomy squad.

Just in case.
*eye rollie*

I'm not saying they should ban gay sex, i'm saying that if every gay person doesn't have sex, or if they do actually create a sodomy squad, the n i would support gay marrage.

At 1/8/06 06:45 PM, TurmionKatilot wrote: I'm not saying they should ban gay sex, i'm saying that if every gay person doesn't have sex, or if they do actually create a sodomy squad, the n i would support gay marrage.

So you're not supporting a ban, but if it were banned, you support gay marriage?

yeah

well they cannot be different from most of america if they dont want to marry for benefits. marriage means nothing these days except that. how many common law marriages do you know of. those are legal.

i just got enlightened.
so, you rather they get married to each other or to the straight people? because i mean, theyll have sex even if theyre not married, so why stop the marriage.

All homo topics end up the same, huh?

what the fuck has gay sex anything to do with your life why does it bother you?because its agenst some god in a book give me a fucking break man this i was what i hate about you christans nutter censorship freaks you interfear with other people lives because you find your lifestyle is right and must force it onto others
Christany is bullshit and a lie
jesusneverexisted.com

Homosexual relationships are wrong because they are shallow. Homosexual men get on well with women as friends, and can make straight men - the only reason they marry their partner is to make a statement. The relationship is based on infatuation and sex - not because of 'love'. Homosexuality is not born with, it is devoloped, and has been 'cured', proving it can be helped. So, in conclusion, gay relations are wrong becasue they are not meaningful or deep, they are sexual, and any strait marriage based on infatuation would be equally unnacceptable.

At 1/9/06 04:40 PM, Uxorious_Widow wrote: Homosexual relationships are wrong because they are shallow. Homosexual men get on well with women as friends, and can make straight men - the only reason they marry their partner is to make a statement. The relationship is based on infatuation and sex - not because of 'love'. Homosexuality is not born with, it is devoloped, and has been 'cured', proving it can be helped. So, in conclusion, gay relations are wrong becasue they are not meaningful or deep, they are sexual, and any strait marriage based on infatuation would be equally unnacceptable.

Now, I don't know why, but it seems that the primary argument against gay marriage has gone from "God hates gays" to "gay sex" And, frankly, I don't see the relevance in either. Some homosexual relationships are indeed about making statements. As are many heterosexual marriages. If those are your reasons, ban lust marriages, not gay ones! But, until I see any evidence whatsoever that gays are incapable of love (And no anal sex does not prove that, nor will it ever) I will support the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Did you know that in light of hard evidence, and dispite popular sentiment, the American Psychological Society no longer veiws homosexuality as a mental illness and considers it a grave mistake to have classified it as such for so long?

I don't know if it's inbred or developed--I've seen torrents of statisticts flung, but reletively few citations on either side, and I don't feel like doing reaserch on it right now. But, as for the claim that gays can be "cured," so can heterosexuals become gay. And any process that works as well both ways is hardly a cure for anything.

At 1/8/06 06:03 PM, fli wrote: Do you actually believe that the marriage that we now have has never changed or that the marriage we know today has always been like this? Do you believe that marriage has always been like this picture: Man meets Woman, they fall in love, and get married. Sometimes the get out of love and then divorce.

Stop trying to stick words in my mouth. I never said or implied anything of the sort, and you're simply trying to invent a flaw that never existed.

Marriage has changed, and I know it. And guess what: every time it has changed, the people who got it changed were required to provide a very strong argument for it, which perfectly supports what I actually said. If you are calling for change, the burden of proof lies on you in the same way the burden of proof always rests on the Prosecutor in a court. Don't try to fill in bullshit that doesn't exist to dodge the question.

You've provided no strong reasons, no strong perogative for this change: all I've seen is arguing the lack of a negative. "Well, you can't convince me it is evil and should be banned, so obviously it should immediately be legalized." It's a completely unacceptable, flawed method of argument and will never be successful.

To me, your argument is no different than the Potheads calling for the legalization of Marijuana: "See! It's not super evil, besides the known side effects, so it should be legalized immediately!" It completely ignores the rest of the argument, the important things like Society and Consequences, by simply arguing that the thing itself is not actively negative-- but that doesn't make it positive.

So deal with the real situation now: regardless of any of your "traditional" crap, the current state of Marriage is the status quo. If you want to change it, you need to provide incentive for change, otherwise it's like trying to push an Elephant with a Sneeze; it just won't work because you're entirely ineffective. So rather than demanding for the status quo to defend itself, the job of defense and promotion rests on you. Deal with it, that's reality.

At 1/9/06 04:58 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/8/06 06:03 PM, fli wrote:

You've provided no strong reasons, no strong perogative for this change: all I've seen is arguing the lack of a negative. "Well, you can't convince me it is evil and should be banned, so obviously it should immediately be legalized." It's a completely unacceptable, flawed method of argument and will never be successful.

How about this reason: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

And the chopped version to highlight the most important relevent bits: "[All] men are created equal, [and have] certain unalienable Rights, [such as] the Pursuit of Happiness."

So, if you can get married, so can they, otherwise, you're an intolerant hypocrite.

At 1/9/06 12:02 AM, red_skunk wrote: All homo topics end up the same, huh?

Yep

Eeeeh gays are sooooo grossss.

Or(we should just let them fuk thir fucckoon brains out

Just once i would like to get an intelligent topic that doensn't come around to me being called a homophobe, because i don't like it or am very accepting of it, but will let it pass, because my will isn't rule.

At 1/9/06 04:58 PM, Draconias wrote: Marriage has changed, and I know it.

It's good to know that you agree.

Have you anti-homosexuality people have ever heard of liberty?

Yeah, didn't think so.

i had a friend. he loved women. he was 'cured' . because he loved sex, and in this particular group sex was immoral, he was suffering obviously of a desiese. its not genetic.
you can always "cure" anyone if you beat them phisically or mentally enough.

Ok, To get it straight right away, I don't care about homosexuality. Let them get married, I don't care. I'm just trying to stump this guy.

Let's look at Sodom and Gammorah, Why where they destroyed by God in the Bible?
For committing homosexual acts. Plus else where in the Bible, I forget where, but it says for committing homosexual acts you are to be put to death.

At 1/9/06 09:29 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote: Ok, To get it straight right away, I don't care about homosexuality. Let them get married, I don't care. I'm just trying to stump this guy.

Let's look at Sodom and Gammorah, Why where they destroyed by God in the Bible?
For committing homosexual acts. Plus else where in the Bible, I forget where, but it says for committing homosexual acts you are to be put to death.

That would indeed be a fine stumper if all the world were Christian.
I believe he was asking for a problem with homosexuality, not with Christian homosexuality.
Also, I'm fairly certain that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed for general lasciviousess rather than any particular form of it, at least in the original, untranslated version--but even if I'm wrong, it's still irrelevent.

Sorry I've been away, I got banned for a couple of days. Nonetheless, I think most of the arguments from pages 4 and 5 are slightly different re-workings of arguments I've already seen

Unnatural - Falls foul of the Naturalistic Fallacy

"I don't like it" - Is not an argument so much as a statement

Against God - Depends which versions of the Bible you read, and which passages you choose to emphisise. Also, if a gay person is not religious, this hardly applies to them, does it?

The only really interesting argument I've heard was that gays tended to be more violent, but I can't find any supporting evidence apart from that survay.

And that pretty much covers it. Any new arguments?

At 1/9/06 09:29 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote: Let's look at Sodom and Gammorah, Why where they destroyed by God in the Bible?
For committing homosexual acts. Plus else where in the Bible, I forget where, but it says for committing homosexual acts you are to be put to death.

"Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels." Inge Anderson

I could argue you better, but that pretty much summerized my whole counter-argument.

At 1/10/06 11:20 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: And that pretty much covers it. Any new arguments?

Yeah: It's your damn job to provide an argument, not sit there with a completely closed mind and a falsely impregnable defense and wait for others to provide arguments against it.

You ask something unreasonable and, put simply, stupid: you want other people to find arguments to fit your beliefs and your philosophies and your worldview and values, but those values are, from the start, completely biased towards supporting Gay Marriage. It's annoying when you sound like a retarded claiming you've disproved things you haven't even touched, simply because it doesn't fit your pefect little world view.

This is a waste of a topic if you're not even going to refute arguments, you simply throw them to the side because "that's just an opinion," as if beliefs and opinions can't control Society or make any impact whatsoever.

Homosexuality is disfavored.

Why?
It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.
It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.
It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.
It doesn't produce children, and never will.
It can never hold the "holiness" or virtue held by truly Married couples: (ex) aged grandparents with happy children after decades of Marriage.
It breaks the status quo, and there's no justification except "I want to!"
It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.
It serves no purpose except to promote long-term sex between Homosexuals.
It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.
Et cetera.

Your mind is so closed that's its not worth mentioning any arguments to you, you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.

how is using the word disgusting make a vialbe argument. wrestling is disgusting (and fake) yet it is accepted.

what about lesbian couples? i see lots of guys going for that! i mean, otherwise you're watching a guy's penis (and of course you don't want a small one do you?) banging a chick.

now lesbians seem to have a different kind of attention, as sexy objects to jack off to. i dont find lesbians groas, hey, they're starting to seem like a good alternative since guys and girls for some reason or another can't stand each other.

homosexual men=fags
homosexual women=lesbians (sometime carpet muncher)

Because a woman strapping on a dildo and having sex with another woman, as other things is more acceptable. It is true a woman knows a woman best!

Doesnt matter what gays do in private, and its none of our concern. They will eventually get the right to marry just like it is happening all over the world, because of people like those who sue mcdonalds because they are fat.
The mexicans will take over, the gays will all be married, and michael jackson will finally admit to being a woman.