Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I personally think the best solution is to end marriage benefits altogether. It's an antiquated form of government promotion of self-growth. And frankly, the idea that more people is good is kind of getting old.

Man, what the fuck? You say gay marriage is denied equally to all, but if it was allowed, it's only allowed to gays?

PICK ONE.

If gay marriage was legalised, it would allow gay marriage to everyone, just like how right now it is denied to everyone.

At 1/15/06 10:14 PM, Draconias wrote: If Gay Marriage was added, that would be discrimination through favoritism.

While Gay Marriage remains non-existant, the denial is universal and no descrimination exists.

To a point, you made a respectable point or two...
but this has to be the most retarded form of "logic" out there ever put. Right next to the "equal, but seperate"...

At 1/15/06 04:32 PM, Kero_the_boy_killer wrote: So what? We all want different things in life don't we... for some people love-is pleasure... it depends on whatever you describe it as... i guess O_O Either way, they love to do it?... i mean it's not like ony homesexuals think love is only pleasure... i can find some preety weird people out there... >_>

My god I can't fucking believe you took me seriously. I even deliberately made spelling mistakes to make my post seem less credible.

At 1/15/06 02:22 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote: Threads like these give me a headache.

I prefer them - there's not much fun in a thread where you just show a link and win the argument

At 1/15/06 12:21 PM, Draconias wrote:

2. Freedoms - The blow to civil liberties is fairly great if you legistlate against a group of people just because of their sexual preference.

Remember, simply not legislating for a group is different from legislating against a group. The United States currently refuses to legislate Gay Marriage into existance; the US isn't legislating against Gays, it is simply refusing to give them free benefits.

Alright then, it's discriminating against them. This is a blow to civil liberties.

3. If the state do not want to allow gay marriage (or 'civil partnerships') then they are guilty of discrimination.

I believe that is completely untrue. If a child comes up to me and demands candy "because the boy over there has some," and I refuse, does that mean I am discriminating? No. If I was selling candy and refused to deal with one particular child, that would be discriminating, but that's not the situation here.

Yes it is. You (or others) have the power to allow Gay Marriage. You refuse. Discrimination. I know I put it simply, but your metaphor really hasn't convinced me.

Gay Marriage is not a basic right.

Marriage is a basic right - according to the UN Convention of Human Rights, which I think America signed up to. Gays are people. Hence, gay marriage (or civil unions) are a basic right.

Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.

If Gay Marriage is denied, it can be re-written "Marriage is denied to gays". When written like this, it certainly seems a group is being discriminated against

All the major religions, the founders of Marriage, refuse to accept Gay Marriage.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.

Adding Gay Marriage will redress the balance. That's only slightly less stupid than saying we shouldn't have a Child Support Agency, because it favours children

5. Majority - Although majority opinion and tradition are on your side, that does not mean they are correct. Firstly, the majority of people and tradition were pro-slavery.

Wrong. Only a minority of people supported Slavery. First of all, only a severe minority owned slaves, even in the South. Second, the South had much fewer people than the North, and most of the North was neutral or anti-slavery.

I was under the impression most people implicitly supported slavery. If you assure me that this isn't the case, I will conceed you know more than I do. I KNOW, however, that most people were against women having the vote. My point is clear even without the example - the majority are not always right.

So there is a good chance that, were a shift in legislation to happen, the majority would support gay marriage.

I was in no way, shape, or form "indoctrinated" with any beliefs about Homosexuality in my childhood. It was never mentioned.

Sorry to have implied it. I grew up in a very tolerant household, which is where my beliefs come from. My point is, if children were not taugh 'homosexuality is a sin', it is unlikely that as many people would have as strong opinions. To paraphrase you, not teaching something is very different to teaching 'pro-' something

Stop. You're doing it again: legislating to add something is massively different than legislating to take away something.

But one could argue that there a homosexual couple could adopt a child. I don't really understand your argument. In the Middle Ages, homosexuality was a sin, and gays were not allowed to marry. Now, it is not regarded as such by the general public (although I understand most people find it distasteful) and gays are still not allowed to marry. Gay marriage is not something I really wanted to talk about in this thread, but I suppose you are right - the two issues are inseperable.

8. Natural - Homosexuality cannot be seen as natural. Nor can living in a house. To say 'homosexuality is unnatural' is to deny 6000 years of evolution.

Actually, living in a house is arguably natural. All organisms require Shelter to survive. Houses are Shelter. Therefore, living in a house (just like living in a Cave) is a natural thing.

Alright then, but bungee jumping definately isn't natural. You'll note very few animals go to the cinema. My point remains - homosexuality, in my belief, is no more or less natural than a mryiad of other human expressions.

What I believe would be better in every respect than Gay Marriage is, instead, Civil Unions.

I have no problem with this. If you are uncomfortable redefining marriage, I understand, although don't agree. But that issue is really, really subjective, and I wouldn't like to go down that road if I can possibly avoid it.

So if you've convinced me 'gay marriage' is a contradicition in terms, I'm afraid you still haven't convinced me homosexuality is wrong. Indeed, you say that we shoud not discriminate against gays at all.

I really think they should define the gay marriage part and just make it a different thing all together. I mean like call it a civil union if you will and things but i just do not think that it is right to define it as a marriage.

Seeing as marriage is a religous union and all and all religions are against homosexuality i think it is rather disrespectful to them to call it a marriage. Then again though i could be wrong:s

At 1/16/06 01:30 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

I was under the impression most people implicitly supported slavery. If you assure me that this isn't the case, I will conceed you know more than I do. I KNOW, however, that most people were against women having the vote. My point is clear even without the example - the majority are not always right.

Slavery was brought up during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It was finally conceded that it wouldn't be ended so that all the states came on board. The anti-slavery position was always the minority, but it was conceded for the temporary good of the nation. During the civil war, most southerners fought for the right of the South to be free, not for the right to bear slaves.

And as for women, if the majority were against it, they wouldn't have been given the right to vote. Back beyond that, there's not a whole lot to say the issue was ever really thought of on a wide scale, thus no way to know if people were pro- or anti-women's sufferage. All we know is that when the issue came up, the majority supported it, and it passed into law. What you KNOW is dead wrong.

At 1/16/06 11:48 AM, _StillBorn_ wrote:

At 1/15/06 04:32 PM, Kero_the_boy_killer wrote: So what? We all want different things in life don't we... for some people love-is pleasure... it depends on whatever you describe it as... i guess O_O Either way, they love to do it?... i mean it's not like ony homesexuals think love is only pleasure... i can find some preety weird people out there... >_>

My god I can't fucking believe you took me seriously. I even deliberately made spelling mistakes to make my post seem less credible.

Jeez sorry... Don't take it all out on me, bacause i am from another country and it still takes me a while to understand what the hell American people mean or not. Just try not to confuse me further more ok hun?

Anyway, all i can say just let people marry whoever thay want, it's not like i will care... or you will care... why would you evern care about somone marrying someone? And if it does go against somones religious belifs then just shut up and go pray or something...Religion is not part of government and homosexual marriege bing wrong is something people need to get over with. We are supposedly a free country, well where does that freedome goes now, eh?

At 1/15/06 10:38 PM, mwazzap wrote: I personally think the best solution is to end marriage benefits altogether. It's an antiquated form of government promotion of self-growth. And frankly, the idea that more people is good is kind of getting old.

Amen. It's no wonder there is so much chaos in marriage today, we let the government control it. I like you mwazzap, we need more libertarians on this bbs.

At 1/16/06 02:39 PM, Jinzoa wrote: I really think they should define the gay marriage part and just make it a different thing all together. I mean like call it a civil union if you will and things but i just do not think that it is right to define it as a marriage.

Seeing as marriage is a religous union and all and all religions are against homosexuality i think it is rather disrespectful to them to call it a marriage. Then again though i could be wrong:s

How about i'll be a good little monkey and do whatever those religious people think is wrong... Man that will be a hell of a fun world. Marriage is not a religious term and will never be, it goes much deeper. Just because some guy said, "Hey! Since i hate homosexuality and i am religious i will say that gay marriage is wrong!!"

I should say that homosexuals should make their own religion and join the war. Because religious belifs is the most idiotc think a man could come up with, well since we are all in this shit now, why not make more? We are gonne die soon anyway from overpoluting the planet, might as well just shut up and go take a leak on the statue of Jesus or Buddha or something...

At 1/16/06 05:27 PM, Kero_the_boy_killer wrote: Jeez sorry... Don't take it all out on me, bacause i am from another country and it still takes me a while to understand what the hell American people mean or not. Just try not to confuse me further more ok hun?

I'm not American.

I agree with your stance on gay marriage anyway.

At 1/16/06 05:31 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 1/15/06 10:38 PM, mwazzap wrote: I personally think the best solution is to end marriage benefits altogether. It's an antiquated form of government promotion of self-growth. And frankly, the idea that more people is good is kind of getting old.

Amen. It's no wonder there is so much chaos in marriage today, we let the government control it. I like you mwazzap, we need more libertarians on this bbs.

Haha. You probably wouldn't like me, I'm usually an asshole and a pretentious prick.
But I am a libertarian (with authoritarian tendencies).

At 1/16/06 05:17 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/16/06 01:30 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

And as for women, if the majority were against it, they wouldn't have been given the right to vote. Back beyond that, there's not a whole lot to say the issue was ever really thought of on a wide scale, thus no way to know if people were pro- or anti-women's sufferage. All we know is that when the issue came up, the majority supported it, and it passed into law. What you KNOW is dead wrong.

Nope, my point's valid. Most people were against woman's sufferage before World War II. After World War II, people eventually became in favour of it, so in that respect you are correct. My point is that because the majority support something, it is not correct

If you are still not satisfied, consider this - five hundred years ago, everyone in the world believed in a geo-centric model of the universe. Majority opinion was dead wrong in that case.