Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/13/03 01:00 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: I don't think that gay people should be able to marry. Maybe they should be off on some island on some part of the ocean which is unnavigatable.

Hmmmm, then how is they supposed to get there in the first place, y'all? I don't think this be makin' much sense, bro. See, tha thang is, if you is afraid a somethin, like all the gay brothas and sistas, you maybe should be axin' y'self what is it in ME that makes me scared a them? Is you afraid a bein' INFECTED or some shit like dat? Don't worry my man, cuz it ain't catchin', it just is. Peace. H-Dawg, OUT!

At 5/13/03 06:46 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:
I was under the impression you did. =P

I was really drunk both times, and everyone knows my dog was a whore.

Dawg - Please type in proper English when you come to this forum, or you'll probably get banned or something.

Or shot, if you're unlucky.

At 5/13/03 05:57 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

:For your clarification, my IQ is 135. Are you saying all us Mensans are unnatural and deserve to be shot?

135, eh? When's was the last test you took? Is that the score you got, or the average (Tests are different)?

I always did alright on them there IQ testamajigs.

At 5/14/03 02:56 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Dawg - Please type in proper English when you come to this forum, or you'll probably get banned or something.

Or shot, if you're unlucky.

leave it to bland ass imperialistic englishman to put the boots to an intelligent brother trying to speak his mind.

If I cant give you crap for using your English slang, you cant give H-Dawg any for using his.

At 5/13/03 01:00 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: I don't think that gay people should be able to marry. Maybe they should be off on some island on some part of the ocean which is unnavigatable.

I think ignorant people like you should endure a circumstance where your simple liberty which didn’t directly affect anyone was prohibited by society, not allowing you to reach contentment because someone else thought it was wrong. All you do is help society stay blind buy regulating the freedom of others.

At 5/13/03 05:56 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 5/13/03 09:18 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

So are you saying being homosexual has nothing to do with love? Gay Partners don't love each other...they just want to be get married so they can have sex?!?

It is fully possible to have a lifelong bond with a member of the same sex (ex. bestfriend). In days past one might engage in a ceremony of "blood brothership" to a member of the same sex. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and has nothing to do with love. If two homosexuals are lucky enough love each other enough to form a lifelong bond, they probably would have been best friends if not for the coincidence of homosexuality.

Homosexuals cannot be married in the traditional sense because traditionally marriage occurs only between a man and a woman who intend to raise children. Homosexuals cannot have biological children with one another. While I am not against homosexuals having a life long bond and having a ceremony to cement this bond, calling such a relationship a "marriage" is a farce. Marriages are not for couples, they are for families. The mentality of love being the only purpose for marriage is probably the reason for the high divorce rate.

What about gay/lesbian couples that want to adopt and start a family? If being homosexual is just s sexual preference then why is it they chose to endure the ridicules of society?..is it some sick fetish? Why do some of them commit suicide because they fear they will never be accepted by society? If it is choice then why not just step out of it?

Not allowing homosexuals to get married is just a way to indirectly state that homosexuality is wrong. Because we live in a society were we want to "portray" freedom of individuality we allow them to be homosexual in their own eyes but to the world they can never be accepted....why is it so hard to live and let live?

At 5/14/03 02:56 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Dawg - Please type in proper English when you come to this forum, or you'll probably get banned or something.

Or shot, if you're unlucky.

I kind of agree with you but shouldn't it be about what he is saying? He is a "rapper" and it is like language...I guess. If you aren't fluent in it then you wouldn’t be able to understand most of the music...; )

yes, people like me...LOL! You make me laugh "Nirvana" If there were no people like me, there would be no moral fiber in this God forsaken CUNTry. My rights have been taken away more times than I can count, so your theory won't work. What is wrong is wrong, it can't be debated. I still think that homosexual people belong on their own island, away from straight people, that way, they can't infect the rest of society with their immoral lifestyle.

At 5/14/03 11:18 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: What about gay/lesbian couples that want to adopt and start a family? If being homosexual is just s sexual preference then why is it they chose to endure the ridicules of society?..is it some sick fetish? Why do some of them commit suicide because they fear they will never be accepted by society? If it is choice then why not just step out of it?

Not allowing homosexuals to get married is just a way to indirectly state that homosexuality is wrong. Because we live in a society were we want to "portray" freedom of individuality we allow them to be homosexual in their own eyes but to the world they can never be accepted....why is it so hard to live and let live?

Becuase humanity has a collective need to keep on poking at things until we understand it inside and out, especially other people. The question with homosexuality isn't so much whether or not it's right or wrong but whether our species can accept a deviation from the norm that some see as a threat to our continued viability as a species.

Funk - It was an average on 6 tests i have took with 2 different boards. I'm dead chuffed with the results :D

At 5/14/03 11:18 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: What about gay/lesbian couples that want to adopt and start a family? If being homosexual is just s sexual preference then why is it they chose to endure the ridicules of society?..is it some sick fetish? Why do some of them commit suicide because they fear they will never be accepted by society? If it is choice then why not just step out of it?

Yes, it is a fetish. whether it is sick or not can be debated, considering there are a lot nastier fetishes out there. All people have a drive to raise a family; its biological. However, to call two homosexuals married with children is again, a farce. Adopted children are not true children, only legally. I will say this: Homosexuals raising a child together is better than a child being raised by a single parent, but not as good as a having a traditional family. Two men are not capable of raising a little girl to know all that she must, and two women are not capable of teaching a little boy the intricacies of masculinity.

Not allowing homosexuals to get married is just a way to indirectly state that homosexuality is wrong. Because we live in a society were we want to "portray" freedom of individuality we allow them to be homosexual in their own eyes but to the world they can never be accepted....why is it so hard to live and let live?

Scientifically and biologically, homosexuality IS wrong. I just dont consider it any worse than drinking or smoking.

At 5/14/03 12:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Funk - It was an average on 6 tests i have took with 2 different boards. I'm dead chuffed with the results :D

pip pip and cheerio, wot? What was that average, mate? For that matter, which boards, old chap? If you could enlightened me with this info dear boy, Oi could have a littuhl more understandin why yer dead chuffed.

At 5/14/03 11:30 AM, cannibal7878 wrote: yes, people like me...LOL! You make me laugh "Nirvana" If there were no people like me, there would be no moral fiber in this God forsaken CUNTry. My rights have been taken away more times than I can count, so your theory won't work. What is wrong is wrong, it can't be debated. I still think that homosexual people belong on their own island, away from straight people, that way, they can't infect the rest of society with their immoral lifestyle.

Who defines what standard morals are? Can’t you think for yourself? Can’t you for one minute detach your mind from the funnel they keep feeding you thoughts from? In a world so diverse I’d think people would come to accept that we are each different and that it okay to be that way.

At 5/14/03 12:34 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 5/14/03 11:18 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: What about gay/lesbian couples that want to adopt and start a family? If being homosexual is just s sexual preference then why is it they chose to endure the ridicules of society?..is it some sick fetish? Why do some of them commit suicide because they fear they will never be accepted by society? If it is choice then why not just step out of it?

Yes, it is a fetish. whether it is sick or not can be debated, considering there are a lot nastier fetishes out there. All people have a drive to raise a family; its biological. However, to call two homosexuals married with children is again, a farce. Adopted children are not true children, only legally. I will say this: Homosexuals raising a child together is better than a child being raised by a single parent, but not as good as a having a traditional family. Two men are not capable of raising a little girl to know all that she must, and two women are not capable of teaching a little boy the intricacies of masculinity.

______________________________________________________
So you don't consider them a family? Why can't you accept homosexuality completely? It seems to me that you feel it is wrong for the same shallow reasons society does. What if the world worked reversed and heterosexuality was shunned upon…wouldn’t you feel like it was no one’s business who you wanted to share your life with let alone get legally married to? This is no longer about the law it is about having control over our lives, over our personalities even if we aren’t physically disturbing the peace. It is wrong to want to regulate anyone’s personal preferences if it doesn’t physically harm.

Funk I am glad we can discuss this topic as civilized debaters

At 5/14/03 12:52 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: pip pip and cheerio, wot? What was that average, mate? For that matter, which boards, old chap? If you could enlightened me with this info dear boy, Oi could have a littuhl more understandin why yer dead chuffed.

Godf knows what boards, I only know i got 134.666666666666666666666 as the average. So, technically, I'm really not as clever as i make out. Why am I dead chuffed? 2% of people get over 130.

Frankly I don't care. If gays want to marry, it's no skin off mine or anyone elses' nose. Also, marriage has become more of a "state privilage" than a religious one. You don't have to be religious or even believe in God to get married anymore. And state privilages should be allowed to anyone regardless of their orientation. That's what "seperation of church and state" is about.

Also, I don't really believe that being gay is a "sin" or "evil," or anything. I mean, they're not hurting anyone. And of the 7 sins and 10 commandments, being gay isn't even hinted at. And we ALL have participated in the at least some of 7 sins and gone against at least some of the 10 commandments ourselves. So why should we be so harsh on people who are doing something that we feel is wrong, when, according to the bible, we've ALL commited even worse acts?
-----------
Also, it should be common knowledge to most people now, that the Bible indeed has been altered throughout time and through all the hands of the multiple churches whose hands it's fallen into over the years (that's why we even have different versions today). In most cases, it was altered to convey the messages of the church and not "of God" (though the churches often claimed that they did it "by God's hands").

For example, there are messages in the Bible that say "it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery as long as it's for a heafty amount." OK, now there are so many things wrong with this. First is selling your daughter into slavery, and the main thing is "as long as it's for good money." Please! You think that is really God's words? God doesn't care about material goods at all and I doubt that he'd feel that they are worth a human life.

And as far as sexuality goes, there are also parts of the Bible that say it's OK to have sex with your children, too. In fact, a couple of people in the Bible did this exact thing. @_o' And these people include saints and some of the most "holy people," which God favored-----No, the Bible isn't as "pretty" as most people make it out to be. Especially not "holy people." A lot of them did stuff that we today would consider wrong. One guy supposedly even kicked the crap out of angel once....and was then rewarded. @_o'

Mostly though, do you really think that God really cares if gay people get married?

"Moses, you make sure there's no hanky-panky down their. It'll offend me."---God

Why would He care? It's no skin off His nose. I'm sure there are more important things to him than some earth folks being gay.
-----------
Also, as far as "gay people adopting kids," that's a different story entirely. Though I'm unsure of it, the experiences I've seen with it honestly aren't bad at all. In fact, I saw a TV show a while back that discussed this exact topic.

All the kids who were interviewed were fine with their folks being gay. In fact, the kids were good, normal kids, and it made them angry that other people considered them to have grown up in "an unhealthy environment." They loved their parents, and they weren't gay themselves. A lot of them even had girlfriends or boyfriends.

The only trouble they had in their lives, actually came from external sources. Meaning, they were sometimes teased for having gay parents (this says a lot about our society). The only difference between these kids and other kids is that they seem more accepting of differences than other kids. Which I think is a good thing.

After all, for those of you who don't know already, America is at the top of the list for most homophobic countries in existance. How can we tell our kids to "accept differences in people," but then give them so many "exceptions to the rule." If we let gays adopt kids, and stopped America's "homophobic ways," then these kids wouldn't have any trouble in their lives to begin with. It's hard to let these kids live normal lives when all we're telling them is that "your life is wrong!" or "you're parents are going to hell!" and such. I think we cause more damage to these kids than the lifestyles of their parents do.

Mainly, though, I just don't understand how we can have rapists, killers, and sometimes even molesters raise kids in our country (you all must know how many orphans get sent into this sort of environment a year), but we won't allow them to go to good homes "just because they're a gay environment." Doesn't make sense. I'd rather be raised by a gay parent than a killer or a drug addict any day.
----------------
Well, these are all just my oppinions, and no one has to agree with me if they don't want to. Just know that I originally wasn't really for gay people getting married or raising kids. But after years past, I started getting more and more information on it, and honestly, from what I know now, I don't think it's that big of a deal anymore. ^_^

I honestly sighed, Funk.
I'm a little dissapointed.
As the leader of the DAG, and an intelligent poster, I would expect you to take a stand against homophobia regardless of your beliefs.
No better than drinking or smoking? What, is loving a man a harmful addiction, now?
I'm pleased you don't go so far as to start spouting fanatical homophobic nonsense, but I've lost some respect for you that you've taken the stance that you hace.

At 5/14/03 07:09 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: I honestly sighed, Funk.
I'm a little dissapointed.
As the leader of the DAG, and an intelligent poster, I would expect you to take a stand against homophobia regardless of your beliefs.
No better than drinking or smoking? What, is loving a man a harmful addiction, now?
I'm pleased you don't go so far as to start spouting fanatical homophobic nonsense, but I've lost some respect for you that you've taken the stance that you hace.

Funk's the leader of DAG? That's kinda pathetic. :P I honestly don't think he's that intelligent of a poster. And honestly, I can always find his opinions in his posts. He's certainly not very good at hiding them. @_o'

In most of my experiences with him, he got almost everything I said confused or backwards. Like in my last posts, I gave some examples of incidents in our society where individuals were denying others their freedom of speech. Then he complained that "the government has nothing to do with this." Which wasn't what I was talking about----I didn't mention the government at all. Then earlier, I talked about how I dislike this war, and he responded to me about how Bush is a good president. Which, again, wasn't what I was talking about (in fact, I didn't even mention Bush in the part he was responding to). And so on and so on and so on.

Or he would make silly comebacks that have nothing to do with what you were saying, like "So, you're against this war? Well, this war will give money to schools, are you against schools?" I was like, "......no." And then he kept talking about schools.

I don't understand his reasoning sometimes. In the same post where I was upset about the incidents where people weren't respecting other people's freedom of speech (like some guy on my block knifed up a sheet that said, "peace" on it), he said something like "well, you should respect their freedom of speech not to respect your freedom of speech. Then they'll respect yours." And his reasoning is that pro-war people are allowed to disrespect other people's freedom of speech, but the people they are disrespecting aren't allowed to get upset back or "that's disrespectful" to the pro-war people's freedom of speech.

Or he'll make many contradicting statements, like "you used morality in that post, and morality is always debatable," then later, "some racist black guys beat me up and that was morally wrong!"

And so on and so on. I barely listen to him anymore. @_o'

Sorry, I guess that doesn't have much to do with this topic. I guess I'm just saying not to get huffy about him.....since, from my experiences, he barely seems to know what he's talking about anyway. Heh heh.

At 5/14/03 04:58 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/14/03 12:52 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: pip pip and cheerio, wot? What was that average, mate? For that matter, which boards, old chap? If you could enlightened me with this info dear boy, Oi could have a littuhl more understandin why yer dead chuffed.

Godf knows what boards, I only know i got 134.666666666666666666666 as the average. So, technically, I'm really not as clever as i make out. Why am I dead chuffed? 2% of people get over 130.

Haha bum, "officially" I have a 137 IQ but accordng to a various array of other tests I'm above thier maximum score (160). Suk it bum!!!

At 5/14/03 07:09 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: I honestly sighed, Funk.
I'm a little dissapointed.
As the leader of the DAG, and an intelligent poster, I would expect you to take a stand against homophobia regardless of your beliefs.
No better than drinking or smoking? What, is loving a man a harmful addiction, now?
I'm pleased you don't go so far as to start spouting fanatical homophobic nonsense, but I've lost some respect for you that you've taken the stance that you hace.

Hey man, the only argument I hadnt heard was that of purely scientific problems with homosexuality. Morality has to be judged by what is best for society, not for the individual. Homosexuality is as moral as masterbation. Both are fetishes that do not result in offspring or traditional relationships. Adoption is only a way to cheat biology, a quick fix for the impossible task of homosexual breeding or the breeding of sterile straights for that matter. I can argue with the bible, I can argue with tradition, but at the end of the day I just cant argue with science. In order for homosexuals to have a traditional marriage, there must be a bride and a groom. To pigeonhole a homosexual relationship into this concept is unfair for the couple, as well as the children they may choose to raise. Therefore, while I can understand homosexual partners having a lifelong bond and raising children, such a relationship can never fit the true definition of marriage.

Yeah...I can argue with the fucking wall if I choose to, yet I won't. I argue that fuckin someone from your own sex is immorally wrong...it goes against the natural feelings associated with being yourself. Whether you are a christian or not, being homosexual is wrong, I don't care what you all think...You will never persuade me to believe that being opposite the norm, homosexual as it were is normal, or even cool...I still think that they should be off somewhere away from the rest of society, so they don't infect all the rest of the normals...LOL.

Cannibal is part of the DAG? There goes more respect.

That's a bit better, FUNK, but definitions aside, what is lost by allowing them to be "married". They're satasfied, you hear no more from them, and all for ignoring an ancient definition.
New words are added every day! How difficult is it to change the definition from "opposite sex" to "another person"?
Their happiness shouldn't be resitricted because someone working at Websters typed something.

At 5/15/03 07:05 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Cannibal is part of the DAG? There goes more respect.

That's a bit better, FUNK, but definitions aside, what is lost by allowing them to be "married". They're satasfied, you hear no more from them, and all for ignoring an ancient definition.
New words are added every day! How difficult is it to change the definition from "opposite sex" to "another person"?
Their happiness shouldn't be resitricted because someone working at Websters typed something.

Ill compromise. They can marry, they just have to call it something else. Um...."lifepartnership"...

There. conclusion reached. Hell, its even more romantic that way.

Bad news, Ted, Cannibal is staying in the DAG for now. Why? Because his posting has improved considerably from when he was inducted. Hes still a little bastard, but he actually has used facts in an argument before. Hell learn that you cant humiliate someone who sees it coming, which is why you cant argue by using insults. How much respect do I have left? I might as well get rid of it now, cause it wont be there for long at this rate.

Next fucking time someone says being gay or anything else is unnatural, they better not be wearing clothes, tattoos, earrings, glasses, or fake hair color, because that shit ain't fuckin' natural either. All those things are accepted perfectly well in society, and no one was ever born with them, so they must be unnatural. This "unnatural" argument holds absolutely no fuckin' water, and is only an outwardly indignant charade for ignorant pussies to hide behind.

The difference between gays and homophobes is that gays don't want to kill anyone or ship them off to an island somewhere. They just want to live and love as they choose without anyone telling them who they can or can't fuck. Thier anger isn't dictated by the private actions of a bunch of people they don't know, because they couldn't give half a shit what other people do in thier bedrooms.

I'm still at a loss for how something people do behind closed doors has anything to do with my life or anyone else's other than the two (or three, or however many) people involved. I have yet to see anything in our society that has been made in any way worse by homosexuality, other than it takes people a little longer to find the porn they like in the video store, and it makes ignorant morons angry. I think that part's actually a plus for society, because it takes away any doubt as to who the ignorant morons are.

Racism and bigotry spawns only from a fear that the racist or bigot's own views might be wrong or weak, and that they'll somehow be overwhelmed by the things they hate.

If we want to use the bible as an argument, then God is the creator off all things (yes, even gays, blacks, and jews), and there is nothing "unnatural" at all.

I'm glad I'm not filled with all the hatred that these bigots and racists are. They must be fuckin' miserable every waking moment of thier lives, because there are gays, jews, blacks, and all manner of "different" people everywhere you look.

People who hate gays should actually encourage them, because they can't make any more. Gay people come from straight people who had so-called "natural" sex, they weren't brewed up in the lab of some twisted scientist with a bug (or a hamster) up his ass, so how can they be unnatural?

That's not really much of a compromise, FUNK.
I think the gay community would accept it, but I'll take a page from your book (rip) and play the DA.

Why not let them call it "marrying". It's the same thing in the eyes of the law, if not the citizens. But it's a word, for (insert religious figure here)'s sake. Why make thousands of people unhappy over something as trivial as a word?

You still have a bit of respect, left FUNK. You gained some by compromising, and by acknowledging that cannibal isn't...how would you say PC material.

At 5/15/03 03:55 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Why not let them call it "marrying". It's the same thing in the eyes of the law, if not the citizens. But it's a word, for (insert religious figure here)'s sake. Why make thousands of people unhappy over something as trivial as a word?

And why dont we call the relationship they have as straight, instead of homosexual? Calling it homosexual separates them from the rest of society; its discriminatory. The point Im trying to make is that there is a place where straight and gay diverge. Calling it the same only adds confusion, not acceptance. A homosexual relationship is just not the same kind of relationship as what heterosexuals have. Its best to accept this difference and adjust our language to it, instead of denying the difference exists like ostriches with our heads in the sand.

At 5/14/03 09:01 PM, jimsween wrote:

Godf knows what boards, I only know i got 134.666666666666666666666 as the average. So, technically, I'm really not as clever as i make out. Why am I dead chuffed? 2% of people get over 130.

Haha bum, "officially" I have a 137 IQ but accordng to a various array of other tests I'm above thier maximum score (160). Suk it bum!!!

You have an IQ of 137, but according to other tests you have an IQ of 160? Could you just clarify that?

I suppose your right about that, FUNK, though I don't think it's really important if there's a mix up over wether your parents are gay or straight.
It should be a little bit obvious.

At 5/15/03 09:42 AM, GnarlyCar wrote: Next fucking time someone says being gay or anything else is unnatural, they better not be wearing clothes, tattoos, earrings, glasses, or fake hair color, because that shit ain't fuckin' natural either.

That is quite possibly the best argument against homophobia I have ever heard. I take my hat off to you, GnarlyCar, and I shall steal that argument for a debate on Monday, against a bonch of homophobes I really don't usually like arguing with.