Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

O well..... people have opinions over the the subject homosexuality. I how ever do not like the idea and should it not be practiced by any one!!!!! The idea is totaly against God's will and the Devil must have possessed people into liking it! How ever I really don't care if any Gay laws like gay marraige pass as long as it does not affect me.

Yes and god is our only ruler it is not your job to rule over others douche bag i can use your stupid sensless religon against anything

At 5/29/06 10:03 PM, unknown101 wrote: O well..... people have opinions over the the subject homosexuality. I how ever do not like the idea and should it not be practiced by any one!!!!! The idea is totaly against God's will and the Devil must have possessed people into liking it! How ever I really don't care if any Gay laws like gay marraige pass as long as it does not affect me.

It just sounds like you are bitter twards gays, Im not even that much of a religious person and I dissagree with gay mariage because it would make the whole thing confusing because mariage has always been between hetersexuals. Thats why I call for somthing Just like it but specially made for homosexuals where heterosexuals wont be in but they could be there to celebrate the Two in there big day.

Hey you know the christians turn away when children are bieng killed in Iraq but when it involves a guys cock and another guys ass they cant help but be attravted to its "immorality" kinda makes you wonder...

At 5/29/06 12:21 AM, Kasualty wrote: I mean the computer your sitting in front of was created by manipulating nature. It wouldn't be here by nature alone, so is it unnatural?

It's not about naturality. Gay sex is disgusting. Assholes are made for one purpose.

At 5/29/06 11:03 PM, KupaMan wrote:

At 5/29/06 12:21 AM, Kasualty wrote: I mean the computer your sitting in front of was created by manipulating nature. It wouldn't be here by nature alone, so is it unnatural?

It's not about naturality. Gay sex is disgusting. Assholes are made for one purpose.

Self-righteously bitching about gay people on a forum, apparently.

At 5/29/06 11:21 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Self-righteously bitching about gay people on a forum, apparently.

Well, I just got served.

I'm not going to take a stance on the topic of wether they should or shouldn't get married. I'm merely making fun of the topic starter for comparing gay sex to using a computer.

At 5/29/06 10:58 PM, jeremiah_bullfrog wrote: Hey you know the christians turn away when children are bieng killed in Iraq but when it involves a guys cock and another guys ass they cant help but be attravted to its "immorality" kinda makes you wonder...

What the hell are you talking about who cares about some guy butplugging another you seriously need your head examined because you act like the church sends out secret police to go out and persecute homosexuals. Be gay and leave everyone else alone.

Being gay is a choice, regardless of what anybody tells you.

At 5/30/06 06:44 AM, JJAGoodfella wrote: Being gay is a choice, regardless of what anybody tells you.

Yeah! Why pay attention to what psychologists and biologists said when we have some shitty dumb as fuck kid with ridiculous views he can't even back to listen to instead?

I admit it. I am homophobic. I am catholic and I believe all homosexuals are going to hell. But I will tolerate them. Cause I know when they die, God will sort them out.

And If you fucking say Im a homophobic pig, I say
"Freedom of Speech" You can't force me to accept gays, like I can't force gays to be outlawed!

To all the homesexuals reading this thread I am really sorry. I apologize on behalf of the intolerant, evil, and ignorant cluster of posts demeaning you and your lifestyle. Don't get angry at these people, they have been brainwashed to hate homosexuals instead of accepting them as fellow humans. They fail to see that whichever gender you are attracted any loving god would accept you, after all he created you.

At 5/29/06 03:41 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Homosexuality is a mental disease because the homosexual life style does not lead to a fulfilling life. For instance, you cannot have kids.

1. Thats an opinion
2. You failed to explain the connection between homosexuality being a mental disease and the lack of a fulfilling life
3. Homosexuality is not recognised anywhere in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) which lists and provides diagnostics for all known mental disorders.

At 5/30/06 09:17 AM, FailurePi wrote: You can't force me to accept gays

Maybe not, but the writings of Leviticus are out of context today. He also said people shouldn't eat pork.

Pick and choose, pick and choose, as they say...

At 5/30/06 09:56 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

At 5/30/06 09:17 AM, FailurePi wrote: You can't force me to accept gays

Maybe not, but the writings of Leviticus are out of context today. He also said people shouldn't eat pork.

Pick and choose, pick and choose, as they say...

The writings in Leviticus (ah, Catholic shcool all those years ago) state that having sex with a a person of the same sex and having sex with an animal were wrong. They were in the same sentence, so according to the Bible if you fuck a man, in gods eyes its just as bad as fucking a dog etc.

I tolerate gays, don't judge there lifestyle etc. i just think they are wrong, naturally.
Thats my opinion, please dont try to change it. For the last 10 years people tried to change my opinion and I still can't accept gays.

Im no gay basher. Those fascist pigs go to far and should die, but there nothing wrong with me disliking gays.

At 5/30/06 10:07 AM, FailurePi wrote: The writings in Leviticus (ah, Catholic shcool all those years ago) state that having sex with a a person of the same sex and having sex with an animal were wrong. They were in the same sentence, so according to the Bible if you fuck a man, in gods eyes its just as bad as fucking a dog etc.

Because of the disease it spread. Again, the same reason why he said "don't eat pork lol", and like I said, it's out of context today.

Seriously though, don't fuck dogs.

At 5/29/06 11:03 PM, KupaMan wrote: It's not about naturality. Gay sex is disgusting. Assholes are made for one purpose.

And mouths are made for eating, doesn't stop any guy from enjoying a good hummer. Gay or Straight.

FailurePi you have been brainwashed, I don't want to force you to accept anything you don't want to, but you have still been brainwashed by the catholic school you went to.

Have you ever just thought that when you die you just rot? You just rot away for eternity, have you?

Much of the following post refers to western society and the U.S. in particular:

Regarding marriage:
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Unions between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a human and a non-human have never been considered marriages by mainstream society. Voting to change the definition of marriage and convey legal benefits, additional government services, and tax benefits affects everyone in society and not just those whose legal marital status is altered by the definitional change. The social ramifications of changing the definition marriage also affect everyone in society. The impact goes well beyond having to answer questions about whether one's spouse is male or female, as marriage is the foundation of the traditional family unit. If the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be changed according to the will of the majority through democratic processes and not through the tyranny of a small, vocal minority.

In some locations in the U.S. there are already civil unions and/or domestic partner laws. Civil unions/domestic partnership plus the tax laws seem like far more fruitful areas to focus on than changing the definition of marriage.

Regarding "gay marriage":
Many gay people do marry and have children. Homosexuals have the same right to legally marry opposite gendered individuals that heterosexuals have. Heterosexuals are forbidden from legally marrying same gendered persons the same way that homosexuals are. This stems purely from the legal (and social and religious) definition of marriage. In the same way, both hetero and homosexuals are not permitted to marry Dolly the wonder sheep as that union does not fit with the definition of marriage. (No, I do not consider homosexuality and beastiality to be equivalent.)

Regarding equating "homophobia" and racism:
The linking of racism and opposition to behavior (homosexual acts) that some consider immoral does not have logical merit. If a person condemns other people for sexual urges that are beyond their control, that does have similarities to racism. When a person condemns homosexual acts and not just all people with homosexual urges, then the person condemning is NOT acting equivalently to a racist. Whether homosexuality arises from genetics, physical misdevelopment, psychological malady, or choice is hardly agreed upon by modern science. The closest thing to a consensus scientific opinion is that a variety of factors likely play a role and yet both hetero and homosexuals generally are capable of choice in their sexual behavior. (As an aside, I find it interesting that "phobia" is used to describe a minor mental malady whereby someone has an irrational fear and yet "homophobe" is sometimes used to label people who may condemn homosexual acts, but do not fear homosexuals. It is also interesting that many of the people who most use the term "homophobe" in this manner to label someone as a bit crazy object to homosexuality being described as a mental disorder akin to a fetish.)

Regarding Bible/Christianity's position:
While the Mosaic laws have been largely discarded (and Leviticus does not provide the only scripture condemning homosexual acts) , homosexual behavior as well as all sex outside of marriage is still condemned as immoral by mainstream Christian thought. Even when sex outside of marriage is consensual, it still has the potential for negative social impact (e.g. disease transmission, strife in existing marriages, etc.). Christianity does not condemn homosexuals; Christianity does condemn homosexual acts. Christianity hates sin, not the sinners.

Regarding government involvement enforcing sexual morality:
I am of the opinion that the government should not be peering into people's bedroom windows. In return people should do their business in private and not in Mardi Gras parades, on public beaches during spring break, in parades celebrating their sexual orientation, in displays funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, or in the waiting area of a Denny's restaurant. Laws regulating consensual sexual behavior should be limited to those that protect minors from harm, those which involve business transactions (prostitution), and that behavior which takes place in public.

Regarding evolution:
Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven or disproven. Strictly speaking without a time machine it cannot be proven as the origin of modern species. It has been proven (barring the possibility of deception from a divinity) that some new species emerge from old ones over time from genetic changes and hybridization (e.g. new species of fruit fly was found that is a hybrid of two others and it will not interbreed with those other two fruit fly species). Symbiotic leaps (e.g. bacteria invading cells to form mitochondria) are another suspected avenue for new species to arise.

This has been my first and most likely last post at Newgrounds.

That was an intelligent and well thought out post. Please dont let it be your last.

[quote]Regarding marriage:
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Unions between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a human and a non-human have never been considered marriages by mainstream society.[/quote]

Irrelevant. Just because it has never been accepted before does not mean we should not begin to accept it now. Also, Marriage then was very different to what it is now. A lot of this is about being denied rights as a couple.

Arguing from Tradition is a fallacy.

[quote]Voting to change the definition of marriage and convey legal benefits, additional government services, and tax benefits affects everyone in society and not just those whose legal marital status is altered by the definitional change.[/quote]

Incorrect. Gay people pay taxes too. You're using their money to pay for your marriages and giving them nothing back for it.

[quote]The social ramifications of changing the definition marriage also affect everyone in society. The impact goes well beyond having to answer questions about whether one's spouse is male or female, as marriage is the foundation of the traditional family unit.[/quote]

Yet you do absolutely nothing to show how it affects anyone but homosexuals. You merely state that it does, rather than demonstrating how or why. You're spitting out assertions and not saying why they're true. To uneducated eyes your argument looks like a professional one, but it contains no substance whatsoever.

[quote]If the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be changed according to the will of the majority through democratic processes and not through the tyranny of a small, vocal minority.[/quote]

Why? The Majority in this case have shown their suspectible to denial of some rather basic rights. Half the point of the U.S. being set up was to prevent tyranny of a small, vocal minority seeming like the majority because they use fear and manipulation, their two only real skills, to twist the majority around to their way of thinking. But that's all the U.S. is anymore.

Gay Marriage affects everyone, but only on a very tiny scale. Let's say around 5% of the population are currently being denied marriage. Not being able to marry, not being able to have the rights that come with it, turn a homosexuals life completely topsy turvy. At the end of the day, you're just denying them rights that anyone else in the exact same position but with the opposite gender would have. There is no defense for this.
Not being able to marry has a DIRECT effect on them. It affects their huge life and keeps them somewhat oppressed. It has a MASSIVE weight.
THe "Majority" however, is mostly acting on misinformation and prejudie. How does Gay Marriage really factor into their lives? They still have to put up with Gay relationships. How will Gay Marriage affect them? All that's happening is that gay people are getting the benefits they pay for already with their taxes. Nothing more.

You're just as bad as the fear mongers because you emotionally weight the argument. Changing the definition of marriage sounds enormous. It's not being changed. The consitituion as a whole does not "change" every time it is alter. It will merely be ammended to.

Gay relationships exist. Straight relationships exist. Why does one get legally recognised and is given the opportunity of a seal, a bond, a level of importance that the other is not? There is no defense. It's pure arrogance and prejudice that the masses have been long suckered into.

In some locations in the U.S. there are already civil unions and/or domestic partner laws. Civil unions/domestic partnership plus the tax laws seem like far more fruitful areas to focus on than changing the definition of marriage.

But you provide no reason whatsoever why the definition of marriage should not be changed. There's nothing more patronising than giving Gay people "special" status.

Many gay people do marry and have children. Homosexuals have the same right to legally marry opposite gendered individuals that heterosexuals have.

God you're so full of shit. I hate this argument. If Gay Marriage were to pass, Heterosexuals would have the same right to legally marry same gendered individuals. Where is your point? Just trying to be smug.

Heterosexuals are forbidden from legally marrying same gendered persons the same way that homosexuals are.

Except Heterosexuals have no need to, and homosexuals do. See above, you're so full of shit on this one. I wish you were speaking in the normal hick jackass way because then people would see your "views" for what they really are.

What you're speaking of is strippings someone's rights through technicality. It's one of the most evil things you can possibly do.

Let's put it this way. Nobody can marry Jewish people.

This right applys equal to everyone. It's not just Jewish people being barred from being married, it's EVERYONE being barred from marrying a Jewish person. Everyone has the same right. Giving Jewish people the right to marry would be a "special" right sicne they don't fit in the existing concept of Marriage - their religion is not recognised by the state.

But it involves a group you say, so it's purposely singling out? So does the existing concept of Marriage - but based on gender. It's the EXACT same thing.

I can't emphasise enough how full of shit you are.

The linking of racism and opposition to behavior (homosexual acts) that some consider immoral does not have logical merit. If a person condemns other people for sexual urges that are beyond their control, that does have similarities to racism. When a person condemns homosexual acts and not just all people with homosexual urges, then the person condemning is NOT acting equivalently to a racist.

Yes it is. They're getting off on a technicality. Everytime they use a technicality. We can't beat our women, let's beat black people, they have a different skin colour, it's not the same thing. Okay, we can't beat black people, let's beat gay people, they fuck each other, so it's different.

You are taking a solely incorrect view. Homosexuals are acting in the exact same way to heterosexuals, but with the same sex. Neither sexuality as a whole is geared towards celibacy - they are more or less equally promiscious. This means that holding the opinion that gay people can't fuck and straight people can says that straight people are somehow better. Straight marriage is not equally extended to gay people because Straight Marriage is founded on the principle that the person involved is a heterosexual.

The fact that gay people fuck differently is a technicality. It makes no difference. You have to look at a person's life as a whole.

Condeming someone for giving into urges that don't harm anyone, and are almost identical to urges they themselves give into is both wrong and hypocritical. It is discriminatory since it's saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to engage in their equivillent behaviour. People are not all the same, they sometimes require different rights. There are probably rights you have that you will never use; that's because they are intended for other people.

In fact, your whole argument fails because of what I'm now going to call the Wheelchair fallacy. READ.

Let's say a poor country's government is doing particularly well and wants to cater for disabled people. Disabled people are naturally at a huge disavantage in their country so they have to help them out. None of these people can afford wheelchairs since they're so poor - but their government has finally worked it's way out of debt.

Now, you'd be one of the people complaining - why do disabled people deserve special rights? Why can't they find a way of getting around like everyone else? Moving from point A to B is a god given right, after all.

Gay people could enter into straight marriage - just like cripples can crawl around on the ground. Cripples need Wheelchairs and Homosexuals need Gay Marriage. Only Gay Marriage takes it to another level since all it's extending what is essentially an EXISTING right to another's context.

You have absolutely no grasp on the idea of context or relativity. What is true for one is not true for all. That doesn't however, make it excusable to have unjustifiable morals, just that people live their lives differently.

At 5/30/06 03:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

[quote]

God you're so full of shit.

...
I wish you were speaking in the normal hick jackass way
...

I can't emphasise enough how full of shit you are.

[/quote]
I think the above highlights why discussion is pointless. The tendency of people on both sides of the issue to resort to foul-mouthed name calling derails any attempts at civil and open discourse.

At 5/30/06 03:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

[quote]Yes it is. They're getting off on a technicality. Everytime they use a technicality. We can't beat our women, let's beat black people, they have a different skin colour, it's not the same thing. Okay, we can't beat black people, let's beat gay people, they fuck each other, so it's different.[/quote]
Just in case what I wrote previously was not clear, I will respond to this one point. Mainstream morality, Christianity, and the law hold that wantonly beating people is wrong. There is a difference between saying someone's behavior is immoral and beating that someone to death.

We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.

That means no matter what you do so why dont you closed minded christians lay off your sins are just as bad as theres and you need to worry about you not about other people

At 5/30/06 09:29 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote: To all the homesexuals reading this thread I am really sorry. I apologize on behalf of the intolerant, evil, and ignorant cluster of posts demeaning you and your lifestyle. Don't get angry at these people, they have been brainwashed to hate homosexuals instead of accepting them as fellow humans. They fail to see that whichever gender you are attracted any loving god would accept you, after all he created you.

Are you kidding? This is nothing. I may get flustered but a bunch of ignorant bigots flailing about on a forum denouncing my lifestyle really isn't all that offending. What pisses me off is redundant arguments with no basis.

Maybe not, but the writings of Leviticus are out of context today. He also said people shouldn't eat pork.

Pick and choose, pick and choose, as they say...

It's called Cafeteria Christianity. It's extremely annoying. Just about all Christians are such and, ergo, are hypocrites as well. "Love thy neighbour"... well, unless s/he's gay, Jewish, Hindu, obese, etc.

I tolerate gays, don't judge there lifestyle etc. i just think they are wrong, naturally.
Thats my opinion, please dont try to change it. For the last 10 years people tried to change my opinion and I still can't accept gays.

I would be so wonderfully content if all Christians were so open-minded and tolerant. You can hate my lifestyle all you want. It's as much your right to do so as it is my right to live the way I wish. Just don't try to impose your shit on me.

I think the above highlights why discussion is pointless. The tendency of people on both sides of the issue to resort to foul-mouthed name calling derails any attempts at civil and open discourse.

Why did you pick the bits where I got angry at you and none of the bits that utterly refuted your argument>

Just in case what I wrote previously was not clear, I will respond to this one point. Mainstream morality, Christianity, and the law hold that wantonly beating people is wrong. There is a difference between saying someone's behavior is immoral and beating that someone to death.

It's just an exagerrated example, but it has a lot of truth in it. Homohphobes get by on the "technicality" that it's a behaviour. But since EVERY SINGLE homosexual does it when left to their own devices, you can't blame any one, therefore it is a illogical. Since it is a NATURAL behaviour for them you can't criticise their actions anymore than you can criticise human beings for the way they walk.

At 5/29/06 12:23 AM, peedee wrote: Homosexuals are fags.

yea everyone knows that.

At 5/30/06 10:51 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

<quote>: Why did you pick the bits where I got angry at you and none of the bits that utterly refuted your argument </quote>

I quoted the bits I did because they illustrated my point and gave my rationale for not replying in detail. I have no interest in engaging in a pissing match or flame war. I do not have any interest in forcing a change of mind upon anyone. I posted some of my thoughts (mostly regarding the status of the law and the positions held by mainstream morality and Christianity) and trust that people can reach their own conclusions. I do not think you "utterly refuted [my] argument" and feel no need to defend my prior statements. There's no point in engaging in tit-for-tat exchanges where everyone is focused on trying to score points rather than to gain understanding. If you have a question regarding what I have posted or my opinions, feel free to ask.

<quote>: It's just an exagerrated example, but it has a lot of truth in it. Homohphobes get by on the "technicality" that it's a behaviour. But since EVERY SINGLE homosexual does it when left to their own devices, you can't blame any one, therefore it is a illogical. Since it is a NATURAL behaviour for them you can't criticise their actions anymore than you can criticise human beings for the way they walk. </quote>

Allow me to reiterate my understanding of current morality/Christianity. Mainstream morality and Christian thought holds that hating others because they are tempted by sin is wrong. Disapproving of behavior considered to be immoral is another matter. Christians are taught by Jesus' example to hate sin and love the sinner. Christianity is homosexual person philic and homosexual act phobic. Christianity takes the same position with anyone who commits other acts it deems to be sinful.

Every single married heterosexual male is physically attracted to women who are not his wife. Some of those men have less than satisfying sex lives and/or are not attracted to their wives. Left to their own devices and without the meddling of morality from society or religion and without concern for the impact it may have on other people or worry about catching a disease, every one of these men will have sex with women other than their wives if given the opportunity. It is natural behavior. Does that mean that adultery cannot be criticized and found to be immoral? Society in general and Christianity in particular find that it is still worthy of criticism. Note that I could have gone through this same logic with homicidal maniacs or pedophiles, but I deem that to be unfair exaggeration akin to equating disapproval of homosexual acts with unprovoked beating of homosexuals. Murder and child molestation are not comparable to consensual sex between adults; verbal disapproval of behavior deemed to be immoral is not comparable to assault and battery.

Finally, though I have tried to post my understanding of one thing or another according to opposing legal arguments (the argument for having the definition of marriage changed already having been presented), scientific consensus, and Christian teachings, I have not posted my opinions on many of these matters. If one really wants to know what I think, then one can ask and I might or might not answer.

bub_nydb

oooh oh, Can I get in on this. Although I completely disagree with you. We are both verbose in the extreme and have a genuine intrest in ferreting out the right and wrong of the topic.

At 5/31/06 02:09 AM, Occluded wrote: bub_nydb

oooh oh, Can I get in on this. Although I completely disagree with you. We are both verbose in the extreme and have a genuine intrest in ferreting out the right and wrong of the topic.

Absolutely! I would love to read the opposing viewpoints without all of the nastiness that usually accompanies these sorts of discussion. For the record though, I'm fairly centrist (U.S. centrist anyway) and not at all solidly in the religious right. On this particular topic I am more informed of the views of the right and the middle than the left and I felt the right and middle were inadequately represented, hence I decided to chime in.