Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Marriage predates Christianity. Your argument fails. Badly.

At 8/16/06 11:07 PM, Sinthe wrote: Marriage predates Christianity. Your argument fails. Badly.

Exactly. Ther was marrige before Christianity. It's really obvious too. So, I don't see any more problems.

At 8/16/06 11:07 PM, Sinthe wrote: Marriage predates Christianity. Your argument fails. Badly.

And so does yours. When marriage was put forth did it include anything the guy wanted to screw or just man and woman?

The fact that they won't let gays marry is ridiculous.

Marriage is a basic civil right, which no one should be denied.

The people who want to keep gay marriage from happening are Christians. However, just because one religion doesn't believe in gay marriage, it doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to live without gay marriage.

I'm not gay, but I say they legalize it.

It's just not fair that Christians can tell people who don't agree with them what to do. If two gay people getting married really bothers you, don't get married to another guy. It's not fucking right to tell other people what they have to do and who they should marry.

marrige isnt by gender it should be aloud by anyone who wants to with any gender. you dont have to get married in a church so whats wrong with gay marridge?

At 8/17/06 05:16 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/16/06 11:07 PM, Sinthe wrote: Marriage predates Christianity. Your argument fails. Badly.

And so does yours. When marriage was put forth did it include anything the guy wanted to screw or just man and woman?

Marrage isn't about procreation. Marrage is about love and commitment. Also, who knows what marrage was like 3,000 years ago. The Cathelic Church changed everything to support their prejudices.

You failed to back up your oppinion with fact. So there for your argument also fails.

How does gay marriage affect anybody but gays? If two women wed, will anyone die? No. So what the fuck is the big deal. Nobody cares if any religion thinks it's a sin. Let them get married. You can think they will go to hell all you want, but why should hell dictate the law? Why do you care if they go to hell or not. It's not your job to enforce your gods laws. That would be judgement, and you aren't alowed to do that. The bible says so.

At 8/18/06 04:05 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Marrage isn't about procreation. Marrage is about love and commitment.

Marriage is not love. Marriage is a moral excuse for people to fuck. But hey, let's follow your logic for a second and say if love is involved that anything is permissible. I'm sure the BTK Killer "loved" to torture and kill people, therefore his actions were justified. I'm pretty sure the Enron exects "loved" money. So that justifies their greed. I'm also convinced the KKK "loves" black people.

Also, who knows what marrage was like 3,000 years ago.

No, I'm pretty sure that marriage has always been between man and woman. Even in Sparta where homosexuality was encouraged among men there was no marriage between same sexes. Neither was there same sex marriage in the Meiji-era of Japan.

If you study history you will never find a culture where same sex marriage been promoted, and that would leave one to the conclusion that every culture considered marriage between man and woman, and that's fact.

The only reason we're having this debate is because of a bunch of PC assholes who want to shit on thousands of years of tradition.

The Cathelic Church changed everything to support their prejudices.

They were just following what the Old and New Testament were saying. So they were being good christians, I suppose.

And if you don't like the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality then perhaps you should consider a new religion.

You failed to back up your oppinion with fact. So there for your argument also fails.

Well now I just did. So get off my nuts.

So what are you saying? Lets have marriage just mean a non-religious union between two people. Religions can redefine their own specific marriage rites to meet their own needs.

And look at that. I just solved all of the problems involving gay marriage (at least for you)

At 8/18/06 05:36 PM, johnfn wrote: Religions can redefine their own specific marriage rites to meet their own needs.

Religion is not something that can be compromised upon. To alter its tenets would change the religion.

At 8/18/06 08:58 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/18/06 05:36 PM, johnfn wrote: Religions can redefine their own specific marriage rites to meet their own needs.

Religion is not something that can be compromised upon. To alter its tenets would change the religion.

So wait, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. aren't Christian?

Since the Catholic church got rid of the "Get Out of Sin for a Fee" cards, they aren't Catholic anymore?

Well, look here. You are born gay. It isn't really your fault if you are gay. I'm not gay, but science has proven that you are gay at birth. Sometimes you don't discover it until later in life.

At 8/18/06 10:25 PM, Draconias wrote: So wait, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. aren't Christian?

Since the Catholic church got rid of the "Get Out of Sin for a Fee" cards, they aren't Catholic anymore?

They aren't catholic. Hince why they are not considered catholic anymore.

sheesh

At 8/18/06 10:39 PM, CaptCouch wrote: Well, look here. You are born gay. It isn't really your fault if you are gay. I'm not gay, but science has proven that you are gay at birth. Sometimes you don't discover it until later in life.

Thank you for not being stupid. You're exactly right. The people who say that being gay is a sin obviously have never talked to or known anybody who is gay. It's not a choice to be gay, it has to do with hormones and science has proved that.

Gays are just like us!The only thing wrong wiht them is they have a different mentallity they are Human

At 8/19/06 12:58 PM, DarkestNightmare wrote: Gays are just like us!The only thing wrong wiht them is they have a different mentallity they are Human

I fucking hate goths......

At 8/18/06 10:39 PM, CaptCouch wrote: Well, look here. You are born gay. It isn't really your fault if you are gay. I'm not gay, but science has proven that you are gay at birth. Sometimes you don't discover it until later in life.

Sorry, but science hasn't discovered shit about the subject. There is a popular theory among scientists that homosexuality is a birth defect, but nothing has been verified.

At 8/17/06 05:16 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/16/06 11:07 PM, Sinthe wrote: Marriage predates Christianity. Your argument fails. Badly.

And so does yours. When marriage was put forth did it include anything the guy wanted to screw or just man and woman?

My argument that marriage predates Christianity fails? How so? Prove that Christians invented marriage.

*rolls eyes* Gay marriage isn't "anything the guy wants to screw." Your question is silly. I will not answer it.

At 8/19/06 03:40 PM, Sinthe wrote: My argument that marriage predates Christianity fails? How so? Prove that Christians invented marriage.

*rolls eyes* Gay marriage isn't "anything the guy wants to screw." Your question is silly. I will not answer it.

No, my point was a rhetorical question. When marriage was put forth was strickly between man and woman or anything the man desired to screw? My point was marriage has always been between man and woman. Even in pagan religions.

Please read and think upon my post more next time..........

sheesh

At 8/18/06 05:21 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/18/06 04:05 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Marrage isn't about procreation. Marrage is about love and commitment.

Marriage is not love. Marriage is a moral excuse for people to fuck. But hey, let's follow your logic for a second and say if love is involved that anything is permissible. I'm sure the BTK Killer "loved" to torture and kill people, therefore his actions were justified. I'm pretty sure the Enron exects "loved" money. So that justifies their greed. I'm also convinced the KKK "loves" black people.

Also, who knows what marrage was like 3,000 years ago.

No, I'm pretty sure that marriage has always been between man and woman. Even in Sparta where homosexuality was encouraged among men there was no marriage between same sexes. Neither was there same sex marriage in the Meiji-era of Japan.

If you study history you will never find a culture where same sex marriage been promoted, and that would leave one to the conclusion that every culture considered marriage between man and woman, and that's fact.

The only reason we're having this debate is because of a bunch of PC assholes who want to shit on thousands of years of tradition.

Tradition changes. Wearing a corset used to be a tradition, and now it isn't even underwear anymore (at least, not in common use). Even marriage traditions have changed. People used to marry for money and to have children. Now, you see poor, infertile people marrying all the time!

Tradition is malleable. It's not like allowing gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society and throw the country into anarchy.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness. You're just throwing buzz words around. I believe the GLBT community's P.C. concerns lie in the realm of the words "faggot" and "dyke."

I still fail to see, and no one has shown, how it is the business of the Federal Government to pass a Constitutional Amendment for OR against gay marriage, when marriage as a legal institution has always been the sole legal ground of the States under the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government would be massively overstepping its powers to usurp what has always been the legal ground of the states.

At 8/19/06 03:45 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/19/06 03:40 PM, Sinthe wrote: My argument that marriage predates Christianity fails? How so? Prove that Christians invented marriage.

*rolls eyes* Gay marriage isn't "anything the guy wants to screw." Your question is silly. I will not answer it.

No, my point was a rhetorical question. When marriage was put forth was strickly between man and woman or anything the man desired to screw? My point was marriage has always been between man and woman. Even in pagan religions.

Please read and think upon my post more next time..........

sheesh

*points to other post* Does it even matter? These marriage traditions also probably had something to do with giving someone else a goat (dowries). Yet, paying a dowry has been declining.

At 8/19/06 03:46 PM, Sinthe wrote: Tradition changes. Wearing a corset used to be a tradition, and now it isn't even underwear anymore (at least, not in common use). Even marriage traditions have changed. People used to marry for money and to have children. Now, you see poor, infertile people marrying all the time!

This post reaks of bullshit. The first problem is you imply all traditions change over time or have to. Not the case with marriage, it has been the same since the Golden Age of the Sumerians and Egyptians, which I'm speculating is somewhere between 4000-4500 years. It has always been the same scenario. Secondly. no, people didn't just "marry for money." It was started as a means to justify a couple fornicating without breaking a religious practice.

Marrying for money only started recently, where everything became about money and self-prerservation: in the time of social-darwinism. The only people who still do this are people in socialist shitholes of a nation, but that's a discussion for another time. A mass majority of people still do get marry for love I'm sure(my apologies for no citation here).

Tradition is malleable. It's not like allowing gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society and throw the country into anarchy.

No, but there's no real reason to allow it. Marriage has always been between a monogomous couple of the opposite-sex(with few exceptions of polygomy). People don't see any reason to give tradition the finger to accommodate the whims of an agenda.

Like I said the only reason we're having this whole debate is because of PC assholes who like making a stink. You know, the kind who think "White Castle" is a racist establishment.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness. You're just throwing buzz words around. I believe the GLBT community's P.C. concerns lie in the realm of the words "faggot" and "dyke."

A problem with this post is you fail to point out any buzzwords I've stated, but hey, everyone's allowed to accuse.

But to your comment about my assertion of political correctness: I was implying the neolib are the ones adamantly pushing for same sex marriage. I just didn't want to come out and use "liberal" because they're some conservatives who also support this actions, and I had no desire to start a flamewar.

At 8/19/06 04:08 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: This post reaks of bullshit. The first problem is you imply all traditions change over time or have to. Not the case with marriage, it has been the same since the Golden Age of the Sumerians and Egyptians, which I'm speculating is somewhere between 4000-4500 years. It has always been the same scenario. Secondly. no, people didn't just "marry for money." It was started as a means to justify a couple fornicating without breaking a religious practice.

Marrying for money only started recently, where everything became about money and self-prerservation: in the time of social-darwinism. The only people who still do this are people in socialist shitholes of a nation, but that's a discussion for another time. A mass majority of people still do get marry for love I'm sure(my apologies for no citation here).

No, but there's no real reason to allow it. Marriage has always been between a monogomous couple of the opposite-sex(with few exceptions of polygomy). People don't see any reason to give tradition the finger to accommodate the whims of an agenda.

I haven't yet mastered how the NG forums do quotes, so... good luck.

I wasn't trying to say that all traditions do/should change. I'm simply saying that they can, and they have in the past.

Of course there is a real reason to allow it: equality. Straight couples get a plethora of benefits from a ceremony that could last five minutes, while gay couples... don't. And please don't get started on the "they can get married, just to people of the opposite sex har har har look at how clever I am!" bullshit. It is discriminatory to allow heterosexual couples the right to marry someone they love or at the very least may be attracted to, and all of the benefits that it entails, while not allowing gay couples the same right.

At 8/19/06 04:32 PM, Sinthe wrote: Of course there is a real reason to allow it: equality. Straight couples get a plethora of benefits from a ceremony that could last five minutes, while gay couples... don't. And please don't get started on the "they can get married, just to people of the opposite sex har har har look at how clever I am!" bullshit. It is discriminatory to allow heterosexual couples the right to marry someone they love or at the very least may be attracted to, and all of the benefits that it entails, while not allowing gay couples the same right.

Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage. Just like hychondria is not a legitimate reason to get welfare. Besides, people are pushing more civil unions so gay couples can get all the same benefits, just not the recognized title. It's these PC assholes that aren't willing to compromise.

At 8/19/06 04:55 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/19/06 04:32 PM, Sinthe wrote: Of course there is a real reason to allow it: equality. Straight couples get a plethora of benefits from a ceremony that could last five minutes, while gay couples... don't. And please don't get started on the "they can get married, just to people of the opposite sex har har har look at how clever I am!" bullshit. It is discriminatory to allow heterosexual couples the right to marry someone they love or at the very least may be attracted to, and all of the benefits that it entails, while not allowing gay couples the same right.

Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage. Just like hychondria is not a legitimate reason to get welfare. Besides, people are pushing more civil unions so gay couples can get all the same benefits, just not the recognized title. It's these PC assholes that aren't willing to compromise.

And... how is it not a "legitimate discourse for marriage?"

Civil unions are bullshit. It's "seperate but equal" garbage that's basically saying "we'll give you some of what you want, but you're still legally inferior to straight people."

I'm with you that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. For the simple fact, that marriages outside of one or two countries, isn't valid and in the states where gay marriage is banned, the marriage isn't valid either. So now the benefits don't cross over outside of the state of which the marriage has taken place. Think about it, gay mariage is illegal here in ga, so if a "married gay couple" comes here, and one of the members gets hurt to the point someone has to make his or her decisions for, unless they have a will and testement giving them the power, that other member isn't allowed to make any decisions. The establishment woudl have to call to another state or country to find the closest kin family member for confirmation.

At 8/19/06 11:32 PM, kidray76 wrote: I'm with you that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. For the simple fact, that marriages outside of one or two countries, isn't valid and in the states where gay marriage is banned, the marriage isn't valid either. So now the benefits don't cross over outside of the state of which the marriage has taken place. Think about it, gay mariage is illegal here in ga, so if a "married gay couple" comes here, and one of the members gets hurt to the point someone has to make his or her decisions for, unless they have a will and testement giving them the power, that other member isn't allowed to make any decisions. The establishment woudl have to call to another state or country to find the closest kin family member for confirmation.

A) How is that an argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married? and

B) Full Faith and Credit Clause... you should look it up.

I still stand befuddled that the best argument for a federal ban on gay marriage is that a majority of people don't like it.

At 8/19/06 10:42 PM, Sinthe wrote: And... how is it not a "legitimate discourse for marriage?"

Civil unions are bullshit. It's "seperate but equal" garbage that's basically saying "we'll give you some of what you want, but you're still legally inferior to straight people."

Sorry, I didn't articulate my point very well. Recognizing homosexuality as a rightful sexuality for marriage is like recognizing a papercut as a legitimate reason to get personal-injury welfare.

Honestly, just make it so that homosexual couples are protected under the same laws that protect heterosexual couples, and let the churches decide how their cannon applies to them. Done. With our education system in shambles, two wars in the Middle East, our dependence on foreign oil, our borders unsecured, and rising health care costs, is this really an issue that our government should be spending so much damned time on. Give them the same legal rights and declare religions can handle it how they see fit. The only people its going to effect are the couples. It will have little if any impact on anyone else. This country would be that much better off if people would tend to their own business instead of everyone elses. Maybe then we could get real leaders into the government instead of useless loudmouths who use hot button nonissues such as this to divert attention away from what the government isn't dealing with.