Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: Lotsa Stuff

Heh, I suppose you make some good points, though I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Too tired to write more..good job on the 7000 word essay..

I haven't seen a good reason to allow gay marriage for a good few pages.

Yay completely railroading the Constitution.

At 8/20/06 10:58 AM, Der_Pandar wrote: Yay completely railroading the Constitution.

Elaborate please.

At 8/20/06 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/20/06 10:58 AM, Der_Pandar wrote: Yay completely railroading the Constitution.

Elaborate please.

I've written about it at least twice in this thread and no one saw fit to challenge the position, instead opting for an idealistic love-fest completely divorced from popular and political reality. Find it, few pages back.

Where the fuck is everyone? It seems the BBS Politics sections is getting smaller......

At 8/20/06 01:57 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Where the fuck is everyone? It seems the BBS Politics sections is getting smaller......

Here I am. I'm starting to become a regular on the Politics forum.

At 8/20/06 03:57 AM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: 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.

Explain. Proof supporting said explanation would be nice.

At 8/20/06 02:12 PM, Sinthe wrote: Explain. Proof supporting said explanation would be nice.

Sorry, but it's kinda hard to link something when the thing I said was a metaphor.

At 8/20/06 02:15 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/20/06 02:12 PM, Sinthe wrote: Explain. Proof supporting said explanation would be nice.

Sorry, but it's kinda hard to link something when the thing I said was a metaphor.

Explain this statement:

"Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage."

I asked how it isn't a legitimate discourse for marriage. So please, explain. Proof of why would be nice.

At 8/12/06 01:46 PM, The_Gus wrote: CAn I ask a question? I mean it may make me sound stupid, but where does it actually say that gay people can't marry or for that matter where it is wrong? I mean point it out and I'll shut up but it seems that it is just said and is thrown around like a fact. Call me crazy but I'd like to know

Leviticus 18:22)
(Leviticus 20:13)
(Romans 1:26-27)
Genesis 19:4-5)
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
(1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Good for you; if you don't either question the facts or ask for reference (or check yourself), then for all you know the other side could be making up whatever they want just to fit their side.

"The bible says all black people go to hell!!1111"

At 8/13/06 06:26 AM, fli wrote:

I don't think the Bible mentions he hates them.
It says that God detests them, which doesn't necessarily always imply hate.

I would assume if you go around killing a whole village for being gay, you would hate them =/

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.

That's complete and utter bullshit

I choose to suck cock. I wasn't born with one in my mouth.

And stop adding a fucking "Scientifically proven" label to every oppinion of yours, people.

At 8/21/06 05:21 AM, Lettuceclock wrote:

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.

That's complete and utter bullshit

I choose to suck cock. I wasn't born with one in my mouth.

And stop adding a fucking "Scientifically proven" label to every oppinion of yours, people.

So in other words, you see your OWN posts as being above scientific tests?

That's like saying a holy text is true because said holy text says it's true.

At 8/21/06 05:46 AM, pretentious_asshat wrote: So in other words, you see your OWN posts as being above scientific tests?

That's like saying a holy text is true because said holy text says it's true.

Welcome to religion. Enjoy your stay!

At 8/21/06 05:18 AM, Lettuceclock wrote:

At 8/13/06 06:26 AM, fli wrote:

I don't think the Bible mentions he hates them.
It says that God detests them, which doesn't necessarily always imply hate.

I would assume if you go around killing a whole village for being gay, you would hate them =/

Someone could do the worse to me--
which would to kill me...

and I still would forgive that person and love my murderer dearly with my dying breath.

Which is pretty much the whole point of that religion, right?

Anyways,
Levitus 18:22.

Makes it CLEAR about this issue about hating in general.
*Gasp* OMG... I know... gay dude just quoted from Leviticus.

At 8/20/06 02:22 PM, Sinthe wrote: Explain this statement:

"Homosexuality is not a legitimate discourse for marriage."

I asked how it isn't a legitimate discourse for marriage. So please, explain. Proof of why would be nice.

I already explained it adequately, but since I'm such a nice guy I'll do it again.

Let's use allegory to explain. A handicap parking place is used so disabled people have a parking place without being too far away from the establishment they wish to go to. Now the way I see it marriage is sort of the thing. It is a ceremony used to make it morally acceptable for a couple to screw and have kids.

People say marriage is about love which is bullshit, because you don't need marriage to love someone. Nor do you need marriage as a medium to express to others your affections for someone else. But this has nothing to do with my allegory, so I'll make my case.

You have handicap parking for people who disabled, correct? Well, you have marriage for people who want to be morally cleared to procreate, between a man and woman. Marriage was never wrought to be used by a gay couple, but by a monogomous pair of heterosexuals. So in conclusion allowing gay marriage would be like allowing any person to use a handicap parking place, because marriage was intended between a man and woman on moral grounds.

I don't think gays could really care about old age morals so I don't see why they would even want to be married in the traditional sense. Just like a heterosexual couple who actually do abhere to such formalities who would desire so. Thus homosexuality is no more a legitimate reason for marriage than a abled-body person wanting to use handicap parking because they don't want to walk far.

Okay, everyone can jack off about the meanings of love and homosexuality, heterosexuality, the Bible, how it makes everyone feel, we can have a good cry, and then we can realize that the federal government does not have a place in deciding the state's right to regulate marriage as a legal institution.

At 8/21/06 06:32 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: Okay, everyone can jack off about the meanings of love and homosexuality, heterosexuality, the Bible, how it makes everyone feel, we can have a good cry, and then we can realize that the federal government does not have a place in deciding the state's right to regulate marriage as a legal institution.

I agree. It should be left up to the States to decide the definition of marriage in their boundaries.

At 8/21/06 05:21 AM, Lettuceclock wrote:

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.

That's complete and utter bullshit

I choose to suck cock. I wasn't born with one in my mouth.

And stop adding a fucking "Scientifically proven" label to every oppinion of yours, people.

Some people dicide do to be gay, but most people are born gay. Also, you can't use a locked thread that you wrote as evidance to back up your argument. I doesn't work that way. That's like saying this is true because I said it is. We add "scientificly proven" to our arguments because it is. Why else would we be saying it? Do complain about our sources untill you have evidance as well.

At 8/21/06 07:48 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Some people dicide do to be gay, but most people are born gay. Also, you can't use a locked thread that you wrote as evidance to back up your argument. I doesn't work that way. That's like saying this is true because I said it is. We add "scientificly proven" to our arguments because it is. Why else would we be saying it? Do complain about our sources untill you have evidance as well.

From now on I am going to assume who anyone who inserts "Are born gay, and can't help it" anywhere in a post got a D- in biology. This starts........now!

At 8/21/06 08:05 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: From now on I am going to assume who anyone who inserts "Are born gay, and can't help it" anywhere in a post got a D- in biology. This starts........now!

Hehe, another idiot who tells me that I'm wrong about this without telling me why. If you give me some evidance (as in actual resolts from actual scientific studies) as to why you think I'm wrong. Is that too much to ask?

At 8/21/06 10:19 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Hehe, another idiot who tells me that I'm wrong about this without telling me why. If you give me some evidance (as in actual resolts from actual scientific studies) as to why you think I'm wrong. Is that too much to ask?

I didn't tell you you were wrong, you dumb bitch. I said from now on I am going to assume anyone who puts that in their post got a D - in biology. Now learn to read and get off my nuts.

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

It dosn't say that, but it says that marriges (..sp) should be between a man and a woman.

Connect the dots, not everything is THROWNINYOURFACE.

I say we put all gay people on an Island secretly and then nuke the island.

Homosexuals are born that way, and can't help their sexuality.

At 8/22/06 07:43 PM, Kev-o wrote: Homosexuals are born that way, and can't help their sexuality.

You're right. People can't help being gay just like people can't help being born with down syndrome. We should pity gays for being born with such an affliction.

You know what, the bible says that Gays shouldn't marry. But the bible also says a whole lot of other things that people do not follow and yet they say their Christian. If Gays can't get married then 4 other things shouldn't be allowed:

1). There should not be Divorce.

2). There should not be Transexual surgery unless the person (and their was a story about this on Transamerica) was born with the wrong hormones and that should only be done when the person is a baby.

3). There should not be swearing.

4).There should not be sex before marriage and sex before adulthood.

Their are plenty more rules that people violate that are stated in the bible. You may be thinking "Where did Transexual surgery come from?" Well, people are saying just being gay is wrong, so being a transexual means that that person is of the other sex, which means that their gay.

At 8/19/06 03:46 PM, JMHX wrote: 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.

I see a decline in what is a mater for the state to handle. The state has less and less power all the time. Once the states lose enough power, it will just be a small shrug of the shoulders and the senet and house are gone. This is the exact thing the founders of our country gave us our rights for and we refuse to use them. A little here, a little there and we never notice. Did you know that making drugs illegal is a violation of the constitution? The courts even ruled that way once. Tax laws are what started the anti-drug laws. Things got worse and worse so slowly that nobody realized that thier right to poison their body with anything they want was striped away from them. Rights taken away one by one.

At 8/24/06 03:48 AM, zendahl wrote: I see a decline in what is a mater for the state to handle. The state has less and less power all the time. Once the states lose enough power, it will just be a small shrug of the shoulders and the senet and house are gone. This is the exact thing the founders of our country gave us our rights for and we refuse to use them. A little here, a little there and we never notice. Did you know that making drugs illegal is a violation of the constitution? The courts even ruled that way once. Tax laws are what started the anti-drug laws. Things got worse and worse so slowly that nobody realized that thier right to poison their body with anything they want was striped away from them. Rights taken away one by one.

Marriage, provided by the government, is not a matter that states should handle much in the same way how Civil Rights shouldn't be a case-by-case... state-by-state matter.

Imagine how messed up if a state had its own laws dealing with racism? One place would OK it... others would not...

Nobody complains how that subject should be a state by state case rather than decided on an omniscient law of the land.

So why should marriage not be a state matter, but an all encompassing matter that needs to be resolved once and for all? Because we're dealing with rights and more importantly...

Lives.

Gay marriage isn't a matter like a state's driving laws where it doesn't effect people so instantaneously. Its decisions effects a gay person's ability to handle situations such as children, adoption, taxes, inheretance, divorce, etc. In other words, nearly every aspect of family life.

So now, whose rights are we violating?
Whose rights are we messing up more?
Whose rights are mostly affected?

The State? Or the Gay?
The gay, of course.

For the reasons I've listed, that is why marriage rights should not be state matter but every-state matter.