Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/26/06 10:35 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 8/26/06 10:22 PM, Elemental_soldier wrote: who cares its there right to

Exactly!

Gay X and Y marrying does not effect Hetro Z in any which way.

Apart from Z being offended that a religious or traditional practice is being used in a way they don’t agree with.

As someone has already stated (not surprisingly as there’s 18 bloody pages already) this excuse was used to stop interracial marriages in the past.

But ignoring that, Hetro Z’s only argument against it is that it is blasphemous or untraditional from Hetro Z's point of view. But Z isn’t affected? And neither is his/her religion/traditions.

Why can’t people just fucking live and let live?

Or, in other words, mind their own business?

Good point. Gay marrige only effects gay people. IT DOES NOT EFFECT STRAIT PEOPLE IN ANY WAY except for they are a little offended by it. If gay marrige is legalized, the world is no going to end. What's the worst that could happen? Protesters with megaphones?

At 8/26/06 09:28 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I dare you to find anywhere in the Constitution where it says "There can be no religion in the government." God, no wonder foreigners laugh at americans academically, you're thirteen and don't know anything about the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

first amendment: an overview

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

Source: http://www.law.corne...php/First_amendment

Yeah... the Cornell law school. Shush.

Look through all the amendments and tell me which one says there can be no religious expression in government.

First one.

About your point about "Gay rights," that's bullshit. Last time I checked gays aren't being shunned from resturaunts and unable to vote.

Vote, maybe not... restaurants, sure. They are also denied heir rights, custody rights, medical proxy rights, and many other benefits given to "normal" married people.

I already went over this. The reason I oppose gay marriage is because of tradition. No historian has ever confirmed an ancient civilization where homosexual marriage was practiced. Since historians can't find anything, we can only assume there was never a culture where same sex marriage was encouraged or fulfilled. I challenge you to find one where queers were allowed to marry the same sex.

Tradition is the single most retarde dreason to be for or against ANYthing. Tradition had us killing animals and humans to please the gods. Tradition had us denying women and blacks and asians and (etc etc) the right to vote or own property. Tradition had us slaughtering each other for the amusement of the aristocracy.

Tradition is the coward's way out of a discussion in which he is clearly in the wrong.

Any questions?

Yes, are you legal yet?

Was that a proposition? >_>;

At 8/26/06 09:28 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I'm not twisting your words. I'm applying your logic to the Bible. You said some parts can/could of been not the literal word of God and merely someone's opinion. You were implying that this is the case for what it says throughout the entire Bible in regards to homosexuality. You were nitpicking it, by telling yourself and others it was only someone's opinion.

So I followed your suit and decided I didn't like all the stuff Jesus said about forgiveness. Afterall, how do we know it was Jesus' real parables and not just someone's opinion? :)

I'm not saying that the entire bible is false. I'm saying that it is posible that a very small portion of it might be. And the bible doesn't talk about homosextuallity through the whole bible. It talks about it a few times, mostly in the old testement.

God hates goths and emos. That why they kill themselves so much.

No. She doesn't hate anybody. I've said this numerious times in this thread with an explaination.

Are you such a simple-minded idiot that you can't even understand the concept of "Hate the sin, not the sinner?" God hates homosexuality, he doesn't hate homosexuals themselves. This is illustrated in all verses citing homosexuality, which the author says homosexuality itself is a sin, not the queer. God doesn't hate gay people any more than he hates thieves. He hates theft, not the culprit.

You're born gay, it's not their falt. Almost all homosextuals do not choose to be gay. Now, how is it considered a sin if gay people are not at falt?

I already went over this. The reason I oppose gay marriage is because of tradition. No historian has ever confirmed an ancient civilization where homosexual marriage was practiced. Since historians can't find anything, we can only assume there was never a culture where same sex marriage was encouraged or fulfilled. I challenge you to find one where queers were allowed to marry the same sex.

Yeah, and it's also tridition to have slaves and to hate women and people of a different race. If you own slaves and hate women and people of a different race, by all means use tradition to make your point. But if you don't (and you better not) Your point is invaled.

Yes, are you legal yet?

What's that supposed to mean?

dumass

At 8/27/06 04:08 AM, Ravariel wrote: stuff

That's all fine and dandy, if I wanted proof that government can't stop religious practices.

My quirrel was with the fact people say Church and State are seperate in the Constitution. It doesn't say government can't express religious symbols or have religious expression: what it does say government cannot prohibit or make a law establishing an official religion(I.E Roman Catholic Church in Middle Aged Europe, Anglican Church of England), which it has not.

A government official is allowed to have their religious principals decide what they'll oppose and choose, just like an average joe can have their religious tenets help decide how they'll live.

Nice try through, Ravariel, and thanks for playing!

At 8/27/06 11:37 AM, metalhead0001 wrote: I'm not saying that the entire bible is false. I'm saying that it is posible that a very small portion of it might be. And the bible doesn't talk about homosextuallity through the whole bible. It talks about it a few times, mostly in the old testement.

Then how would you know what Bible says about homosexuality is not indeed how God truly felt?

No. She doesn't hate anybody. I've said this numerious times in this thread with an explaination.

God also hates communists, that's why Communist nations are shitholes. :)

You're born gay, it's not their falt. Almost all homosextuals do not choose to be gay. Now, how is it considered a sin if gay people are not at falt?

You're not born gay on purpose. Homosexuality is the result of a birth defect, something that never should of happened. Just like down syndrome is a birth defect and was never designed to occur in people. That, however, doesn't make it permissible to break God's regard toward the act of homosexuality. Afterall, all people are born wicked and do wicked things, that doesn't mean God hates those particular people, but their actions. It is the same with homosexuals.

I already went over this. The reason I oppose gay marriage is because of tradition. No historian has ever confirmed an ancient civilization where homosexual marriage was practiced. Since historians can't find anything, we can only assume there was never a culture where same sex marriage was encouraged or fulfilled. I challenge you to find one where queers were allowed to marry the same sex.

Yeah, and it's also tridition to have slaves and to hate women and people of a different race. If you own slaves and hate women and people of a different race, by all means use tradition to make your point. But if you don't (and you better not) Your point is invaled.

No, it isn't tradition to have slaves. Slavery was the result of change, so one might even call it a liberal cycle, but that's beyond the point. When America was founded slavery was not practiced. Since it was such a short-lived practice it could not technically be considered tradition. Not anymore than wearing hammer pants in the 80s.

As what you said women being hated; I don't hate women, I just don't think they should vote or drive. That's just my take on social etiquette.

What's that supposed to mean?

Think about it.

At 8/26/06 11:06 PM, metalhead0001 wrote:

Good point. Gay marrige only effects gay people. IT DOES NOT EFFECT STRAIT PEOPLE IN ANY WAY except for they are a little offended by it. If gay marrige is legalized, the world is no going to end. What's the worst that could happen? Protesters with megaphones?

And the Rwanda Massacre didn't effect the U.N in anyway, yet people still get a little pissy about them ignoring it.

At 8/27/06 01:17 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

No, it isn't tradition to have slaves. Slavery was the result of change, so one might even call it a liberal cycle, but that's beyond the point. When America was founded slavery was not practiced. Since it was such a short-lived practice it could not technically be considered tradition. Not anymore than wearing hammer pants in the 80s.

You're pretty naive to say that slavery was a short-lived. Slavery had been going on for centuries, way before Europeans migrated to America (in other words, they did nothing new). And it isn't a short -lived practice. Child slavery a common occurence. Even though considered illegal it still happens. In fact slavery (not including the slavery of Hebrews by Egyptians) in the Old Testament was praised when regular people owned servants and is in the earlier parts of the New Testament.

Even Cuba had slaves before America. Please, review your history book.

At 8/27/06 03:15 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: And the Rwanda Massacre didn't effect the U.N in anyway, yet people still get a little pissy about them ignoring it.

That’s a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.

It doesn't effect you, LIVE WITH IT. Homosexuality is natural, but homophobia isn't.

At 8/27/06 01:17 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/27/06 11:37 AM, metalhead0001 wrote:

You're not born gay on purpose. Homosexuality is the result of a birth defect, something that never should of happened. Just like down syndrome is a birth defect and was never designed to occur in people. That, however, doesn't make it permissible to break God's regard toward the act of homosexuality. Afterall, all people are born wicked and do wicked things, that doesn't mean God hates those particular people, but their actions. It is the same with homosexuals.

Yet God allowed said defect to occur. That, though, isn't an issue for me. What is the issue is whether or not the government should be enforcing the dictates of any god, which is clearly no.

I already went over this. The reason I oppose gay marriage is because of tradition. No historian has ever confirmed an ancient civilization where homosexual marriage was practiced. Since historians can't find anything, we can only assume there was never a culture where same sex marriage was encouraged or fulfilled. I challenge you to find one where queers were allowed to marry the same sex.

Tradition is a lame excuse for justifying anything. By the same token, I could justify dueling, as it was a fine tradition for quite some time. Banning gay marriage on because of tradition is weak.

No, it isn't tradition to have slaves. Slavery was the result of change, so one might even call it a liberal cycle, but that's beyond the point. When America was founded slavery was not practiced. Since it was such a short-lived practice it could not technically be considered tradition. Not anymore than wearing hammer pants in the 80s.

Actually, slavery is alluded to in the Constitution, both in the 3/5ths compromise and the promise not to discuss banning the slave trade until 1809 if I'm not mistaken. Now, perhaps you are referring to when the first settlers arrived. True, there was no slavery, but it was established within within 50 years of the first settlements. I'd say an institution that lasted nearly 200 years clearly counts as being tradition. In that case, most of the things our country does couldn't be considered tradition, considering it is only 230 years old.

As what you said women being hated; I don't hate women, I just don't think they should vote or drive. That's just my take on social etiquette.

Someone is going to be single for a long time.

At 8/27/06 04:02 PM, LMHMorales wrote: You're pretty naive to say that slavery was a short-lived. Slavery had been going on for centuries, way before Europeans migrated to America (in other words, they did nothing new). And it isn't a short -lived practice. Child slavery a common occurence. Even though considered illegal it still happens. In fact slavery (not including the slavery of Hebrews by Egyptians) in the Old Testament was praised when regular people owned servants and is in the earlier parts of the New Testament.

Even Cuba had slaves before America. Please, review your history book.

Exactly. Slavery is almost unexistant in the US even though it was tradition, woman are gaining power when it was traditional for them to be weak, and people of different races are getting married when it was traditional for them not to. If we can go against tradition on these things, we can go against tradition with gay marrige.

At 8/27/06 03:15 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: ...didn't effect the U.N in anyway, yet people still get a little pissy about them ignoring it.

Yes, because ignoring genocide is so totally like ignoring the gays marrrying...

At 8/27/06 01:08 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: My quirrel was with the fact people say Church and State are seperate in the Constitution. It doesn't say government can't express religious symbols or have religious expression: what it does say government cannot prohibit or make a law establishing an official religion(I.E Roman Catholic Church in Middle Aged Europe, Anglican Church of England), which it has not.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.

See previous source.

A government official is allowed to have their religious principals decide what they'll oppose and choose, just like an average joe can have their religious tenets help decide how they'll live.

That's a far cry from what you were saying earlier. Do tell me you're not just avoiding the issue by semantic obfuscation? This is about GOVERNMENT not individuals. To enforce a federal ban on homosexual marriage is legislating religious tenets. Hell, to do it on a State level is the same. The 1st amendment, the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause, the full faith and credit clause... ALL make a federal ban on homosexual marriage unconstitutional. They ALSO make one state not recognizing another state's marriages as valid unconstitutional.

The only leg you have to stand on, the only way you can be for this, is to be religiously motivated. And religious motivation is not grounds for legislation on any level.

At 8/27/06 05:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.

See previous source.

It's a matter of interpretation. I don't interpret that clause as a seperation of church and state, merely a amendment disallowing the government from impeding or sanctioning an official religion. Infact, most Constitutional scholars agree that the seperation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, it's just a matter of how one perceives it.

http://en.wikipedia..._of_church_and_state

That's a far cry from what you were saying earlier. Do tell me you're not just avoiding the issue by semantic obfuscation? This is about GOVERNMENT not individuals. To enforce a federal ban on homosexual marriage is legislating religious tenets. Hell, to do it on a State level is the same. The 1st amendment, the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause, the full faith and credit clause... ALL make a federal ban on homosexual marriage unconstitutional. They ALSO make one state not recognizing another state's marriages as valid unconstitutional.

Seeing as how the government officials have their own particular beliefs, and vote with whom they agree, that could be considered having their religious beliefs decide for them. Since these people make up the GOVERNMENT, and are elected by vote is the will of the people, not the church, though the church plays a crucial role in the matter.

Most people oppose same sex marriage and believe it shouldn't be recognized, that's democracy. When a government senator/congressman/representatives votes against marriage based on their religious beliefs that's not a breach betwen church and state, that's how the things roll in a democracy. To not allow someone vote based on their personal conviction is tyranny.

The only leg you have to stand on, the only way you can be for this, is to be religiously motivated. And religious motivation is not grounds for legislation on any level.

Damn, I've been arguing the same point since like page seventeen with Sinthe and metalhead the reason I oppose same sex marriage. That I believe marriage was never intended for same sexes.

The only reason I introduced religion into this was because someone on the last page said the New Testament doesn't say anything about homosexuality. After I rebutted with quoted verses from the New Testament metal or someone goes "Zomgz, curtch n staet r seprate," despite I was only linking verses in order to prove a point.

At 8/27/06 01:17 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: As what you said women being hated; I don't hate women, I just don't think they should vote or drive. That's just my take on social etiquette.

Personally I don't think you should be allowed to vote or drive. It's obvious you still have a hard time grasping the written word. It scares me to think that you would be allowed to vote and get on the road. Thank god I don't live anywhere near you.

You probably also believe a woman's place is only in the kitchen. Don't forget, you sexist pig, that your mother is a woman and as a woman, probably wouldn't appreciate your view of them.

I got to use sexist pig. Yay!

At 8/27/06 05:42 PM, LMHMorales wrote: Personally I don't think you should be allowed to vote or drive. It's obvious you still have a hard time grasping the written word. It scares me to think that you would be allowed to vote and get on the road. Thank god I don't live anywhere near you.

You probably also believe a woman's place is only in the kitchen. Don't forget, you sexist pig, that your mother is a woman and as a woman, probably wouldn't appreciate your view of them.

I got to use sexist pig. Yay!

Wow, I guess I should leave the sexist comments to Der_Pandar. Seeing as how everyone gives me shit when I make one.

At 8/27/06 04:02 PM, LMHMorales wrote: You're pretty naive to say that slavery was a short-lived. Slavery had been going on for centuries, way before Europeans migrated to America (in other words, they did nothing new). And it isn't a short -lived practice. Child slavery a common occurence. Even though considered illegal it still happens. In fact slavery (not including the slavery of Hebrews by Egyptians) in the Old Testament was praised when regular people owned servants and is in the earlier parts of the New Testament.

That's all fine and dandy, but I was talking about American slavery. Since you failed to grasp that I don't even feel like debating you, and shall wait for Ravariel to respond to my post.

Even Cuba had slaves before America. Please, review your history book.

Review your reading comprehension book. Thank you.

At 8/27/06 05:51 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Wow, I guess I should leave the sexist comments to Der_Pandar. Seeing as how everyone gives me shit when I make one.

Yeah, Der_Pandar is an asshole, there doesn't need to be anybody else like him making unfunny smartass coments 24/7.

At 8/27/06 06:08 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Yeah, Der_Pandar is an asshole, there doesn't need to be anybody else like him making unfunny smartass coments 24/7.

I thought they were pretty funny. I fell out of my chair laughing at his women's rights thread.

At 8/27/06 05:51 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Wow, I guess I should leave the sexist comments to Der_Pandar. Seeing as how everyone gives me shit when I make one.

Ahh diddums.

At 8/27/06 06:12 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I thought they were pretty funny. I fell out of my chair laughing at his women's rights thread.

Meh, some of them are, but most of them aren't. They're just anoying.

At 8/27/06 05:42 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: It's a matter of interpretation. I don't interpret that clause as a seperation of church and state, merely a amendment disallowing the government from impeding or sanctioning an official religion. Infact, most Constitutional scholars agree that the seperation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, it's just a matter of how one perceives it.

Funny, the Supreme Court, the body that actually has the authority to interpret the Constitution, interpretes it that way. How YOU interpret it is meaningless.

Seeing as how the government officials have their own particular beliefs, and vote with whom they agree, that could be considered having their religious beliefs decide for them. Since these people make up the GOVERNMENT, and are elected by vote is the will of the people, not the church, though the church plays a crucial role in the matter.

Government cannot make laws based solely upon religious tenets. Period.

Most people oppose same sex marriage and believe it shouldn't be recognized, that's democracy. When a government senator/congressman/representatives votes against marriage based on their religious beliefs that's not a breach betwen church and state, that's how the things roll in a democracy. To not allow someone vote based on their personal conviction is tyranny.

To not extend rights to a minority is tyranny.

Damn, I've been arguing the same point since like page seventeen with Sinthe and metalhead the reason I oppose same sex marriage. That I believe marriage was never intended for same sexes.

Again: tradition is the single most retarded reason for supporting or opposing anything.

See: slavery, ritual sacrifice, gladiatorial combat, female circumcision, denial of property rights to minorities and women, etc etc.

The only reason I introduced religion into this was because someone on the last page said the New Testament doesn't say anything about homosexuality. After I rebutted with quoted verses from the New Testament metal or someone goes "Zomgz, curtch n staet r seprate," despite I was only linking verses in order to prove a point.

Fair enough. Point still stands, however.

Oh, and slavery is and was hardly a new or rare thing in America... at it's inception, around the time of the civil war, or even now. Slavery is a tim-honored tradition, practiced by nearly every culture in the world. Thus it must be right, and we should bring it back, no?

At 8/27/06 06:14 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: Meh, some of them are, but most of them aren't. They're just anoying.

All of them make me lol.

At 8/27/06 06:18 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: All of them make me lol.

Huh, maybe I need to get out more. I think a long session of South Park will cure me.

At 8/27/06 06:00 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: That's all fine and dandy, but I was talking about American slavery. Since you failed to grasp that I don't even feel like debating you, and shall wait for Ravariel to respond to my post.

Where you think Americans originated from? You think Europeans didn't practice slavery? American history is about the beginnings of America even when the name hadn't been thought up yet, just not when America was colonized.

And since The Bible is a tool for American Christians to follow, you'd think you would understand what I was trying to say in my post.

You have a different concept of American history however, so I'm not going to even bother.

Review your reading comprehension book. Thank you.

That's little bit hypocritcal from someone who doesn't even understand the bible or what anyone else posts when they read. You're right though, I really don't want to debate with you.

At 8/27/06 06:27 PM, LMHMorales wrote: Where you think Americans originated from? You think Europeans didn't practice slavery? American history is about the beginnings of America even when the name hadn't been thought up yet, just not when America was colonized.

And since The Bible is a tool for American Christians to follow, you'd think you would understand what I was trying to say in my post.

You have a different concept of American history however, so I'm not going to even bother.

I assumed metal was talking about american slavery, not on an international scale.
Since the debate is whether gay marriage should be legal here in the US I decerned she was speaking of American traditions, because that's what I was referring too.

That's little bit hypocritcal from someone who doesn't even understand the bible or what anyone else posts when they read. You're right though, I really don't want to debate with you.

I didn't read your post thorougly. I determined we weren't on the same page. My apologies if I said something disparaging. I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

At 8/27/06 06:33 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

Really? 'cause you're doing a pretty good job.

sorry, couldn't resist.

At 8/27/06 06:36 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 8/27/06 06:33 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

Really? 'cause you're doing a pretty good job.

sorry, couldn't resist.

Don't be, I have been sounding like one.

At 8/27/06 06:37 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:

At 8/27/06 06:36 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 8/27/06 06:33 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

Really? 'cause you're doing a pretty good job.

sorry, couldn't resist.

Don't be, I have been sounding like one.

Yeah, me too. A lot of people have.

Wait... people being nice... apologizing and admitting dickery!?!

HEAD ASPLODE!!!