Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/18/06 11:38 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/18/06 04:43 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 11/18/06 02:00 PM, BanditByte wrote: Hey, I like looking at hentai. I deserve as much right as anyone else to marry my computer monitor.

Have fun getting it to consent.

It has. And it's name is Lenore.

I'm not sure the law will see it that way.

lol, the law sees things in all the wrong ways though so it has no opinion, cos it suck my hairy bollocks

I thibnk gays should be able to marry and adopt children. Firstly because being a homosexual is legal and so, logicaly, two homosexuals should be able to marry . As for all those who say that a homosexual upbringing can affect the children it is scientifically proven that this is not true, that kids with gay parents have as much chances of being gay than children with heterosexual parents

At 11/19/06 11:16 AM, Zododei wrote: stuff and a picture

Stop posting that picture before you get banned for picture spamming.

At 11/19/06 06:44 AM, Peter-II wrote: I'm not sure the law will see it that way.

Well, if gays can get married all of a sudden then why can't I? Since the government no longer discriminates against who can get married why can't I get married to an inanimate object, which I love?

At 11/19/06 02:34 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/19/06 06:44 AM, Peter-II wrote: I'm not sure the law will see it that way.

Well, if gays can get married all of a sudden then why can't I? Since the government no longer discriminates against who can get married why can't I get married to an inanimate object, which I love?

Because your monitor is not a consenting adult.

At 11/20/06 04:14 PM, Peter-II wrote: Because your monitor is not a consenting adult.

You're a bigot. How dare you tell me who and who I can't get married to?!

At 11/18/06 08:26 PM, DrWurm wrote: Marriage is now a government recognized ceremony. It is not christian.

Well, Christmas, Ramadan and Chanuhka (I know, way off, not even bothering to try) are also recognized by the government, so does that mean they arn't religiouse either?

IT IS NOT RELIGIOUS UNLESS YOU HAVE A RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE.

The Definition of a marriage is a 'union between man, woman, and god'. Marriage in it's very definition is religious. That's like saying 'TEMPLE ISN'T RELIGIOUS UNLESS YOU HAVE A RELIGIOUS TEMPLE'

However, perhaps the key foundation of our nation is that all men are created equal. Let us not forget that only a few decades ago, many thought that it was perfectly fine to segregate blacks and whites. We singled out a group of people and restricted their rights.

Yes. And then the supreme court decided we can't do that anymore. HEY LOOK! Problem solved.

Now we look back on that time period in awe that we could ever have believed in that idea. We are at another transitional period now. We are singling out a group of people and restricting their rights based upon sexuality.

Actually, we're restricting people religious rights based on said people not even being members of that religion.

This means, as i interpret it, we our breaking part of the foundation of our country because of our own predjudices.

So your saying, basically, "blah blah blah, seperation of church and state in a nutshell, dont restrict gays because the church wants us to". Well, let's see for a second; if the government dealing with gay marriage is a seperation of church and state, then so is the government dealing with STRAIGHT marriage. Right now, we have 3 options; the government can completely dissolve all legal recognition of 'marriage', they can follow what the church say's, or, option 3, the one they've already done, they can create a 'legal union' thats in no way religiouse, called 'Civil Unions'.

Marriage is now a government recognized ceremony.

If that's the case, MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE!

My biggest complaint was that marriage has/is always been correlated to a Christian ideology. Thus, having a gay marriage would be counter to my religion.

I was all for civil unions, which would have provided the same benefits as that of "marriage".

But if "marriage" is now a secularized term, I can change my stance to say Gays should be allowed secularized marriages.

Whatever the government decides to call it, full benefits from such a union should be provided. I think that's the key underlying issue, as opposed to the term we give it.....

At 11/20/06 06:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

But if "marriage" is now a secularized term, I can change my stance to say Gays should be allowed secularized marriages.

Well, really, even Christmas is now a 'secularized' term, not because it really is secular, but because with the exeption of the CLDS, Christians are complete pussies who let their most sacred customs be bastardized.

And I still say that if all the states adopted civil unions, as they should, and all civil unions carried the same benefits as marriage, as they should, shit would work itself out.

I'm just saying gays shouldn't be allowed to have children without some semblance of a mother and father in the group. I'm just saying that it's bad enough just to be a little different from the majority. Just being poor or fat or different in any small way can get you ousted by the children who like to cling together.

Being an orphan till age 18 is no better. Having "no parents" is about as far from the majority as you can get brah. A lot of kids can claim to be poor, it's a rather large minority. It's virtually unheard of to know someone who doesn't have parents......

I would rather children have the emotional, financial, and spiritual support of two mothers or two fathers than none at all.

Kids without ANY parenting are far worse off than kids with gay parents or straight parents. I'm claiming ignorance on any differences documented as to which grouping is more effective than the others, however......

At 11/20/06 06:50 PM, Lettuceclock wrote:
Well, really, even Christmas is now a 'secularized' term, not because it really is secular, but because with the exeption of the CLDS, Christians are complete pussies who let their most sacred customs be bastardized.

Well sorry we're not the oppressive dicators who force others to adopt our religion and our methods of religious devotion that you thought we were.....

Sweet Jesus, there's just no pleasing people anymore!!

Force your ways and beliefs onto others:
Get called Nazis and Fascists.

Let others believe what they want and pray in their own way:
Get called pussies.

FUCK Y'ALL then! Ghad! We try one way, we get called shit. We try the other, we get called shit. We try the middle and we get called BOTH! Get the fuck outta here with that crap!!

......Ah fuck it..... ;)

At 11/20/06 06:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Being an orphan till age 18 is no better. Having "no parents" is about as far from the majority as you can get brah. A lot of kids can claim to be poor, it's a rather large minority. It's virtually unheard of to know someone who doesn't have parents......

I would rather children have the emotional, financial, and spiritual support of two mothers or two fathers than none at all.

Kids without ANY parenting are far worse off than kids with gay parents or straight parents. I'm claiming ignorance on any differences documented as to which grouping is more effective than the others, however......

Exactly. Besides, by the logic of 'you can't have kids, because you'll be an embarresment in their social lives', NO BODY should be alloud to be parents. And even with that point asside, I can also see kids getting made fun of for being orphans more then for being adopted by gays. And finally, I think the fact that they where adopted at all will be used to hurt them more often then the fact that the adoptees happened to be gay.

Oh, and P.S: Gay teasing is getting to be less and less of an issue now that people are learning more about them and losing their ignorence. I would say child/teen gay bashing can be broken down as followed

30%: People who are ignorent to gay's, and react hostilly to new things (as humans tend to do)
5%: People who actually dislike or distrust gays
5%: People who are themselves confused sexually and try to cement the idea in their own mind that they are 'normal'
10%: People who simply do it to look 'cool' by bashing the outsider
50%: People simply dislike the person they're teasing, and are using their homosexuality because it's the best thing they have against them.

Let others believe what they want and pray in their own way:
Get called pussies.

No. Not giving a fuck that your membership is getting lower and lower, making no effort to try and spread the message, and not fighting to remind people of the actuall meaning of your most holy holiday makes you a pussy. Once again, look at the CLDS; they are actually spreading the message, giving people a chance to learn the message, and generally giving an aura of 'hey, if you have a question, just ask'. I may not be christian, but damn I can respect the CLDS.

At 11/20/06 07:26 PM, Lettuceclock wrote:

Let others believe what they want and pray in their own way:
Get called pussies.

No. Not giving a fuck that your membership is getting lower and lower, making no effort to try and spread the message, and not fighting to remind people of the actuall meaning of your most holy holiday makes you a pussy. Once again, look at the CLDS; they are actually spreading the message, giving people a chance to learn the message, and generally giving an aura of 'hey, if you have a question, just ask'. I may not be christian, but damn I can respect the CLDS.

Lower and lower?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adheren ts.html

Damn, I didn't think we were doin too bad......

It's not like we're pussin out on the important stuff, I think peeps have just wised up to the fact that their interpretation is just as good as our interpretation, as long as the fundamentals stay the same. You root for the Denver Broncos, I'll root for Green Bay. In the end, we're all enjoyin the same game.......

Easter is our most holy holiday, and I'm pretty sure most good little Catholic boys and girls know it.....

MY problem with the CLDS is that they're TOO aggressive. If anything, they turn people off. You constantly hear of people complaining about the Jehova Witness type Christians, and the Latter Day Saint folks tend to head down that road....

Two of em actually came a knockin on my door in high school, tried to convert me to their religion.....even after I told em I'm Roman Catholic.....

I'm hopin they were exceptions to their normal practices.....

Besides, you'd have to be an idiot in this day and age to not have heard of Jesus, Christianity, or God. Seriously, I think even tribes that have had no contact with the modern world have heard of Jesus........

The message has been spread, IMO. It's now just a matter of choice.

And Roman Catholics are just sittin back waiting to be asked about our religion. Seriously, we're bored....someone ask a question already.........anyone....... ;)

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#familie s

Looks like a pretty good site to show the diversity in this country at least. Would be interesting to see a world one, but my google search failed to bring anything up.

The Largest Denominal Families in US in 2001:

% change from 1990-2001 was +11%.

Top Ten Religious Bodies in US:

Catholic: 66 million (top of list).

Right below that chart it says

U.S. Catholics represent about 6% of the church's total world membership of approximately
1 billion.

In other words, of the 2.1 billion Christians in the world, roughly 50% are Roman Catholic.

I'd say we're doin pretty damned good sir......

Even the chart breaking down Protestant religions had "Catholic" as the top denomination picked......

I dunno what you're talkin about "dwindling numbers" and "pussin out"......

At 11/20/06 06:19 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/20/06 04:14 PM, Peter-II wrote: Because your monitor is not a consenting adult.

You're a bigot. How dare you tell me who and who I can't get married to?!

Civil unions imply consent. Your monitor can't consent.

Wait, wait, wait... Lettuce... I would be very verbally abusive towards you right now if I wasn't afraid of being banned. You are an athiest and you are encouraging christians to go about and spread there word? It's not your bloody fight. Plus you get Jahovas witnesses which is enough for me. :S All you are doing is causing arguements for no good reason. There is a difference between a debate and an arguement.

Imperator, don't be so touchy eh. You have a point with the "we do it this way we get abused and we do it the other way we get abused" idea but it ain't all of us. I'm an athiest and personally anyone can choose to belive what they want. Most religions are all the same... be good get rewarded, be bad get punished.

Lettuce! I hold alot of contempt for you! Why is it only christians your talking about anyway? I had a look at that graph, why not tell islams and hindus and jews to go about and spread their word. Why not!? Because your a bloody sectarian, you hate people because of there religion which is is exactly like a bloody nazi.

ROFLCOPTER, the monitor doesn't need to consent because its an inanimate object. YOu must be a conservative nazi.

I'm bisexual.
Marrige is a right not a ceremony. The wedding is a ceremony, bimbo.
And dont' start that close minded catholic religious shit on me.

No-one can tell you who you can or can not love.
Imagine being someones partner for over 20 years because you couldn't marry, then he dies, has no relatives and half of all your (his and yours) belongings go to the state, that's one way of stating how it SUCKS not to be married to your life-partner.

Now adoption I still haven't decided on, probably yes, but marrige, definetly.

PS
I was going to be a priest, but then I got my first Flash MX
For real dawg ;)

...no seriously I'm not joking, I really did want to be a preist.

...Really!

At 11/21/06 02:20 AM, Imperator wrote:

Besides, you'd have to be an idiot in this day and age to not have heard of Jesus, Christianity, or God. Seriously, I think even tribes that have had no contact with the modern world have heard of Jesus........

Watch 'Supersize me', where more american children recognized Ronald McDonald then a picture of christ. Same deal with a completely seperate one where the pictures of Jesus and Santa where compared. Guess who won?

Anyway, the point of the matter is that christians have sat by idoly and watched Christmas be secularized (is that even a word?) and bastardized. Hell, all I know is that if anyone tried to play that shit off with Ragnorok, I would have to axe some fools.

A La Patrick Bateman

At 11/21/06 11:35 AM, beardofchuck wrote: Wait, wait, wait... Lettuce... I would be very verbally abusive towards you right now if I wasn't afraid of being banned.

Well, apperently your not too afraid of making an ass out of yourself, so go on, argue away.

You are an athiest

No I'm not.

and you are encouraging christians to go about and spread there word?

Yes. Religions need to fucking fight man. Personally, I'm Norse Pagan, and as you would know if your I.Q wasn't that of a retarded sloth, we were basically invaded by the cathlics in the medieval era. They came, they saw, they conquered. I can respect that. If you believe in something, you cant let people take those ideals and bastardize them. I'm just as adamant as, for example, Muslims making sure their members dont partake in alcohol. Wow, thats a hard little word to spell, isn't it?

It's not your bloody fight.

Well, neither is not having all the black people shot for no reason other then their skin. But, you know, I'm pretty big on supporting that.

Plus you get Jahovas witnesses which is enough for me. :S

Um....What?

All you are doing is causing arguements for no good reason. There is a difference between a debate and an arguement.

Exactly. Debates don't involve morons like you who type before thinking; go away so the rest of us can have a debate again.

Imperator, don't be so touchy eh. You have a point with the "we do it this way we get abused and we do it the other way we get abused" idea but it ain't all of us. I'm an athiest and personally anyone can choose to belive what they want. Most religions are all the same... be good get rewarded, be bad get punished.

Yes, you can choose whatever religion you want. However, if you dont choose to be a christian, you cant have a christian ceremony. Just like a Jew can't have a satanist ceremony.

Lettuce! I hold alot of contempt for you! Why is it only christians your talking about anyway? I had a look at that graph, why not tell islams and hindus and jews to go about and spread their word.

Actually, we mentioned this before. Muslims and Jews also follow the Bible there genius, meaning they also ban gay marriage. And a quick read up on the hindu faith says that they do too, though I honestly dont remember why.

Why not!? Because your a bloody sectarian, you hate people because of there religion which is is exactly like a bloody nazi.

No, I hate people who go 'lol fuck god yo, iz an athiest' or any other type of blatant I'm-not-a-christian speech, , then go and try to have a ceremony defined as a union between 'man woman and god'. Imagine if I sat here and went on for 5 paragraphs on why I thought Jainism was stupid, then tried to get a Jainistic wedding.

At 11/20/06 06:41 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: Well, Christmas, Ramadan and Chanuhka (I know, way off, not even bothering to try) are also recognized by the government, so does that mean they arn't religiouse either?

I'm not saying that's right either. But this isn't the religious holiday thread is it?

god

"mar‧riage [mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

Cough?
The religious and legal definitions are different.

Atheists get married. You can get married in a court house. That's not a religious place.

Yes. And then the supreme court decided we can't do that anymore. HEY LOOK! Problem solved.

so lets solve this problem and let gays marry. Duh. Follow the same pattern achieve the same result? sounds like a basic law of science to me.

Actually, we're restricting people religious rights based on said people not even being members of that religion.

Again; marriage is not a religious right. It is a legal right.

So your saying, basically, "blah blah blah, seperation of church and state in a nutshell, dont restrict gays because the church wants us to"

Actually...No, not at all :/ I'm talking about
"all men are created equal"

a standard which has only begun to start being realized unfortunately.

At 11/21/06 06:49 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: Watch 'Supersize me', where more american children recognized Ronald McDonald then a picture of christ. Same deal with a completely seperate one where the pictures of Jesus and Santa where compared. Guess who won?

First off, how do we know what Jesus looked like?
Second off, how do we have pictures of Christ?

Ronald and Santa are international characters, with nearly universal features. Jesus has been depicted as everything from a white dude with long hair (hippy Jesus), to a Mid Easterner with a beard, to a black man bald.

There is actually no historical picture to Christ, so NO ONE really knows what he looked like....

Anyway, the point of the matter is that christians have sat by idoly and watched Christmas be secularized (is that even a word?) and bastardized. Hell, all I know is that if anyone tried to play that shit off with Ragnorok, I would have to axe some fools.

Well, we're still celebrating it the same way we always have. If y'all wanna join in, we can't really stop you......at least not in this country......

And you said our "holiest" holiday. That would be Easter my friend.........not Christmas.....

At 7/19/06 09:10 PM, Herr-Fritz wrote:

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: And before any of you idiots try to go "wel den dat meant u have 2 not let pagans and satanists marrry!!!!1 lol like i got u!"; exactly: once again, Christian Ceremony, so it's only for CHRISTIANS. I am one of the Paganistic religions (and bi, before any of you want to pull out the "homophobe" card) and therefor I have absolutely no right to get married. I probably WILL get marriage because of the benifits not offered with civil ceremonies, but if the government would get it's head out of their ass and give the benifits I mentioned earlier, I would do the right thing and take a CC.

You are the biggest asshole. Seriously. Its people like you (anti-gays) whowill be the end of human relations and, possibly, the world. I don't want to hear that religous crap. If you love someone-TRULY love someone-you should have every right to marry. Whether it be of the same sex or the opposite. That is happiness of the soul. If you can't understand that, than...you'll never understand love. Never. I suggest you watch brokeback mountain and find out how they live because of people like you.

Please next time read the post, if you don't understand it, read again, and if you still don't get it, just don't post.

Anyway to the thread topic. Hmmm tough one you have there, but I think that if they want to get married through the church they should consult a minister of preist or whichever religious person who will take the marriage. If they are fine with it we should let them get married, but if there not, they shouldn't make a big deal about discrimination because it is in the bible that homosexuality is imoral. So they should just suck it up and get a public service marrige so that way the church cannot interveen.

Okay, normally, I wouldn't touch something like this with a 100ft. pole, but in this case, I'm throwing my opinion out there. I think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, it is against all my morals, this has nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned, I just think it's wrong, and also very disturbing. So hey, if you don't like how I feel about it, you can cram it, but I'm not changing my opinons on anything... unless you give me a damn good reason.

At 11/21/06 06:18 PM, BanditByte wrote: ROFLCOPTER, the monitor doesn't need to consent because its an inanimate object.

What do you mean, "it doesn't need to consent"? What it is that separates your monitor from the rest of the general populace?

And of course it's an inanimate object, that's why it can't compare with someone of the same gender. Get a clue.

YOu must be a conservative nazi.

I don't like where this is going.

if your pressured into a relationship does that count as gay?

At 11/22/06 08:54 AM, Kingofleblamming wrote: Okay, normally, I wouldn't touch something like this with a 100ft. pole, but in this case, I'm throwing my opinion out there. I think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, it is against all my morals, this has nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned, I just think it's wrong, and also very disturbing.

Just because you are not a gay and have a certain disgust when it comes to gay sexuality doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be allowed that right. You are not gay but does that mean that from your point of view no gays should be able to marry. Try to understand that just as people have different tastes poeple have different sexual orientations and everybody should respect that. I just think it is time that the law should set the good example by acknowledging homosexuality by making them free to live in a legally recognised couple.

Your a close minded noob!