Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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!

BanditByte and I are married guys, so please don't pick on him anymore.
He was just joking all along, I thought it would be hilarious...

At 11/22/06 05:51 PM, fli wrote: BanditByte and I are married guys, so please don't pick on him anymore.
He was just joking all along, I thought it would be hilarious...

Pfft, forget you. We're done since you're hung like a gnat.

Im not even worried anymore about the "main issue" what I am worried about is the fact that some states have approved, while others have indirectly banned gay marriage.

What happened to "Full faith and credit"??

Apparently gone on vacation ladies and gentlemen

At 11/22/06 05:51 PM, fli wrote: BanditByte and I are married guys, so please don't pick on him anymore.
He was just joking all along, I thought it would be hilarious...

Your married to each other arnt you?

At 11/26/06 04:43 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Your married to each other arnt you?

Yeah, but that don't stop me from having sex with your mom and dad.

At 11/26/06 07:14 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/26/06 04:43 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Your married to each other arnt you?

Yeah, but that don't stop me from having sex with your mom and dad.

Just ignore cold. Hes a complete fugging moron. Only makes useless posts to piss everyone off, and doesnt even do a good job of that.

At 11/26/06 07:14 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/26/06 04:43 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Your married to each other arnt you?

Yeah, but that don't stop me from having sex with your mom and dad.

You would want to have sex with my dad.

At 11/26/06 09:03 PM, Mercator wrote:

At 11/26/06 07:14 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/26/06 04:43 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Your married to each other arnt you?

Yeah, but that don't stop me from having sex with your mom and dad.

Just ignore cold. Hes a complete fugging moron. Only makes useless posts to piss everyone off, and doesnt even do a good job of that.

Well heres the thing mary this is what we call the internet. If you want factual and intelligent literature get a life and read a book.

At 11/27/06 07:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 11/26/06 09:03 PM, Mercator wrote:

At 11/26/06 07:14 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/26/06 04:43 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Your married to each other arnt you?

Yeah, but that don't stop me from having sex with your mom and dad.

Just ignore cold. Hes a complete fugging moron. Only makes useless posts to piss everyone off, and doesnt even do a good job of that.

Well heres the thing mary this is what we call the internet. If you want factual and intelligent literature get a life and read a book.

The point of the BBS is not factual or intelligent literature. The point of the BBS is factual and intelligent CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION.
God, you make people in our age group look even more uneducated than we really are.

At 11/21/06 08:57 PM, DrWurm wrote:

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

So then, lets all drop that entire thread of thought.

"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.

The only problem is that the original, God definition pre-dates the other by hundreds of years, and dictionaries only define how words are used, not what they actually MEAN. For example, I have a dictionary at my highschool that defines 'Gay' as a slang word for homosexual, despite that not being the correct meaning, but the simple way it's used. If tomarrow 90 of the population used the word 'Puppy' to describe any member of the government, thats how the dictionaries would start to define it.

Atheists get married.

Which is just as bad.

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

And if your already trying to get a 'secular marriage', why not just get a Civil Union, which is as secular as it gets.

so lets solve this problem and let gays marry. Duh.

Because, apperently, people dont WANT gays to marry. If a state makes a proposition allowing gay marriage, and it wins a majority vote, a la Massachusettes, the Voila! Gay Marriage for you. Now, since this isn't happening, it seems as if the average voter agrees with me.

Follow the same pattern achieve the same result? sounds like a basic law of science to me.

Only one problem, kiddo; somehow I doubt that dropping 2 A-Bombs on Nagasaki and Horishima would do a damn thing to help end the war in Iraq. See how different variables can re-write the whole equation? Sounds like a basic law of math to me.

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

Once again, we differ.

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

And yet, just as the KKK can exclude blacks from their memberships, the Church can exclude gay's from theirs. The drawbacks of Liberty and Tolerence is that we must Allow and Tolerate the Intolerent.

So, riddle me this; why not just have a Civil Union thats designed completely free from religion, which allowes the church to maintain their ideals and homosexuals to be wed and get all the benifits of marriage.

At 11/21/06 09:26 PM, Imperator wrote:

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

Somewhere along the line,the picture of some white dude with brown hair came into play. Basically, when Ronald McDonald is more recognized then the most recognized version of Jesus, it's a problem.

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.

However, for children around their age, they are predominately exposed to 'Honky' Jesus. The fact of the matter is, those children wouldn't have recognized the picture of ANY religious person.

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

Yes, however we do know the basics; the little we can ascertain from witness accounts, and basic knowledge; I.E he's going to be of an Ottoman or, possibly, Moorish descent, and as par with Jew customs, would have long hair.

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......

Not really. While a fringe few celebrate it as Jesus' Birth, and some celebrate it as a time for compassion and love for man (Which, although not the point of Christmas, was still the message of Christ), it's undeniable that for most, it's all about presents. Interesting statistic I took last year at school for some small-point assignment in History. About 60% of the people interviewed identified themselfs as Christian. 93% Celebrated Christmas. While still a very limited poll (I think I asked something like 163 people) it's still a decent representation.

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

Quick question; which book was it, again, which detailed the Holy role of a giant bunny who ran around hiding egg's in childrens houses?

Oh yeah. Secularization.

I cannot understand God sometimes. He is supposed to be the ever-forgiving God. He is supposed to love his children. Even when god is angered he still loves. Then why does he sometimes smite his children? What was the point of destroying Sodom and its inhabitants because they were gay? In the end, God is making a mistake. If Homosexuality is a sin, then it must be treated as such. People are not smitten for their sins, but are sent to hell after they die. Why would it not be the same for the citizens of Sodom? I mean, there's no reasoning since we know it did not destroy homosexuality. And again, even if he had, that would would be destroying a sin, a sin that is supposed to test a Christian's faith.

At 12/5/06 06:03 PM, EKublai wrote: I cannot understand God sometimes. He is supposed to be the ever-forgiving God. He is supposed to love his children. Even when god is angered he still loves. Then why does he sometimes smite his children? What was the point of destroying Sodom and its inhabitants because they were gay?

Theres a difference between God's will, and God's Will as said by the Christian Church.

At 12/5/06 06:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

I cannot understand God sometimes. He is supposed to be the ever-forgiving God. He is supposed to love his children. Even when god is angered he still loves. Then why does he sometimes smite his children? What was the point of destroying Sodom and its inhabitants because they were gay?

Remember, the bible was written by man, not by god.

At 12/5/06 07:39 PM, Mercator wrote:

Remember, the bible was written by man, not by god.

I didn't write that. The man above me did. All I did was quote him, saying the exact same thing you just said. In other words, theres no reason for you to be alive.

Ok. Um... marriage is for if you really love someone. It's not about religion or anything. I'm suprised you didn't get banned or suspended for critisizing other religions.

At 12/5/06 07:57 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 12/5/06 07:39 PM, Mercator wrote:

Remember, the bible was written by man, not by god.

I didn't write that. The man above me did. All I did was quote him, saying the exact same thing you just said. In other words, theres no reason for you to be alive.

My bad. All I did was accidently delete the wrong name. Calm down Nog head. What I said, was a translation to those who understand plain english. I didnt talk cryptically like yoda, just plain said it

At 12/5/06 08:09 PM, Mercator wrote:

My bad. All I did was accidently delete the wrong name. Calm down Nog head. What I said, was a translation to those who understand plain english. I didnt talk cryptically like yoda, just plain said it

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. See, notice how your still talking? That's sort of a problem.

Not to diss you or anything, but a "Marriage" isn't just a christian ceremony. In fact if that were so, half of the people married now would not be married. A "marriage" according to sociologists, and many others define marriage as a "union of two or more people". I beleive that you should let them do whatever they want, that way you won't have to hear from them anymore. I am not saying that what you are saying is exactly wrong, I am just blurting out my own thoughts and opinions on this issue.

At 11/27/06 07:51 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: You would want to have sex with my dad.

Fuck it, you're an idiot.

At 12/5/06 06:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 12/5/06 06:03 PM, EKublai wrote: I cannot understand God sometimes. He is supposed to be the ever-forgiving God. He is supposed to love his children. Even when god is angered he still loves. Then why does he sometimes smite his children? What was the point of destroying Sodom and its inhabitants because they were gay?

Theres a difference between God's will, and God's Will as said by the Christian Church.

What are we to agree is actually God's wil without being biased on one religiion then? Then how can we actually debate this topic from two different wills of God. That liek arguming with two different sets of statistics.

At 12/5/06 10:04 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 12/5/06 06:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 12/5/06 06:03 PM, EKublai wrote:

Theres a difference between God's will, and God's Will as said by the Christian Church.

What are we to agree is actually God's wil without being biased on one religiion then? Then how can we actually debate this topic from two different wills of God. That liek arguming with two different sets of statistics.

Well, we all pretty much agree that god/allah/whateva created the universe and is an, in general, good being. He/she/it can take life when it pleases, and when He/she/it is angered or feels disrespected.

At 12/5/06 02:39 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: So, riddle me this; why not just have a Civil Union thats designed completely free from religion, which allowes the church to maintain their ideals and homosexuals to be wed and get all the benifits of marriage.

Brilliant idea, guv. Make it so!

Once it does exist, and is completely equal to marriage for state and federal benefits, then the problem is solved. After all a rose by any other name would smell as sweet or some such bull.

At 12/5/06 10:04 PM, EKublai wrote:

What are we to agree is actually God's wil without being biased on one religiion then? Then how can we actually debate this topic from two different wills of God.

We're not arguing if theres anything wrong with gays, we're arguing if theres something wrong with gays getting religious ceremonies from a religion who consideres them sinners

At 12/6/06 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Brilliant idea, guv. Make it so!

I'm not saying I can make it so, I'm saying it should be so. THat is, after all, the point of posting.

Once it does exist, and is completely equal to marriage for state and federal benefits, then the problem is solved. After all a rose by any other name would smell as sweet or some such bull.

Which is exactly what I said in the first paragraph, there, champ.

At 12/9/06 07:24 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 12/6/06 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Brilliant idea, guv. Make it so!

I'm not saying I can make it so, I'm saying it should be so. THat is, after all, the point of posting.

Well, then, now that we're agreed, how DO we make it so?

After all, pointing out a solution you have no idea how to implement would be silly, wouldn't it?

Gays are just well gay