Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/3/07 07:06 PM, candymancan wrote:

At 12/30/06 03:36 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/30/06 09:45 AM, internet-lord wrote:

At 12/29/06 10:51 PM, Enoll wrote: Again, I re-state, DO NOT talk to Dre-man.
He is an idiot.

Nobody can help it. He keeps asking for it.

Dre-man is a little nut sack who I would love to kick the shit into! Because I have a sneeky suspision that he is a little wimp.

Dre-Man has a very good point, actually. Gay marriage is soley the responsibility of the church. The state should have no say in it. As a matter of fact, marriage in general should be handled by the church only. And why exactly are you being such an ass hole? It's very immature of you to act soley on instinct, and insult people with differing views.

Its not different views that’s the problem. Let’s say (hypothetically) there’s this guy Steve and Ben. Steve if gay but Ben is not. Now Ben has a new girlfriend and Steve has a new boyfriend. Now both these couples love one another almost the exact same amount. Both these couples have the same feelings about one another. And both couples want to get married.

SO WHAT IS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE?!?!

I do not see any problem with Gay marriage, and religious little nut sacks like dre-man and stupid fucking bastards who cant get passed there own ignorance cant fucking get it through there thick skulls that this is progress. Homosexual marriage is showing tolerance to homosexuals where in the future hopefully people will get passed there own stupidity!!!! He thinks that gay marriage should be left for the church to decide where he fucking knows they will condemn it.

At 1/3/07 08:02 PM, candymancan wrote: That shouldn't happen, there should be no lawful binding of the two people. There should only be a religious/spiritual binding. Marriage is a thing of the soul, it is a thing of love, it should have nothing to do with the law.

This is where I disagree. Of course a legalized marriage is dead useful for rearing families. It gives legal precedent to every aspect to a marriage such as custody rights, finances, and so much more.

This not to say that a marriage isn't beyond mere legal mumbo jumbo, however, without a doubt, marriage is important to many people who don't have legal procedures to certain aspects of family life. For gays with children, marriage becomes especially important because this issue becomes beyond a "We're queer, we're here, get to use to it" slogan. It's beyond the "we need to be equal."

It's for the well being of the family.

We do have church and state, and that's a good thing, if we didn't the government would be allowed to put laws on religion, would you like that to happen?

Not anymore how a religion puts imposses its view on the law because it's not comfortable with certain aspects about life.

We do have a seperation of church and state.

I never said it was exclusively Christian, I said it was exclusively spiritual and religious.

And yet, two atheists could marry each other. Not in a civil partnership or whatever rubish term people are trying to use. Married. As in a marriage.

Consider this:
if a marriage is an exclusive spiritual and religious ceremony... then why couldn't homosexuals marry? Don't they have the same spirituality, religiousness, and dedication as other heterosexual couples? Metropolitan Community Church believe that homosexuals could marry and they infact marry them (although they're not legal like if a straight couple married in their church).

Even if marriage is what you've just said,
it only validates homosexuals to marry in church because homosexual partners have by far faced much more trials and tribulations in a relationship than any other straight coupling. This is because not only they face the regular issues of a relationship (life, work, kids... etc.), they face this without the same aid these straight couples have... and ontop of this, they're facing a society that persecutes them.

And how do these marriages last?
Because there is a strong spiritual bond.

When San Francisco was marrying homosexuals, the first people weren't young... they were couples, kindly looking grandma and grandpa looking people, who been together 20, 30, and even 50 years together.

And they can't get married neither legally nor religiously?
Talk about cruel...

The law should have no say in marriage, at all. Regardless of what you and I think, seperation of church and state prohibits the government from involving itself in the issue of marriage, being a religious and spiritual practice.

Of course, however, homosexuals want legal marriages, which are secular. Which any legally consenting adults could have with an opposite sex partner.

Meaning, seperate taxes. No legal precedent for divorce, child custody, and what not. No legal rights in hospitals and etc.

Once again, that shouldn't happen. That should be purely between the two partners.

They could always go to the state and marry again, in a legal and non-secular marriage, which is really what homosexuals want.

I don't care what they want, they can't lawfully force the church to give them what they want. If the church decides to allow them to marry, then they can, if not, then they can not. The church decides.

Don't know where you're getting the idea that the state is forcing churches to marry homosexuals, because this isn't the case. Homosexuals want to marry in the court, which is seperate from the church.

At 1/3/07 09:04 PM, candymancan wrote: Fli, stop making it sound like I said that I thought gays COULDN'T marry, I said nothing of the sort, I just said that the church should be the only one who decides whether or not they can or cannot marry.

Thus you're arguing against something that I never even said.

Sooooooo...
You believe homosexuals can marry then?

Because, from what I've read, sounds like you disagree in either circumstance.

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: the Christian bible specifically say's homosexuality is wrong.

no it doesnt. people made the translation that just because god made a man and a woman first then that should be the only way it can happen.

well, arn't they are changing marriage from "a union between a man and woman" to "a union between two people" think about that.

At 1/3/07 09:04 PM, candymancan wrote: Fli, stop making it sound like I said that I thought gays COULDN'T marry, I said nothing of the sort, I just said that the church should be the only one who decides whether or not they can or cannot marry.

Thus you're arguing against something that I never even said.

You're saying that gays can't marry, because almost every single church would deny them of such a marriage, and the churches that would allow such marriages are few and far inbetween. Now cut the act, Dre-Man.

At 7/19/06 09:10 PM, Xmas-Bound-Pervert 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.

Amen mate! i'm not christian, or gay or whatever but i still think that the bible (Dangit i'm gonna get flamed for this) has a ton of wrong and stupid rules in it! So what if christians say something like "You will burn in hell if you do not follow the word of god!" to people, its up to them and them alone!

At 1/4/07 10:27 PM, flamingninja777 wrote: Amen mate! i'm not christian, or gay or whatever but i still think that the bible (Dangit i'm gonna get flamed for this) has a ton of wrong and stupid rules in it! So what if christians say something like "You will burn in hell if you do not follow the word of god!" to people, its up to them and them alone!

I agree, I think. If you tell someone that they are going to go to hell, well, it really isn't your problem, not is it. A lot of people don't realize this and then they go and try to change people. If something is a sin, it's not up to you to fix it or punish someone for itt, it's up to your God.

But it's not just Christians that say this. It's people who are just homophobic and are using the bible as a weapon.

Sigh...do us a favor and slap yourself please...no one bitches about u being u being a retard not getting into your buiness. so dued just mind your own damn buisness... quit being nosy.

At 1/3/07 07:19 PM, fli wrote:

To remove this hypocritcal double standard, we should void the legal benefits of a religious ceremony because, as you're putting your argument in this legal, "The state should have no say in it."

Meaning, seperate taxes. No legal precedent for divorce, child custody, and what not. No legal rights in hospitals and etc.

They could always go to the state and marry again, in a legal and non-secular marriage, which is really what homosexuals want.

I am not quite sure what you were meaning by this? it sounded like you do not want anyone to be able to get married by the church heterosexual, or homosexual. but want it to be a court issued license.

For the record, I could care less if gay people get married as long as is it is done outside the church, in other words they would have to go to a court and get the license through the Justice of the peace, And NOT through the church, Yes Hate me if you want, Any Church.

You cant straddle the fence so to speak and pick and choose what you want to believe in and obey when it comes to being a Christian, I am NOT saying that a Gay person should not go to church, everyone should be allowed to if they choose, but Being Gay Does not give a person the right to change the Bible or the Christian faith to suite them.

So GO to church , just get hitched at court.

when I think about this issue I think it isn't the right of others to ban. It's an unbannable issue by logic

The American Constitution the right to freedom of religious expression.

gay marriage is its own form of religious expression in that if you are Christian but also gay, the fact that you support gay marriage means that you interpret the bible differently.

Of course, the first amendment forbids banning any religious expression as long as its peaceful and is not an attempt to demoralize the country.

A christian can choose to follow the bible is his or her own way including what teachings to follow and which to dismiss. The last time I checked, there is no clear definition to what makes a christian a christian. Anyone who argues that is clearly arguing for a certain branch.

Gay marriage should not be the choice of the ones who do not interpret the bible the same way, but rather the choices of those who realize that banning gay marriage would be the same as banning alcohol during inhibition in church ceremonies among other things the church would never think of allowing. It's the same as banning halloween in the country, something that is not likely to end. This works with both side of the argument, so even if the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, it also says incest is, and yet fundamentalist christians will sometimes go as far as to say that a women cannot have an abortion in such cases.

There is nothing wrong with gay marriege, and no one here can find a good excuse against it other than there own stupidity!

At 1/9/07 03:35 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 1/3/07 07:19 PM, fli wrote:

To remove this hypocritcal double standard, we should void the legal benefits of a religious ceremony because, as you're putting your argument in this legal, "The state should have no say in it."

Meaning, seperate taxes. No legal precedent for divorce, child custody, and what not. No legal rights in hospitals and etc.

They could always go to the state and marry again, in a legal and non-secular marriage, which is really what homosexuals want.

Okay first...

I am not quite sure what you were meaning by this? it sounded like you do not want anyone to be able to get married by the church heterosexual, or homosexual. but want it to be a court issued license.

Let's remove "what I want" because I didn't mention what I want. I said that if 1.) there is a seperation of church and state, then 2.) the church, of any demonination, shouldn't conduct the afairs of the government and vice versa. However, when people marry in a religious ceremony, then 3.) they also conduct in a public governmental service.

Now,
the argument of the now deleted poster said that since we have a seperation of church and state, that the government has no business in saying who should be married.

If that statement is true, then there is inconsistancy in allow religious ceremonies serving place for public secular ceremonies. This is a hypocritical double standard and if we are, indeed, trying to strive for a seperation of church and state, then we should remove the legal marriage out of the religious ceremonial marriage.

The church would still be able to have the right to marry the people whom they want, but they will be, in essence, be exactly like gay ceremonial marriages that MCC conducts for its Congregation: spiritual... but without any legal pomp or circumstance.

For the record, I could care less if gay people get married as long as is it is done outside the church, in other words they would have to go to a court and get the license through the Justice of the peace, And NOT through the church, Yes Hate me if you want, Any Church.

As far as I can tell you, we're the same... however, but not every church believes that gays shouldn't marry. What's in it for you to censor the spirituality of a gay couple when they have the same spiritual right to share the same praise of, really, everyone's God? Nothing, really...

My matters mostly concern secular government marriages although I do believe there is great injustice to the Gay theist community.

You cant straddle the fence so to speak and pick and choose what you want to believe in and obey when it comes to being a Christian, I am NOT saying that a Gay person should not go to church, everyone should be allowed to if they choose, but Being Gay Does not give a person the right to change the Bible or the Christian faith to suite them.

The same argument could be said of the actions of several Christians for certainly, and although I'm an Atheist, I am my education a Jesuit member so I know what I'm talking about, they pick and choose what's good and what isn't good.

And it's readily apparent by the sheer amount of Christian demoninations... world wide, each with a spin and a varied interprutation, all of them having the scripturial authority (which in itself is as varied as the numerous demoninations as it serves.)

I'm with you, I believe that Christians shouldn't pick and choose.
However, unlike you, I'm more wise on the fact that whatever religion you have right now has committed that very sin although... what can I say?

All the religions has jumped over that bridge.

So GO to church , just get hitched at court.

Eh-- I'm not so much of a church person although I will attend, as a friend of the community and not part of them, the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I will have some sort of epitome and decide to believe in God again, but should that happen... I will go to the Church who will accept me fully as I am... The Metropolitan Community Churches.

At 12/30/06 06:54 PM, BritZombie wrote:

At 12/30/06 03:17 PM, LDN19 wrote:

, to be unset I don’t care what you do as long as its done BEHINED CLOSE DOOR'S and that goes for all sexualities.

John, I know you man, you don't think ALL sexualities should do the buisness behind closed doors

I don't think any sexualitys should have to...

At 1/19/07 07:28 AM, Bruce-Wayne wrote:

At 12/30/06 06:54 PM, BritZombie wrote:

At 12/30/06 03:17 PM, LDN19 wrote:

, to be unset I don’t care what you do as long as its done BEHINED CLOSE DOOR'S and that goes for all sexualities.

John, I know you man, you don't think ALL sexualities should do the buisness behind closed doors

I don't think any sexualitys should have to...

So you want everybody you see to be making out with another person everywhere you go? Wouldn't that get a tad annoying?

bump.

ok I agree with some of what you said seriuosly are you a moron this issue should not handed over to relgions our country is not ran on religion you just have the freedom to choose your religion and the fact that even think it should says you'll stay in the closet for life!

Man, i agree gays are so fkn retarted that they should not even exist.

At 7/19/06 09:10 PM, Xmas-Bound-Pervert 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.

I don't even think anyone needs to marry in order to love each other. My parents aren't married and they've been in love for over fifteen years. They've had two sons and nearly never fight. In fact, just last night, I commended them for not being married. In my opinion, marriage was just a form of control. An example: The poor man has a daughter, the rich man has a son. The son likes the daughter likes someone else. The father of the daughter commands her to marry the son (or the two fathers just arrange the marriage). Now the son and daughter are married and because people were so religious back then, the daughter wouldn't dare leave the son to go with who she really loves for fear that she would burn in hell.

Picture this:
Your a homosexual and you're really in love with someone and you propose,he accepts THEN you ask the priest to join him and his lover to marrage,and he says that catholisim forbids itWHAT...DO...YOU...DO?the initial reaction is heartbrake,that night,you cry yourself to sleep.
THINK BEFORE YOU SAY THINGS

Sometimes,the way of god isin't always the RIGHT way

At 7/20/07 03:46 PM, DarkestNightmare wrote: Picture this:
Your a homosexual and you're really in love with someone and you propose,he accepts THEN you ask the priest to join him and his lover to marrage,and he says that catholisim forbids itWHAT...DO...YOU...DO?the initial reaction is heartbrake,that night,you cry yourself to sleep.
THINK BEFORE YOU SAY THINGS

Sometimes,the way of god isin't always the RIGHT way

Or you could just not go to a Catholic priest.....sometimes the obvious just isn't obvious enough apparently.....

At 7/20/07 03:24 PM, jdo007334 wrote: Man, i agree gays are so fkn retarted that they should not even exist.

At least we have someone like THIS defending the sanctity of marriage. I was supporting Gay Marriage 100% until he came along. Now FUCK EM ALL!

Gay's shouldn't exist? 1) It isn't a choice (To my knowledge) and 2) How do gays existing hurt you? Unless you watch gay porn (which would not surprise me), how does their existance effect you? They aren't ASKING you to be gay. They're asking for tolerance for the way of their lifestyle, whether it's chosen or not. That's like saying "All Muslims are Gay and so 'fkn retarted' that they should not exist".

Thank you jdo for showing me exactly why gays are so terrible. Because they're "fkn retarted".

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Marriage is a Christian Ceremony,

So i guess that means a Jews, Muslims, ext can't get married.

At 7/21/06 05:16 PM, Streakydesign wrote: I mean you say marriage is a christian thing? Well i'm cathlioc, does that mean i'm not allowed to marry a man because i'm not of the right faith.

Cathliocs are christians.

Okay I'm sick and tired of people saying marriage is defined as only male and female in ever fucking dictionary because its not her is the definition

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.

(yes this one say man and women)

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

(This one doesn't)

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

(This one does)

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

(this one doesn't and it even includes homosexuals Oh my god)

5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

(Doesn't state anything about man and women)

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

(Doesn't say anything about man and women)

7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

(can't really use this as an example)

8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.

(I guess you can say this means man and women)

9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.

(can't really use)

10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

(man and women)

as you can see the definition doesn't mean MEN AND WOMEN ONLY so nice try okay yes it does refer to men and women because it most common so XP

I rest my case the definition of Marriage is not MAN AND WOMEN only

3/10 men and women marriage (4/10 counting the one about cards) not even half of the definition states men and women only if fact most of it means to merge two things together.

oh my god

At 7/20/07 04:03 PM, Imperator wrote: Or you could just not go to a Catholic priest.....sometimes the obvious just isn't obvious enough apparently.....

But if gay marriage is illegal, then you can't get married at all.

What I think is that it should be legal for gays to marry, while at the same time it will also be legal for churches to apply for a waver. They should be able to go to the state and ask to be able to deny gays if they don't believe it is right.

God, this thread brings back great memories. This is where I posted my first post. :')

Christ almighty, this threads still active?

At 7/21/07 03:35 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Christ almighty, this threads still active?

;
I guess reactivated is more the fact.

Doesn't change that Gays should have every right under the "LAW" that Hetro's have.
THat don't mean your church (which ever one you think the sun shines out of) should have to marry gays.
It is in my mind a simple LEGAL argument.
If Hetro's have the right to get married by the state.
Gay's should have the right to be married by the state as well.
Simple!
No religion needs be involved.
All the hypocrits and their so called peace & love bullshit religious groups can dress up in their 'Sunday go to meeting clothes' and go & practice their hypocracy!

If a person is gay , and he wants to marry - it's not upto the church to decide weather the bond is sacred or not..

maybe jesus was a homophobe..

At 7/21/07 12:48 PM, rithel wrote: If a person is gay , and he wants to marry - it's not upto the church to decide weather the bond is sacred or not..

maybe jesus was a homophobe..

;
In the early Roman Catholic church, not only was homosexual practices being done by senior clergy, they were doing it to children (altar boys ) so they were pedophile Homo's.

Can you imagine going to confess your sins for possible 'impure thoughts' to an old bastard who just had his member in the mouth of a young boy.

Steal from the poor & give to the rich.
Rape children
torture those who believe differently than you
that sounds like a great religion to me <sarcasm>

Think as gays (I dont think like this) as 'deformed human beings'. They would be the same as those who are born being unable to walk, to speak, without hands... They, really deformed are allowed to marry, so why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed too? I think that we all human beings should have the same rights.