Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/08 05:02 PM, Xavierthewarlord wrote: I'm asking what the point of a Gay Pride Parade is. So your different, woopy. They want to be treated the same, yet they get a PARADE?

Soooo...
we can't treat gays as equals because they put on a parade?

Well, let's dock veterans their pay who also parade around, amirite?

I want a parade.

nobody's peeing in your cheerios...

At 12/10/08 05:51 PM, redzone wrote: Gays shouldn't even be allowed to be allowed to have any form of relationships.

I believe gays should be treated as criminals.

coming from the guy who said this

what are you afraid of? Think some gay man might try and "convert" you?
Get over yourself

At 12/10/08 05:02 PM, Xavierthewarlord wrote:

At 12/10/08 04:38 PM, fli wrote:

At 12/10/08 12:37 PM, Xavierthewarlord wrote:

I'm asking what the point of a Gay Pride Parade is. So your different, woopy. They want to be treated the same, yet they get a PARADE?

Its because gays are the minority in this country. Its kinda like if your a staunch Bush supporter.

they get parades because they dress like this

I want a parade.

go and start it

At 12/10/08 09:15 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 12/10/08 08:41 PM, aninjaman wrote: Whites and straight people do not have parades because they have not been discriminated against.

Ever watched BET or Bravo?

Because those channels are restricting my rights.

At 12/11/08 04:22 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 12/10/08 09:15 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 12/10/08 08:41 PM, aninjaman wrote: Whites and straight people do not have parades because they have not been discriminated against.

Ever watched BET or Bravo?

Because those channels are restricting my rights.

Well, not directly. But you betya that if channels which were officially aiming at white people arose, there would be some angry outrage in society.

It hurts me deep in my heart every time I read people bashing gays, or thinking they don't deserve the rights of others.
Athiests marry.
Other races marry.
Straights marry.

Why can't gays?

When you think about it, marriage is NOT a Christian ceremony, as Christianity is not a religion we have to believe in, it can be anything for anyone. So basically, you are saying not only gays cant marry, but no other religion can. Christianity does not equal Marriage rights. Yes, I am gay, and I deserve to marry just like every other person in the world.

It's a sad state of affairs when someone in America is deprived of rights to which others are entitled because of their life style choices. I think it's fair to say that everyone in the U.S. takes some rights for granted. Yet, some people choose to throw shit fits should one of their rights be infringed ever so slightly, protest against being denied these rights, then turn around and deny rights to others.

Marriage is in no way a Christian ceremony. Are you saying atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. can't get married?

People say how it's "ruining the sanctity of marriage," and how "God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman," but weren't people in non-christian countries getting married hundreds of years ago anyway? Marriage isn't exclusively christian, people. Therefore, it's not threatening any "christian" way of life.

Big Mod didn't allow me to post this as a new topic, so I hope it gets as much attention here.

Let's stop arguing about the technical definition of "marriage", and really think about this for a second.

Just like a woman's right to vote, a woman's right to work, a black man's right to vote, a black child's right to go to the same school as a white child, a black man's right to eat at the same restaurant as a white man, this is just another civil rights issue.

And in the past, America, being a nation of immigrants, has dealt with many civil rights issues, and it has always involved heated opposition. The final decisions have often been made in the Supreme Court, which almost always ends up deciding pro civil rights.

So you people who are against same sex marriage for whatever reason...the history books will have the children of tomorrow frowning on you. This is NOT a matter of my or your opinion; it will happen.

At 4/5/09 05:45 PM, Vincens wrote: let me make this clear GAYS are nasty and should not live in society if i saw gays kissing i would puke

Hoping this is sarcasm....

Just fucking give gays the right to marry already. Its not like its hurting anybody. Plus, it is restricting rights that gays would otherwise have if they could form a marriage.

At 4/5/09 04:22 PM, moose3642 wrote: Big Mod didn't allow me to post this as a new topic, so I hope it gets as much attention here.

Let's stop arguing about the technical definition of "marriage", and really think about this for a second.

Of course, since the whole issue is one of definitions, this is where I stopped reading.

i don't know whether i should laugh or cry about that.
please, just read it.

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: panties in a bunch

Wow.

Firstly, lets not confuse the sacrament of marriage with the institution. Marriage as a sacrament is indeed a Christian value that should be interpreted by the Christian faith. No worries there, so far you're batting 100%.

Marriage as an institution, however, is an entirely different state in which two people decide to become joined wholly. And if you're a Marxist like I am, the only way this can be interpreted is that "wholly" stands for "economically"

Lets think about it. You don't need a church or state to tell you you're in love, or to affirm who you have sex with. All these various commitments can be consummated without a ring or magical words to the Almighty Juju on the Mount. What you need from a state is to legally bind people economically, such that if/when they are separated (death or otherwise), then monetary wealth is transferred.

From this I conclude that if you want the Christian sacrament of marriage (as a separate issue) preserved in the hands of the church, then go ahead. But the only legal marriage should be state sanctioned, as an entirely separate issue. If gays want the same kind of coverage we afford to homosexuals, then so be it.

And nice try playing the "I'm not a homophobe because I'm bi". Bull-fucking-shit.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong? This is my problem with this, we're letting a book written 3,000 years ago govern us. It's a common argument, but people love to argue against it for some queer (no pun intended) reason.

At 4/6/09 01:25 AM, Liptons wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong?

Because incest actually harms other people (by bringing out defects in the gene pool), where as giving legal unions to gay people doesn't.

At 4/6/09 01:28 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 4/6/09 01:25 AM, Liptons wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong?

Because incest actually harms other people (by bringing out defects in the gene pool), where as giving legal unions to gay people doesn't.

Yeah but it's the Bible, and it's always right. /sarcasm
Thanks also for saying that giving legal unions to gay people doesn't harm other people. At all. If our reason for illegalising incest is because it causes defects, what's our reason for opposing gay marriage?

At 4/6/09 01:38 AM, Liptons wrote:

At 4/6/09 01:28 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 4/6/09 01:25 AM, Liptons wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong?

Because incest actually harms other people (by bringing out defects in the gene pool), where as giving legal unions to gay people doesn't.

Yeah but it's the Bible, and it's always right. /sarcasm
Thanks also for saying that giving legal unions to gay people doesn't harm other people. At all. If our reason for illegalising incest is because it causes defects, what's our reason for opposing gay marriage?

I don't really think the two can be argued together like that - one is banned out of necessity and public health concerns, while the other is a matter of lexical and/or ethical debate. It's a rare person who can rationalize the idea of gay marriage being as detrimental to the human race as the genetic defects that incest brings about. If we're going to debate gay marriage, then we can't compare apples to oranges.

I hate to break it to you folks, but incest doesn't cause genetic defects. If defects are present in a family, incestuous reproduction might amplify them, but it doesn't conjure them out of nowhere.

Incest is an extremely complicated sociological issue. The genetic aspect has more to do with heterozygosity being necessary to a healthy population than any outward mutations. There is also the fact that most incestuous relationships are non-consensual in some way - i.e. the weaker party is generally being manipulated into sexual activity with the stronger.

Besides, comparing incestuous relationships to homosexual ones is a total apples-to-oranges argument.

Sorry, dySWN, missed your last bit there.

But my point still stands, the argument against incest that it causes genetic defects is fallacious.

At 12/28/07 12:56 AM, mash4077th wrote: me being religous(SRAIGHT) and a scientist
it is UNNATURAL for gays to have intercourse
im not fond of gay marigde but when it reachs sexual level the relationship to me is offically UNNATURAL
as in the primitive human bioligy it is simple to say man + woman = babys + egosystem = survival
but gay(inculding lesbians) + gay = NOTHING + egosystem = on large scale humans die out/ EXTINTION
so what i say is do NOT FORNICATE(for dim people sex) WITH OTHERS OF THE SAME SEX(for idiots gender)
now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you're just trolling, but I want to answer anyway. No, you're not a scientist. You're clearly pretending to be a scientist in order to gain some "credibility" here.

Your whole ridiculous argument seems to rely on the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_n ature

For your hypothetical scenario about large-scale homosexuality, what if men somehow died out and this planet would only be populated by women? Would it be immoral to be a woman, since they can't reproduce together? Your arguments don't make any sense whatsoever. Then again, you're a troll, so they are clearly not even supposed to make sense.

The biggest argument is (or at least the best for why not to be against it, is because it doesn't affect other people. If it doesn't do that, people should have their own choice in doing something if it doesn't hurt other people or even themselves in this case, really.

At 4/6/09 11:01 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Sorry, dySWN, missed your last bit there.

But my point still stands, the argument against incest that it causes genetic defects is fallacious.

I was careful to phrase it that way, wasn't I?

Still, that doesn't change the fact that, for the purposes of this argument, incest does have degenerative effects on the human gene pool and is, therefore, not comparable to gay unions (which, at worst, simply don't contribute to it). Everyone has a lurking allele or two, just waiting to be expressed and cause havoc - and incest is one good way to bring it out.

We need to maintain a sepperation of church and state.

The only exeption I can think of where a gay couple should be allowed to marry is if they can find a priest/minister/reverend who would be willing to do the ceremony for them, and their church approves. Obviously if the church aproves with it, theres no trouble.

You're saying that religon is getting in the way between the state. Techinically you're doing the same thing. Why am I saying this? Beacause America is a Christian country(duh) And obviously these beliefs will be pushed onto the gay community. Not a very good Christian you are!

At 4/6/09 09:14 PM, dySWN wrote: I was careful to phrase it that way, wasn't I?

Nope.

"...detrimental to the human race as the genetic defects that incest brings about..."

Your phrasing assumes that incest causes genetic defects. Which it does not.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that, for the purposes of this argument, incest does have degenerative effects on the human gene pool and is, therefore, not comparable to gay unions (which, at worst, simply don't contribute to it).

Agreed.

I thought I would point out that a statistically significant number of heterosexual couples are not married in or by a religious institution. There are certainly churches that will marry gay couples, but that's a total non-factor here. I wasn't married in a church, and when I was given the option between a religious and a civil ceremony, I chose the latter. I am still just as married as someone who stood in front of a congregation and was married by a minister...because marriage is just as much a secular contract as it is a religious sacrament. Allowing any religious group dominion over it is a clear violation of the spirit of religious freedom in this country.

Well the fact of the matter is that people who aren't christian DO marry. Maybe they should have some other form of marriage for other religions, but it is simpler to have one civil ceremony for all people. Marriage USED to be a christian ceremony, now its a human ceremony.

At 4/7/09 11:34 PM, WitchWolf wrote: Maybe they should have some other form of marriage for other religions, but it is simpler to have one civil ceremony for all people.

If by "simpler" you mean incredibly offensive to devout religious people, then good for you. There is NO reason to do away with religious ceremonies. By suggesting that one ceremony should cover all people regardless of faith, you are going to alienate people who would otherwise be amenable to letting gays marry.

And marriage has been a "human ceremony" a hell of a lot longer than it has been a Christian ceremony.

At 4/7/09 11:34 PM, WitchWolf wrote: Well the fact of the matter is that people who aren't christian DO marry. Maybe they should have some other form of marriage for other religions, but it is simpler to have one civil ceremony for all people. Marriage USED to be a christian ceremony, now its a human ceremony.

I agree with you. I'm a religious person, but that shouldn't exclude other people from something.

Hm. Another question. Should priests be forced to marry gay people when they disagree with gay marriage. In most american states, some sort of civil union is allowed. Just not with all the same rights as marriage. I'd imagine quite a few people would refuse to marry gay couples on various grounds. Should the government compel them to marry gay couples against their will?

I doubt that the majority of gay men would find marriage appropriate. It's well attested that gay men have a lot more sex than heterosexuals, on average. Men are generally a lot more willing to have sex. As such, it wouldn't do a great deal of good to the institution of marriage, when large numbers of couples started regularly cheating on their partners. It'd go through the media, send a generally bad message. Regular break ups with partners really aren't good for children, and it sucks to have one abusive new boyfriend after another enter the home to abuse you. Plus not many are willing to have babies, which is a major reason why the state funds marriage. Marriage would probably attract the more monogomous ones. *shrug*

Lesbians are generally better. They're only a little worse than heterosexual men, in terms of total number of sexual partners (from the statistics I've seen, about 4 sexual partners in a life time for het women, 7 for men, 12 for lesbians, and around 80 for gay men. Though the gay men statistic is skewed upwards a lot by a few who have hundreds or thousands of partners.) and more have children from a past marriage when they were 'straight' or from artificial insemination or adoption. They're better candidates for marriage.

Not that you'd ever get a law that discriminated between gay men and lesbians.

At 4/8/09 06:47 PM, Ytaker wrote: Hm. Another question. Should priests be forced to marry gay people when they disagree with gay marriage. In most american states, some sort of civil union is allowed. Just not with all the same rights as marriage. I'd imagine quite a few people would refuse to marry gay couples on various grounds. Should the government compel them to marry gay couples against their will?

Priests aren't being forced to marry gay couples.
The fight is for the secular marriage-- done at the courts.

Gays will still have their legal rights, and the organized religions will still have their right of religion-- by denying them in their own places of worship.

but under no circumstance should organized religions be allowed to extend their power of authority to a government that MUST be compelled to serve all citizens equally.

I doubt that the majority of gay men would find marriage appropriate. It's well attested that gay men have a lot more sex than heterosexuals, on average. Men are generally a lot more willing to have sex. As such, it wouldn't do a great deal of good to the institution of marriage, when large numbers of couples started regularly cheating on their partners. It'd go through the media, send a generally bad message. Regular break ups with partners really aren't good for children, and it sucks to have one abusive new boyfriend after another enter the home to abuse you. Plus not many are willing to have babies, which is a major reason why the state funds marriage. Marriage would probably attract the more monogomous ones. *shrug*

I will attest, as a gay man, that gays do need marriage. Just the other day, a lesbian mother was going to be deported because she can't legally marry her wife of 20 years. And they've been raising children for 12 years.

And thought out the years, gays have been cheated of their inheritances, paid extra for insurance, not been able to be legal guardians to their families. All because they can't get married.

And, honey-- all men are dogs.
But that doesn't mean gay men can't be monogamous. I've seen marraiges between men last over 50 years and they've never cheated. I was in a monogamous relationship for almost 10 years before we parted our ways.

But abolishing gays because they may or may not be monogamous?
c'mon...........

Lesbians are generally better. They're only a little worse than heterosexual men, in terms of total number of sexual partners (from the statistics I've seen, about 4 sexual partners in a life time for het women, 7 for men, 12 for lesbians, and around 80 for gay men. Though the gay men statistic is skewed upwards a lot by a few who have hundreds or thousands of partners.) and more have children from a past marriage when they were 'straight' or from artificial insemination or adoption. They're better candidates for marriage.

Not that you'd ever get a law that discriminated between gay men and lesbians.

I feel so indignant,
I'm gonna stop right here....