Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/18/10 10:25 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The world is overpopulated enough.

Source?

If gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of religion, then neither should atheists. Yet in places where gay marriage is illegal, atheists can get away with it, can't they? I never see or read lengthy debates about atheists getting married, either IRL, BBS, or the news. I don't even know if marriage is strictly a religious practice. I asked my humanities college teacher and she said it's iffy to know where marriage originated from. I'm sorry if this had been brought up before in this thread, but I don't feel like reading the whole thing.

I think Gays have the right to marry another person who likes a person of the same sex. Saying that they shouldn't marry is like taking their rights away.

i don't understand why they say marriage is such a big thing. Half the people that do get married get divorce. Gays should be allowed to get married. This is the land of the free not the land of the Christians

At 3/20/10 07:46 PM, darkrchaos wrote: i don't understand why they say marriage is such a big thing. Half the people that do get married get divorce.

One thing I overlooked in my thread about marriage is that about half the people who get divorced are under 25, at least in the US. I guess people shouldn't be marrying so young because, as one user said, personalities change.

Gays should be allowed to get married. This is the land of the free not the land of the Christians

Agreed.

At 3/20/10 08:22 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: One thing I overlooked in my thread about marriage is that about half the people who get divorced are under 25,

At the time they get married, that is.

At 3/19/10 03:34 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 3/18/10 10:25 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The world is overpopulated enough.

Source?

Uhh... the traffic outside my house? I think that is what you call an opinion based on various statistics and history, but also personal experience.

If gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of religion, then neither should atheists.

I think you missed the point. Sexual biology is the main religious and scientific point of discrimination against homosexual unions, because homosexual relationships cannot naturally produce children. What I would claim is...

"If gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of religion, then neither should people who masturbate."

At 3/22/10 06:44 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 3/19/10 03:34 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 3/18/10 10:25 PM, Gunner-D wrote: The world is overpopulated enough.

Source?

Uhh... the traffic outside my house? I think that is what you call an opinion based on various statistics and history, but also personal experience.

Is that suppose to be funny? Do you know how insignifcant of a porportion the area outside your house is compared to the rest of the world? That's like me saying, hypothetically, I live in the US and there isn't a serious problem with obesity or being overweight because I know people in my neighbourhood who aren't like that. The stats beg to differ.

If gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of religion, then neither should atheists.

I think you missed the point. Sexual biology is the main religious and scientific point of discrimination against homosexual unions, because homosexual relationships cannot naturally produce children.

I know that's a point, but doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour or else you'll be damned to Hell? Why should a Christian priest unite a man and woman who are openly atheists in a church and possibly under God? Even if they're not openly atheists, you'd think the church would do an investigation to make sure they believe in God. Anyway, as mentioned above, the US isn't the land of the Christians. Sure, religion and state aren't completely separate because everyone gets Christmas and Easter weekend as holidays, (and if people do work on those days, they get paid overtime, if I'm not mistaken) but marriage should also be separate.

Nah, not supposed to be funny. But you really take the most insignificant part of my statement (i.e. my opinion about overpopulation, whatever) and ask for a source? It is an opinion, buddy. I would be fine with less people on the earth. So what? No comedy involved.

However, you do make a good point that the state should not be involved in marriage. In a legal sense, yes, but homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against in that aspect.

At 3/22/10 06:02 PM, Gunner-D wrote: Nah, not supposed to be funny. But you really take the most insignificant part of my statement (i.e. my opinion about overpopulation, whatever) and ask for a source? It is an opinion, buddy. I would be fine with less people on the earth. So what? No comedy involved.

I didn't know it was an opinion. There's a difference between saying, "The world is overpopulated enough," and, "I think the world is overpopulated enough." Sometimes, it's hard to tell what someone is claiming. Also, because you were talking about adoption, I didn't see how overpopulation was the most insignificant part.

However, you do make a good point that the state should not be involved in marriage. In a legal sense, yes, but homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against in that aspect.

Yeah and I don't know why they are. Are some Christians so high and mighty they feel they rightfully have the power to influence laws? Must be. It's good at least people these days are open to oppose those viewpoints, unlike two to three hundred years ago. It may feel like a long time, but it's not, compared to the beginning humans came to be.

The world IS overpopulated enough. That is a fact and I cite the song "5 Billion People Must Die" by the band Toxic Narcotic. HAHA now that is supposed to be hilarious.

I know open homosexuals who are practicing Christians, who teach Sunday school and classes on how to maintain a proper relationship between spouse so that a child is not hurt by the negative effects of his/her parent's disfunctional marriage.

Pretty crazy, right? I guess the stereotype of the butt-loving double-sided-dildo wielding homo does not quiet fit in all cases.

How about this?

The ban on marriage is in obvious violation of the 14th Amendment.

Also, The ban is an obvious violation of the 1st amendment, in that the government is not supposed to promote religions.

The government doesn't care. THEY still get paid, THEY'RE health insurence payments won't go up, but OUR'S will.

The problem with this whole argument is that marriage is most certainly not a christian ceremony, it existed in almost every culture since the beginning of time no exceptions.

At 3/28/10 01:18 PM, patrick66 wrote: The problem with this whole argument is that marriage is most certainly not a christian ceremony, it existed in almost every culture since the beginning of time no exceptions.

has it been mentioned that marriage has also not always been only between man and woman?

gay people are people and thats all they should have the right to marry

Gay people are gay

At 3/29/10 03:27 AM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: Gay people are gay

I take offense at that. Tons of happy and merry people aren't homosexual!

At 3/29/10 03:27 AM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: Gay people are gay

XD

When i see a gay in the streat i give them a bad look, for like 30 seconds, to tell you the truth im trieng to provoke them to come to me and say "you got a problem" if a gay ever says a word to me, i dont think that they will like what will happen next, ive got 100% tollerence from gay poeple, if they act gay near me they die, if they dont even look at me, then idc.

At 3/30/10 10:01 AM, Elitegamezone wrote: When i see a gay in the streat i give them a bad look, for like 30 seconds, to tell you the truth im trieng to provoke them to come to me and say "you got a problem" if a gay ever says a word to me, i dont think that they will like what will happen next, ive got 100% tollerence from gay poeple, if they act gay near me they die, if they dont even look at me, then idc.

So you try to piss someone off for the excuse to kick the shit out of them? How is that tolerance, that's trying to skirt around the law by using self defense as an excuse to hurt people.

Also, how can you tell a gay person on the street? If a person who happened to be gay said something to you, even "hello" you'd just beat the shit out of them? Again, that is not tolerance.

At 3/29/10 11:24 AM, Drakim wrote: I take offense at that. Tons of happy and merry people aren't homosexual!%u2248%u2248%u2248

Kevin bacon to your kevin bacon but kevin bacon people are still kevin bacon

I haven't been posting on newgrounds in a year, and you cunts are still bumping my posts? If ya buncha bastards keep reminding my how much my influence is missed I might just have to start coming back =p

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

Sorry buddy, I have nothing against homosexual people, I just thought you needed to be corrected...

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

At 4/5/10 12:08 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

Sorry buddy, I have nothing against homosexual people, I just thought you needed to be corrected...

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Well that addresses his second point but not his first.

Every culture has it's own ideas on marriage, it'd be unjust to let the Christian view on marriage prevent people in our country who love each other from getting married.

At 4/5/10 12:08 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

Sorry buddy, I have nothing against homosexual people, I just thought you needed to be corrected...

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

yes--
Aren't a good bunch of Christian ready to point that we have a new covenant, and that they could have a Easter Ham... even though the old testament forbids this?

So either we have a new covenant, or we don't.

And the majority of the gay stuff is in the old testament.

What is more, it says PUT men who lie with men to death. It doesn't prevent gay marriage. All it says addresses to is the sexual component between men (and let it note, that it doesn't say anything about women.)

meh--

Your sig reminds me of that one book, The Giver.

At 4/5/10 03:57 PM, fli wrote:

Aren't a good bunch of Christian ready to point that we have a new covenant, and that they could have a Easter Ham... even though the old testament forbids this?

So either we have a new covenant, or we don't.

And the majority of the gay stuff is in the old testament.

This causes confusion, as people say "I follow the bible". You rarely hear people say that they "follow the new testament". When people say that they support the bible, they are saying that they support the whole thing, not just the good parts that talk about helping your fellow man, but also the fire and brimstone parts as well. When there is so much of the bible that you don't follow, but still keep in the bible and don't loudly speak out against, it gives the impression that it is subtlety supported, especially when crazy fundamentalist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church focus on those parts.

If you focus on the new testament, you should follow Jesus's message of treating your fellow man well, turning the other cheek, and to live and let live, not the more draconian messages of forcing your fellow man to live as you think they should live or suffer.

What is more, it says PUT men who lie with men to death. It doesn't prevent gay marriage. All it says addresses to is the sexual component between men (and let it note, that it doesn't say anything about women.)

Its actually kind of odd that homosexual women seem to be somewhat more accepted by our society than homosexual men.

At 4/6/10 04:27 PM, mayeram wrote: Its actually kind of odd that homosexual women seem to be somewhat more accepted by our society than homosexual men.

Not really I don't think. Men get turned on by two women together (as long as they're physically attractive) but the reverse does not really work well for gay men. Plus gay men are seen as not masculine or as "sissys" and men are socialized so strongly to be tough and macho that anything that contradicts that tends to make them uncomfortable or will be viewed as totally unacceptable.

At 4/6/10 04:27 PM, mayeram wrote: Its actually kind of odd that homosexual women seem to be somewhat more accepted by our society than homosexual men.

Being an object of desire isn't aproval. Women in general have it harder in society than men, and while queer* women are less likely to be a target of violent hate crime than queer men, they still have a great deka of prejudice to work with, sexual harassment and hate from hetersexual women. The latter is a oft ignored problem. Compared to male homophobic slurs, female homophobia is less overt.

all-inclusive term for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders

Question.

Is there any logical or scientific reason or argument to why homosexuals cannot get married (in a legal sense at the least) that doesn't involve religious beliefs or a bastardisation of knowledge?