Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/8/10 04:03 PM, LaForge wrote: Answer. No. The entire anti-gay movement is centered around religion, in particular Christian religion.

I think it may be more because marriage two people is the traditional thing to do and people do not want to change tradition. I mean, I would like to know what the founding fathers thought of homosexuals and if they would have wanted same sex marriage. That is something about them that I never really hear about.

At 4/8/10 07:05 PM, Ericho wrote: I think it may be more because marriage two people is the traditional thing to do and people do not want to change tradition.

How is your wedding going to be any different just because two gay men got married down the street?

I mean, I would like to know what the founding fathers thought of homosexuals and if they would have wanted same sex marriage. That is something about them that I never really hear about.

What? Why? What would it matter?

At 4/8/10 09:38 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/8/10 07:05 PM, Ericho wrote: I think it may be more because marriage two people is the traditional thing to do and people do not want to change tradition.

How is your wedding going to be any different just because two gay men got married down the street?

I mean, I would like to know what the founding fathers thought of homosexuals and if they would have wanted same sex marriage. That is something about them that I never really hear about.

What? Why? What would it matter?

I don't think he was pointing it out as a defense for anti-homosexual sentiment, but more a reason as for why there is a movement against homosexual marriage in the first place.

As for the founding fathers... I don't know if it would matter, but it is his curiosity. It is a valid question, albeit one that will never be answered.

At 4/8/10 11:00 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:

At 4/8/10 09:38 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/8/10 07:05 PM, Ericho wrote: I think it may be more because marriage two people is the traditional thing to do and people do not want to change tradition.

How is your wedding going to be any different just because two gay men got married down the street?

I mean, I would like to know what the founding fathers thought of homosexuals and if they would have wanted same sex marriage. That is something about them that I never really hear about.

What? Why? What would it matter?

I don't think he was pointing it out as a defense for anti-homosexual sentiment, but more a reason as for why there is a movement against homosexual marriage in the first place.

That makes sense, and is well aligned with sentiments he earlier expressed in this thread. I was a bit quick to respond, however, it's pretty clear that Ericho's response was largely just an argument to distance a view he does not hold from a view he does.

Or does he actually have something to back up his argument this time around?

As for the founding fathers... I don't know if it would matter, but it is his curiosity. It is a valid question, albeit one that will never be answered.

If Ericho's smart he'll lie and say it was just curiosity.

At 4/8/10 07:05 PM, Ericho wrote: I think it may be more because marriage two people is the traditional thing to do and people do not want to change tradition.

No, I think it's more because people are prejudice and things like the Christian religion that have routinely condemned homosexuality as a sin are a convenient way to try and riggle out of it. "Look, I don't hate the gays, but GOD does..." it's ridiculous.

I mean, I would like to know what the founding fathers thought of homosexuals and if they would have wanted same sex marriage. That is something about them that I never really hear about.

Because nobody knows because it wasn't really an issue, and in the end, who the fuck cares? I think a lot of the time we put way too much emphasis on the Founding Fathers as a crutch to try and stay away from changing anything in this country. But if we weren't willing to move away from things the founding fathers thought or did, well, we'd still have slavery now wouldn't we? The opinions of the founding fathers on these sorts of issues is totally irrelevant.

At 4/8/10 11:20 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because nobody knows because it wasn't really an issue, and in the end, who the fuck cares? I think a lot of the time we put way too much emphasis on the Founding Fathers as a crutch to try and stay away from changing anything in this country. But if we weren't willing to move away from things the founding fathers thought or did, well, we'd still have slavery now wouldn't we? The opinions of the founding fathers on these sorts of issues is totally irrelevant.

Then again, Jefferson had a son with a slave while married, Ben Franklin was a free-lover for his time, and who knows what other dirty laundry the founding fathers had? Personally, I think the fathers could of care less. As long as the men were tax-payers, why is it the government should interfere with personal life?

yes Christianity is the only religion that hosts wedding ceremonies and yes if a church wants to merry a same-sex couple than they should have the right to also it should be mandatory for courts to merry same-sex couples homosexuality is not a choice its the way your born and if this is the land of the "free" than same-sex marriage should be legal

At 4/8/10 11:31 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Then again, Jefferson had a son with a slave while married, Ben Franklin was a free-lover for his time, and who knows what other dirty laundry the founding fathers had? Personally, I think the fathers could of care less. As long as the men were tax-payers, why is it the government should interfere with personal life?

Really that's my point, but even if they DID care about it, it matters why? Why do the ideas of 200 odd years ago in this area have any bearing on today? Because they founded our system of government that suddenly makes them infallible in all ways? That's ridiculous. Hell, they even BUILT the government in such a way so that it would be able to change and adapt as time passed. That's why the Constitution can be amended vs. being a static document that cannot be changed or altered.

At 4/8/10 07:05 PM, Ericho wrote: founding fathers

Love that argument. Every time.

And it's a moot ppoint where I live. we don't place mythic worship on our founding fathers. Sure, some of the right wing can't get over their worship of general Mannerheim (who was totally a closet case, btw).

Argument of founding father's authority, and argument of tradition are not real arguments. A lot of things were traditional and wrong. The founding fathers were imperfect humans (as everyone), who lived in a time vastly different from ours.

Well somebody's been diggin' real deep for a thread that was supposed to die a year ago.

Oh well, guess I should contribute!

Anyone pining for Leviticus as a divine source of holiness is a prick as is this Leviticus guy whoever the fuck he was! We all know that verse but what everyone who quotes that has obviously never read everything else in Leviticus. Right there in the start the first five or six verses he talks about the proper means of sacrificing a pig and displaying it's heart and entrails in a specific manner and putting the pig's head on a pike just like a slasher flick but because it's in the bible and especially because it's from Leviticus it's justified.

GET SERIOUS! This guy's not a prophet! He's a Prick!

And that's all in the Old Testament. There is absolutely positively nothing in the new testament that could support the "Kill all the fags! That's what Jesus would do!" argument.

And to reiterate this the Merriam Webster's Dictionary definition of Marriage:

mar-riage n. 1: the state of being united to another person as a usu. contratual relationship according to law or custom 2: a wedding ceremony and attendant festivities 3: a close union <a ~ of light and shadow> - mar-riage-able adj.

I'm sorry, but what bible are YOU reading? Because in the old testament, a pig was a unclean animal and would not be a part of sacrificial rituals.

Also, Leviticus is just the name of the book, it wasauthored by moses (depending onn which theological camp you are in).

Still, Leviticus is full of laws that aren't followed anymore. And even then America is not a theocracy. The bible is not the book of law.

WWJD - What would Jefferson do?

For one thing, he would cut off a lot of pages from The Bible.

At 4/9/10 03:32 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: And it's a moot ppoint where I live. we don't place mythic worship on our founding fathers. Sure, some of the right wing can't get over their worship of general Mannerheim (who was totally a closet case, btw).

The main reason I said that is because everyone keeps talking about how Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers hated religion so much and we should all follow their example. I used them because they are regarded as intelligent figures. I mean, you would want to know what Albert Einstein's political views were.

At 4/9/10 11:48 AM, Ericho wrote: The main reason I said that is because everyone keeps talking about how Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers hated religion so much and we should all follow their example. I used them because they are regarded as intelligent figures. I mean, you would want to know what Albert Einstein's political views were.

Einstein's political views are as irrelevant as the founding fathers'. And the founding fathers were intelligent people. Way to completely miss the point of what everyone here is telling you.

I'm just going to say this and be done with it.

ERICHO... here...

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Now, can I go running around the politics forum like a wounded dog complaining that everyone thinks the founding fathers were Christian and created a Christian nation? Does that seem reasonable to you Ericho?

Or what about how EVERYONE keeps claiming that Einstein whole heartedly supported religion?

Aannnddd that's it for me. I've gone off topic enough.

At 4/9/10 06:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Einstein's political views are as irrelevant as the founding fathers'. And the founding fathers were intelligent people. Way to completely miss the point of what everyone here is telling you.

That's all Ericho ever does with this. I knew from the minute he brought up The Founding Father's he'd cycle it back to whether or not they hated religion and how people like his great enemy Richard Dawkins use them to persecute the innocent religious folk. It's tired, the horse is dead, he's been dead a long time...please please, stop flogging his corpse, did he kick you or something? Let him rest in peace.

At 4/9/10 11:48 AM, Ericho wrote: I mean, you would want to know what Albert Einstein's political views were.

Well, he was a democratic socialist, and an ardent pacifist for starters.

But that's not relevant here. And neither are the founding fathers. THe founding father's only relevance to this debate is when someone argues America is a "christian nation founded on christian ideals" when it very clearly isn't.

At 4/9/10 11:48 AM, Ericho wrote: I mean, you would want to know what Albert Einstein's political views were.

No--
He was a scientist, not a politician.

Maybe I would like to know, but not to prescribe to them.
It's a personal thing and not anymore informed than my or your own opinion on any political subject. And really--

The only reason people say, "oh, Founding Fathers are Christians,"-- is because they're Founding Fathers.

There is an energy in saying that.
And it's misleading.

I mean, a doctor is smart (doctors in general got to be, am i right?)
Would you ask him or her for religious guidance?

Even if they were, it would still be irrelevant to TODAY'S political climate.

I can't tell you how much I hate Gay marrage. It's stupid wrong and the work of Satan. Being a Christian myself I find Gays and Lesbians deserve to burn up in Hell because they disrespect God's creation.

At 4/10/10 10:56 AM, Comicwriter12 wrote: I can't tell you how much I hate Gay marrage. It's stupid wrong and the work of Satan. Being a Christian myself I find Gays and Lesbians deserve to burn up in Hell because they disrespect God's creation.

I believe that fundamentalist christians are the creation of the invisible black unicorn (invisible pink unicorn's eney). Prove me wrong.

At 4/10/10 11:24 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: I believe that fundamentalist christians are the creation of the invisible black unicorn (invisible pink unicorn's eney). Prove me wrong.

Remember, if you ignore trolls, they will go away.

comicwriter is the troll in this case

At 4/10/10 10:56 AM, Comicwriter12 wrote: I can't tell you how much I hate Gay marrage. It's stupid wrong and the work of Satan. Being a Christian myself I find Gays and Lesbians deserve to burn up in Hell because they disrespect God's creation.

I made this for just such an occasion! :D

At 4/10/10 11:36 AM, amaterasu wrote: comicwriter is the troll in this case

I think we all got that just by reading his post :)

Gays SHOULD have the right to marry. If two people love each other, they should be able to get married. Who cares if their the same sex or not? It doesn't bother me very much. I have a lesbian aunt and she's married and they have a kid. But that sentence can bring up another argument; if a child had homosexual parents, does it mean they will raise the child to be gay? I don't think so because when he's old enough (he's only 6), he'll be able to understand the situation with his parents and he'll be able to make the decision whether he likes girls or guys.

At 4/11/10 11:17 AM, BullCut wrote: Gays SHOULD have the right to marry. If two people love each other, they should be able to get married.

;;;;
I agree.
I also believe like other married couples, they should have a right to divorce .
As I posted on page 6 of this thread a good friend of mine married her girlfriend in 2006, well they split up & my friend has moved into an apartment... so it ain't any different than any other relationship.

2 people have to agree to be together, & even if there's a piece of paper, it won't keep you together if your unhappy.
So save yourself a bundle NEVER MARRY.
Life's too short.
stay single, fuck around as much as you can.
If you want to try a long term commitment ..., of responsibilities, problems & a constant drain on your finances get a dog !

i say if gays wanna get married and miserable like the rest of us we should let em.

Just in case you needed more evidence that Mike Huckabee was an evil bastard...

A couple choice quotes:

"You don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal," he said of same-sex marriage. "That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them."

He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. "I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family," Huckabee said. "And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults. Children are not puppies,"

reaction from the "left" with decent rebuttals, if a lot of spin.

At 4/12/10 01:54 AM, Ravariel wrote: Just in case you needed more evidence that Mike Huckabee was an evil bastard...

And why, exactly, that is a scary thought...

I think the point that seems to always fall short in this debate, is not whether or not "gays" as it is so delicately put (I'll get to that later), should be allowed to marry or not - but why anybody would even consider agreeing to the terms of a such a warped and imperfect contract with the church.

There are many contradictions that are wrapped up with issues such as this, and some are like the elephant in the room situation. Firstly, in the christian and catholic teachings, homosexuality is a sin - now before I start getting flamed, I am not a christian, nor am I an atheist in the way that I do not recognise or acknowledge a lack of belief in a god, more so that I refuse at a fundamental level to even consider a possibility. So backtracking to the point of such acts being a sin, a moral inconsistancy, a frowned upon action, why do said "christians" and be it homosexual christians desire to enter this state of coupling in the eyes of god. It is a testament to how fickle they are, in the way that said individuals try and pass off as being a christian and a worshipper of god, but at the same time seek to completely turn their backs on this religion they have driven all faith into, in order to marry their lovers. If people are so desperately in love with their partners, they should not need an official title or certificate to show this, be it a homosexual or hetrosexual relationship, but rather the focus should be placed on emancipating themselves from the church and not rally for marriage, but rally against sexual oppression. To put this in as clear and crude a fashion as I can - if you are homosexual, you are not a christian - or be it a "good" one. It is brute fact, and subsequently should have no interest in marrying anybody at all. Now I know for many of you, you will interpret that is me agreeing with the title and saying "Yes, Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry", but the mistake being, I do not agree with the very foundations of marriage or the church, but am completely accepting and respectful of homosexuals.