Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ok I didn`t read all the crap till here but
I HATE GAYS BECAUSE THERE GROUSE!!
They shoulden`t marrie because WELL...
How would you feel if your parents are gay?
I certainly couldn`t stand it...

At 5/11/10 01:22 PM, glavca wrote: Ok I didn`t read all the crap till here but
I HATE TROLLS BECAUSE THERE GROUSE!!
They shoulden`t post because WELL...
How would you feel if the forum was flooded with moronic posting from adolescent pricks?
I certainly couldn`t stand it...

Wow, what a coincidence I feel exactly the same way.

Fixed to prove a point.

The-universe has amused me very much.

i think that gays do not deserve to get married.they are pathetic and stupid just as all humans.straights who support gays just bring the word douche bag to a whole new level.

At 5/30/10 11:38 AM, soulcarnival25 wrote: i bring the word douche bag to a whole new level.

I couldn't agree more

At 5/30/10 01:08 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 5/30/10 11:38 AM, soulcarnival25 wrote: i bring the word douche bag to a whole new level.

I couldn't agree more

I second that statement.

At 5/30/10 01:08 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 5/30/10 11:38 AM, soulcarnival25 wrote: i bring the word douche bag to a whole new level.

I couldn't agree more

you just show how pathetic and ignorant humans are

At 5/30/10 01:51 PM, soulcarnival25 wrote: I just demonstrate how pathetic and ignorant humans are

I couldn't agree more. The wisdom just keeps flowing from you.

its so funny how drakim tries to replace my you with i.stupid piece of shit with a laptop i say.

At 5/30/10 02:10 PM, soulcarnival25 wrote: its so funny how drakim tries to replace my you with i.stupid piece of shit with a laptop i say.

Why so serious?

You need to QUEER up a little!

Oooooon topic note:

You said:

"i think that gays do not deserve to get married.they are pathetic and stupid just as all humans."

Okay, so we suppose all humans ARE scum. Then we have also established that all humans are fundamentally EQUAL scum!

Why should homosexuals in particular not marry then?

Or, better yet:

Why in the name of chocolate should heteros marry?

Because those turdvarks and their reproduction obsession makes you SICK? They're "pathetic and stupid" too right?

See, what you did there might be an attempt at looking a bit less like a raging homophobe, writing everyone of as undesirable individuals, but it doesn't really help your case either! Damn political correctness!

Not to mention how subjective terms like "stupid" and "pathetic" are, someone could furthermore argue that your personal views on homosexuals neither rest on objective grounds NOR are universal.

At 5/30/10 02:10 PM, soulcarnival25 wrote: its so funny how drakim tries to replace my you with i.stupid piece of shit with a laptop i say.

No, the funny part is how you responded to ridicule. Right after being ridiculed, you said "you just show how pathetic and ignorant humans are". So, let me get this straight. For daring to make fun of you I'm clearly demonstrating how humanity at large is ignorant and pathetic.

Holding ourselves in a high position, are we? Maybe you should change your username to "King" or "God" or something fitting like that, so people would know what to expect. So that they would know the great sin of insulting you in advance, which would demonstrate their complete ignorance in advance.

SoulCarnival's arguments really don't make any sense. As has been pointed out, if gays are as pathetic as straights, then we're all equally pathetic and so we should be able to do the same things.
Also, why is one person who supports another group of people a "douche" (which is a hilarious word to use considering how she tries to present herself as an almost formal person). Indeed they have proven themselves to be a better creature that she is.

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: (Reposted here, because apperently every single dictionary, Encyclopedia, politician, and theologist in the entire world is wrong, and Ted_Easton is the only single person alive who knows the right definitions of the words "politics" and "religion", and that they actually mean the exact same thing. That's right; I'm sure they're dolts.)

I know this has been done before, but so have half the other rants I make. Deal. I hope I am adding something new to the mix with this. If I'm not, feel free to ignore it and let it die into obscurity: I will not bump it.

Gay people should not be allowed to marry, for one simple reason: Marriage is a Christian Ceremony, and the Christian bible specifically say's homosexuality is wrong.

Wait... if it's a CHRISTIAN ceremony, does that mean that Jews cant get maried? also, not all marriage ceremonies are christion, this first assumption is rediculous, but moving on...

I say, let the homosexuals have civil ceromonies, as they are government ceremonies, and the government has no right to deny it to anyone. For this to work, however, I believe the government needs to do two things: give the exact same benifits as Marriage to Civil Ceremonies, as well as backing off completely of controll over Marriage. The government should not be "banning" gay marriage OR allowing it: they should be handing it off completely to the church and letting them handle it.
First, this would give ridiculous powers to the church, and second , which church would get this power? would it be the catholic church? the protestants?, the Satanist Church (im sure it exists somewhere)? the wiccan church? see my point? also, what about the fact that not all marriages are at all religious, you can go to a court house and get a marriage license that has no religious wording in it.
By even getting involved, this would be like if the government passed some legislature to officially re-write the bible. We need to maintain a sepperation of church and state.
Marriage in the united states is legaly seen first as a legal union between two people, and secondly as a religious bond if indeed the marriage was religious. You keep assuming that every single person on earth who gets married must be christian.

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.

Once again: What religions would apply, and what would constitute a churhc, couldn't anyone who wanted just set up a cardboard box in their back yard and write church on it in sharpie and then get a judge to marry people in it?

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.

Once again ITS NOT A FREAKING CHRISTIAN CEREMONY IN EVERY INSTANCE!

I am one of the Paganistic religions (and bi, before any of you want to pull out the "homophobe" card)

I once met an african american who thought that on average african americans were idiots (he was african american and he was racist so just becuase your bi, doesnt mean your not a homphobe)

and therefor I have absolutely no right to get married. I probably WILL get marriage because of the benifits not offered with civil ceremonies
So your belief is: homosexuals and bisexual people do not have a right to get married but i am going to anyway? I support your right to do something you dont think you should be allowed to to, but your argument makes no sense.

, 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.

So you know what your doing is wrong, you dont believe you should be allowed to do it, and you think its the governments fault for this belief that you hold getting in the way of what you want to do?

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

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Get your facts straight asswipe

At 6/5/10 05:21 PM, TheCoatwearer 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.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Get your facts straight asswipe

If you read that literally, it only says gay sex is a sin, not being gay, or being in a gay relationship.

At 6/5/10 06:46 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/5/10 05:21 PM, TheCoatwearer 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.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Get your facts straight asswipe

If you read that literally, it only says gay sex is a sin, not being gay, or being in a gay relationship.

I think some interpretations are that it was about having gay sex during pagan religious ceremony's. :p

The bible as a whole really does not mention homosexuality that much.

the King James Version? So the other versions don't count cause they don't have that particular verse?

Also... how does throwing out what the King James Bible says in one line, prove that despite all the marriages before Christ taught us to love (though we seem to love to hate) and died for our sins, all the Romans, and Celts, and Greeks, and Japanese and Chinese and so on and so forth getting married to have families... that Marriage is Christian.

Suppose my Islamic friend isn't actually married then?

At 6/5/10 08:24 PM, sinfulwolf wrote: the King James Version? So the other versions don't count cause they don't have that particular verse?

Wut? The other versions have this verse too, as with all verses. It's more a manner of how they formulate the verses, and what words they use, and so on.

At 6/5/10 09:24 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/5/10 08:24 PM, sinfulwolf wrote: the King James Version? So the other versions don't count cause they don't have that particular verse?

Wut? The other versions have this verse too, as with all verses. It's more a manner of how they formulate the verses, and what words they use, and so on.

So I see. You should have mentioned that off the bat.

At 6/5/10 10:31 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:

At 6/5/10 09:24 PM, Drakim wrote: Wut? The other versions have this verse too, as with all verses. It's more a manner of how they formulate the verses, and what words they use, and so on.

So I see. You should have mentioned that off the bat.

What are you talking about? Off the bat? I haven't talked to you before this.

At 6/6/10 12:08 PM, MrPercie wrote: I haven't got anything against the gays but I dont think they should get married because marriage is a Christian thing. It says in the bible (or I think it says) that man cant marry another man or something like that so it seems unfair why Christianity should change just because people dont like it. Sure in the past christians have tried to change us by wanting to ban games and Shows and trying to convert people but thats no reason why we should be allowed to change a religion so were happy. If it doesnt say in the bible a man cant marry another man then I dont care.

No, the bible isn't that passive, all it says is Christians are supposed to kill any men they discover to be homosexual by stoning them to death.

" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)"

That being said, marriage is in no way exclusive to Christianity, while I don't believe pastors who don't want to have gay ceremonies should be forced to, saying that marriage is a christian tradition doesn't fly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marraige#Hi story

At 6/6/10 12:08 PM, MrPercie wrote: I haven't got anything against the gays but I dont think they should get married because marriage is a Christian thing.

Marriage is not a Christian thing. Therefore anything the Bible says is irrelevant. Your argument fails.

Marriage is not a "Christian" thing. If it was Christian Atheists an Hindus would not be getting married. Plus like many have said before me - "I don't want to hear your religious crap!"

If you want to post your religious beliefs I'm sure there's another forum on another site for that kind of stuff.

At 6/6/10 01:31 PM, Drakim wrote:

Marriage is not a Christian thing. Therefore anything the Bible says is irrelevant. Your argument fails.

Wait... we agree? Fuck I thought you were on the other side of the fence for some reason. Apologies.

I'm a Catholic & Roman Catholic Church are against same sex marriage because it is immoral.

At 6/8/10 06:04 AM, lemonwinter wrote: I'm a Catholic & Roman Catholic Church are against same sex marriage because it is immoral.

Because the papacy has such an excellent track record that allows them the prerogative to establish a moral precedent for the rest of us.

Why is homosexuality immoral? Because some antiquated text dredged from the culture of an ancient people whose sole historic legacy is the foundation and subsequent proliferation in a mass delusion?

At 6/8/10 06:04 AM, lemonwinter wrote: I'm a Catholic & Roman Catholic Church are against same sex marriage because it is immoral.

So do you not eat shrimp? Because according to Leviticus, shellfish is also immoral.

King James Version, Leviticus 11:10-11:12

10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

So picking and choosing passages from the Holy Book doesn't sound like a strong devotion to God to me.

At 6/6/10 12:42 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

No, the bible isn't that passive, all it says is Christians are supposed to kill any men they discover to be homosexual by stoning them to death.

I like how you quote that without giving any sort of context to it.

Who was it written to?
When was it written?
Why was it written?
Did these rules apply to everyone?
What does it have to do in relation to those other "don'ts" surrounding it?
What is the direct word to word translation and what words were substituted?

Not that I would expect any of you stupid people to ask these basic questions.

At 6/8/10 01:35 PM, Memorize wrote: I like how you quote that without giving any sort of context to it.

Who was it written to?
When was it written?
Why was it written?
Did these rules apply to everyone?
What does it have to do in relation to those other "don'ts" surrounding it?
What is the direct word to word translation and what words were substituted?

Not that I would expect any of you stupid people to ask these basic questions.

Why are you being an ass to me? It was written for Yahweh's people, which would be mostly Jewish at the time. I understand the bible relatively well and no where in the new testament does it invalidate the laws given in the old testament. Sorry if this is to far off topic.