Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

"Hello ladies, supa' hot stud muffin here! If you're ready for some hawt luvin' send me a mutha' f---in' e-mail biotch."

Stud muffin! From your profile it sounds like you want to commit adultery with some fine bitches, shame on you and your sexual perversions!

---

At 8/7/10 04:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 03:28 PM, kraor024 wrote:

, I deal with someone too immature to argue sensibly. Morality is morality is morality. Nobody owns it, it simply is.

& yet you claim to own morality, for if you did not, how could you arbitralily decide whats moral?

Not to push the man for that would be murder.

So you would condem millions to death? Either way blood is on your hands, but you'd rather have the blood of countless millions than the blood of one.

Actually, there would be no blood on my hands at all. The train is out of my control, the ONLY way I would have blood on my hands is if I deemed one man's life as less important than someone elses.

So you're telling me you have no moral obligation to preserve life at all?

No you don't, you have no right not to be affended you gay ass jezuz cocksuking nigar jew bitch.

I have every right to be offended by offensive material
The remainder of your comment is just juvenile, please leave the forums.

As I said you have no right not to be offended. If you don't like it leave

You openly state you have no problem with beastiality or necrophilia!?!?!
guess that speaks volumes right there.

Yes it speaks volums to your willingness to deny reality.

I deny no reality, you never denounced them. Quite the opposite, your commentary was in support of them. Perhaps you would like to revise yourself now?

Don't look to me to justify your fetishes.

Mine points toward justice. Where does yours point?

Yours points towards man's idea of justice, mine points towards true justice.

Once again, you don't have a monopoly on morality, you do not decide that because you want it,it's just.

I follow Christianity

So you stone people to death for eating shelfish, planting different seeds in the same furrow, mixing faberics, &you support slavory? Because all that's part of Christianity. Unless you disregard the old testamite laws, & Then you still support slavory & can't justify your self loathing fagatry.

Wow. You openly admit it is pointless for you to come to a moral debate?

Well of course you have no morals.

Nobody "owns" morality,

But somehow you have a monopoly on it, is that what I understand?

You understand nothing then. If I said 4 + 4 = 8 does that mean I have a monopoly over math? Of course not, such a thing doesn't even make sense. Homosexuality is wrong, that is a fact.

Except you can't give a reason, & it's your own opinion

good people can sense in their hearts.

Oh I see now, that's called arousal kid, it's okay I wont tell anyone your little secret.

Actually, I find child rape to be horribly wrong.

Is that why you refuse to accept that other people belive it's wrong?

I think your obsession with homosexuality is a pervision.

Please reread the definition of perversion. My obsession homosexuality is a perversion of what?

Of decency of morality, of reason & of your own sexuality.

Absolutely not. I am saying animals have no rights and the dead are not victims. :

The only sick fuck is the one in support of homosexuality.

Says the guy who supports beastiality & necrophilia.

Because that would be a violation of the substantive due process clause of the 14th ammendment, as determined by Lawrence v. Texas, which determined that sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.

That needs to be overturned.

To bad that would be illegal. I know justice hurts you so much.

On the contrary, I am talking about a SINGLE issue "homosexuality".

So I see your morality is the only thing standing between us a a hedonistic orgy of sin. You make a convincing case for gay rights

Says the guy who refuses to believe someone could have a problem with his dead animal habit.

I used beastiality and necrophilia as examples of victimless crimes that are WRONG

Except they're not victumless & you claim that it's not immoral because I pointed out the victums.

Yea, they said the same thing when we struck down miscongeniation laws. Not to mention it's not like necrophilia were common or acceptable in ancient Greece (especially Sparta a whole Police of nothing but faggots), Japan etc..

It is human nature to decay in morality and fall away from God.

Actually it's human nature to decay in ethics, while being closer to god(s).

::

The slippery slope is no fallacy. No matter how many people say it is, I see the reality of it on a daily basis. And there is nothing esoteric about my knowledge.

Right except theres no reason to believe you, but you just know esoterically, after all you can't explain it you just know.

We have to draw a line somewhere, do define what is and is not right.

& I say we draw that line at you having testicles, sound fair?

A very mature comment, your mother must be proud.

Yours must be a complete bitch.

---

At 8/7/10 03:39 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

In civilized countries in North America and Europe, there is still a VERY large Christian population. Moreover, anyone who isn't Christian is by definition a bad person and has no buisness discussing ethics or moral questions. Good is defined by God's whim and Bad is defined as going against God's will.

I'm a christian and I have to strongly disagree with you on that, and I can tell just by that paragraph and also ignoring the Jews persecution and what happens when religion runs government arguments, shows how truly arrogant you really are and that there is no point in arguing with you,

---

At 8/7/10 04:56 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 8/7/10 04:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 03:28 PM, kraor024 wrote:

& yet you claim to own morality, for if you did not, how could you arbitralily decide whats moral?

God decides what is moral and gave us all a moral center so we would know what that is. It is also recorded in the Bible in case there is any doubt. I make no claim to "own" morality, that doesn't even make sense.

So you're telling me you have no moral obligation to preserve life at all?

In the situation presented to me, that is the best possible way to do that.

As I said you have no right not to be offended. If you don't like it leave

When someone commits something offensive, I get offended. On what grounds do you claim I have no right to be offended by offensive material? Really, this isn't even something you can argue so why are you trying?

Don't look to me to justify your fetishes.

I don't have any, you are the one who previously voiced support for beastiality, homosexuality, and necrophilia. Don't try to turn this around.

Once again, you don't have a monopoly on morality, you do not decide that because you want it,it's just.

Once more, I never said I "owned" morality as that doesn't even make sense. Please quit regurgitating the same fallacies.

Wow. You openly admit it is pointless for you to come to a moral debate?

Well of course you have no morals.

Actually I do, I am Christian. NonChristians are the ones without morals.

Except you can't give a reason, & it's your own opinion

The reason is that it is God's will as sensed in the hearts of many and recording in the Bible.

good people can sense in their hearts.

Oh I see now, that's called arousal kid, it's okay I wont tell anyone your little secret.

what? I don't even know what you are trying to say here, but it sounds foul. Why don't you stop being disgusting and foul and just stick to logic and morality and... oh wait, I forgot you are lacking in both departments aren't you.

Actually, I find child rape to be horribly wrong.

Is that why you refuse to accept that other people belive it's wrong?

WHAT? You are the one who brought up child rape, which is irrelevant to this discussion, then baselessly accused me of being in favor of it because you don't even know how to debate any other way.

I think your obsession with homosexuality is a pervision.

Please reread the definition of perversion. My obsession homosexuality is a perversion of what?

Of decency of morality, of reason & of your own sexuality.

As a Christian I know what decency and morality are and as a chemistry grad student I know what reason is. You, on the other hand, don't. And what does my being straight have to do with anything?

Absolutely not. I am saying animals have no rights and the dead are not victims. :

The only sick fuck is the one in support of homosexuality.

Says the guy who supports beastiality & necrophilia.

Don't try and turn this around, you are the one who voiced support for those sickening perversions not me. I used those as examples of victimless crimes because people follow the moral fallacy that "if it doesn't hurt anyone, it is ok".

Because that would be a violation of the substantive due process clause of the 14th ammendment, as determined by Lawrence v. Texas, which determined that sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.

That needs to be overturned.

To bad that would be illegal. I know justice hurts you so much.

Changing the law is not illegal, and that law needs to be changed.

I used beastiality and necrophilia as examples of victimless crimes that are WRONG

Except they're not victumless & you claim that it's not immoral because I pointed out the victums.

On the contrary, I did NOT claim they are not immoral because they ARE. The animals are not victims because they are animals and nobody cares. We kill them en masse for food. The fact that these victimless crimes are STILL CRIMES and STILL WRONG is proof that right/wrong is not dependent upon whether or not there are victims present. It is a set of absolutes given from God.

You need to stop regurgitating the same fallacies over and over as I grow tired of correcting you. Either you are trolling, mad because you have no argument, or possess a grade school level of reading comprehension. Either way, you need to leave.

Yea, they said the same thing when we struck down miscongeniation laws. Not to mention it's not like necrophilia were common or acceptable in ancient Greece (especially Sparta a whole Police of nothing but faggots), Japan etc..

It is human nature to decay in morality and fall away from God.

Actually it's human nature to decay in ethics, while being closer to god(s).

That doesn't even make sense. 1) There is only ONE God, the true God. 2) His Will DEFINES morality. 3) Getting closer to Him can only mean you are growing in ethics while getting further away can only mean you are decaying. To say otherwise does not even make sense.

The slippery slope is no fallacy. No matter how many people say it is, I see the reality of it on a daily basis. And there is nothing esoteric about my knowledge.

Right except theres no reason to believe you, but you just know esoterically, after all you can't explain it you just know.

Explain how I know what? That the slippery slope is no fallacy? Just read history. First we seperated church and state. Then the numbers of Christians started falling. Then we started to see various rock bands with blatantly Satan worshipping lyrics. Then we started getting asshats burning churches and condoning homosexuality. You need only LOOK outside to see the moral decay. Well... you also need a moral compass to see it so I guess that explains why you never did.

---

At 8/7/10 05:06 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/7/10 03:39 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

In civilized countries in North America and Europe, there is still a VERY large Christian population. Moreover, anyone who isn't Christian is by definition a bad person and has no buisness discussing ethics or moral questions. Good is defined by God's whim and Bad is defined as going against God's will.

I'm a christian and I have to strongly disagree with you on that, and I can tell just by that paragraph and also ignoring the Jews persecution and what happens when religion runs government arguments, shows how truly arrogant you really are and that there is no point in arguing with you,

1) What does the "Jews persecution" have to do with this?
2) I doubt you are a Christian
3) You think I'm arrogant for preaching the Word of God as written? Good is defined by God's whim and evil defined by rebellion against God. If God told me to do the chicken dance atop the Eifel Tower it would become my moral imperative to do so. But you? If you think obedience to God is arrogant then you don't know the meaning of the word arrogant and are probably arrogant yourself.

---

At 8/7/10 05:19 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: 1) What does the "Jews persecution" have to do with this?

They have been persecuted throughout history, same as homosexuals.

2) I doubt you are a Christian

Saw that one coming from a mile away, I know how you kind works, you don't like it when someone contradicts you, do you.

3) You think I'm arrogant for preaching the Word of God as written? Good is defined by God's whim and evil defined by rebellion against God. If God told me to do the chicken dance atop the Eifel Tower it would become my moral imperative to do so. But you? If you think obedience to God is arrogant then you don't know the meaning of the word arrogant and are probably arrogant yourself.

That's what is called blind devotion, the bible was written by the hands of men not god, and men decide what would be in the bible and what wouldn't be in the bible, only a fool follows something so blindly, religion isn't perfect, a quote that holds a lot of truth to it "Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed"

---

So Studmuffin, are you trying to be better than God?

I though it was God's job to pass judgement. I do think God would definitely appreciate amere human like you doing his job...

---

At 8/7/10 05:32 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/7/10 05:19 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: 1) What does the "Jews persecution" have to do with this?

They have been persecuted throughout history, same as homosexuals.

What I meant was, what does this have to do with the current discussion?

2) I doubt you are a Christian

Saw that one coming from a mile away, I know how you kind works, you don't like it when someone contradicts you, do you.

Actually, I question how you can claim to be Christian, yet hold no regard for the will of God or the teachings of the Bible.

3) You think I'm arrogant for preaching the Word of God as written? Good is defined by God's whim and evil defined by rebellion against God. If God told me to do the chicken dance atop the Eifel Tower it would become my moral imperative to do so. But you? If you think obedience to God is arrogant then you don't know the meaning of the word arrogant and are probably arrogant yourself.

That's what is called blind devotion, the bible was written by the hands of men not god, and men decide what would be in the bible and what wouldn't be in the bible, only a fool follows something so blindly, religion isn't perfect, a quote that holds a lot of truth to it "Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed"

Very well. I will concede that I have blind devotion to God and Jesus Christ and that it may well be possible that the recording of their Word isn't entirely accurate. I can accept that the six different passages against homosexuality in six parts of the Bible may just be due to man not God's Will. If that is what you believe, then I respect that and acknoledge it as the first logical argument I've come across on this thread. I still choose to believe that is is God's Word and that homosexuality is wrong because I believe it is more likely than 6 individual accounts of distortion, but I respect your viewpoint.

---

At 8/7/10 05:15 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 04:56 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 8/7/10 04:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 03:28 PM, kraor024 wrote:

& yet you claim to own morality, for if you did not, how could you arbitralily decide whats moral?

God decides what is moral and gave us all a moral center so we would know what that is. It is also recorded in the Bible in case there is any doubt. I make no claim to "own" morality, that doesn't even make sense.

& "God" told this to you?

So you're telling me you have no moral obligation to preserve life at all?

In the situation presented to me, that is the best possible way to do that.

SO letting millions of people die is the best way to preserve life?

As I said you have no right not to be offended. If you don't like it leave

When someone commits something offensive, I get offended.

Good, but you still don't have the right not to be offended

Don't look to me to justify your fetishes.

I already repeatedly previously voiced support for beastiality, homosexuality, and necrophilia.
Don't try to turn this around.

Fixed

Once more, I never said I "owned" morality as that doesn't even make sense. Please quit regurgitating the same fallacies.

No but you get to decide what's moral & what's not, w/o reason, just because it offends you. That's claiming ownership of morality.

Well of course you have no morals.

Actually I do, I am Christian. :

As I said, of course you have no marlas, that's why you feel the need to justify your own prejudges by claiming an all power all moral being told you.

Except you can't give a reason, & it's your own opinion

The reason is that it is God's will as sensed in the hearts of many and recording in the Bible.

Which God,? How do you know you don't feel Stans will, after all he wrote the Bible.

Oh I see now, that's called arousal kid, it's okay I wont tell anyone your little secret.

what? I don't even know what you are trying to say here, but it sounds foul.

You know exactly what I'm saying, it's okay so you're a gay beastiophile(?), necrophiliac, I wont tell anyone.

WHAT? I brought up child rape, which is irrelevant to this discussion, then baselessly accused you of being in favor of it because I don't even know how to debate any other way.

Fixed

I think your obsession with homosexuality is a pervision.

Please reread the definition of perversion. My obsession homosexuality is a perversion of what?

Of decency of morality, of reason & of your own sexuality.

As a Christian I know what decency and morality are and as a chemistry grad student I know what reason is. You, on the other hand, don't. And what does my being straight have to do with anything?

Translation, you need to justify your actions by pretending "God" wills it, no it's not you who believes it, it's Gods will, you are not god, you have no right to speak for such a being.

Absolutely not. I am saying animals have no rights and the dead are not victims. :

Even though they do, & they are as are their families

The only sick fuck is the one in support of homosexuality.

Says the guy who supports beastiality & necrophilia.

I am the one who voiced support for those sickening perversions. I used those as examples of crimes that have victums because people follow the moral fallacy that "if it doesn't hurt anyone, it is ok".

Fixed

Because that would be a violation of the substantive due process clause of the 14th ammendment, as determined by Lawrence v. Texas, which determined that sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.

That needs to be overturned.

To bad that would be illegal. I know justice hurts you so much.

Changing the law is not illegal, and that law needs to be changed.

Overturning the law because of predjudges is very much illegal. YOu really should study the fuction of the SCOTUS

Except they're not victumless & you claim that it's not immoral because I pointed out the victums.

On the contrary, I did NOT claim they are not immoral because they ARE. The animals are victims because they are animals and I don't have an argument other than to deny that their is a victim & claim I have a monopoly on morality

Fixed

I need to stop regurgitating the same fallacies over and over as I grow tired of lying to you. I'm trolling,& mad because I've never been laid, & possess a grade school level of reading comprehension. Either way, I think I own morality & the internet & have a right to not be offended.

Fixed

Yea, they said the same thing when we struck down miscongeniation laws. Not to mention it's not like necrophilia were common or acceptable in ancient Greece (especially Sparta a whole Police of nothing but faggots), Japan etc..

It is human nature to decay in morality and fall away from God.

Actually it's human nature to decay in ethics, while being closer to god(s).

That doesn't even make sense. 1) There is only ONE God,

I thought you were a CHristian, you should read the bible in Exodus JHVW states that there are other gods

the true God.

A myth that you use to justify yourself

2) His Will DEFINES morality.

By being the most evil mother fucker in any piece of literature, ever.

3) Getting closer to Him can only mean you are growing in ethics while getting further away can only mean you are decaying.

If by ethics you mean slavery, rape, infantacide, murder, theft, I can go on.

Right except theres no reason to believe you, but you just know esoterically, after all you can't explain it you just know.

Explain how I know what? That the slippery slope is no fallacy? Just read history.

So the Spartains Japanese & variose other coultures that didn't forbid homosexuality but never degraded into your fetishes, clearly prove that homosexuality caused your beastiality & necophilia.

First we seperated church and state.

In 1785

Then the numbers of Christians started falling.

The opposite happened in this country, mainly because you were free to worship as you choose.

Then we started to see various rock bands with blatantly Satan worshipping lyrics.

He truly is a most kind & benevialent master giving us Rock & Roll, the printing press, cannabis,& the polio vaccine. COuld anyone ask for a more benevilent master?

Then we started getting asshats burning churches

That started b4 writting

and condoning homosexuality.

Once again that started b4 writting

You need only LOOK outside to see the moral decay.

You mean like how we no longer kill people for working on sunday or eating shelfish or pork, or mixing faberics, etc.. according to you're religion every single person in America should be stoned to death.

Well... you also need a moral compass to see it so I guess that explains why you never did.

YOu mean Because mine points toward justice, & not justification?

---

At 8/7/10 03:39 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 03:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 8/7/10 02:49 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 8/7/10 02:32 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

Are you not aware that that IS the definition of paganism?

Look, what you are saying would only make sense if my argument was "they weren't pagan so your point is invalid" when in fact I was saying "you can't just call it pagan and dismiss it".

Whether or not it is convincing to you is irrelevant. It is the truth.

lol, astronomical fail. Please tell me, how do you know it's the truth?

As if I need another source on a moral debate?

Yes. Yes you do. The Bible is not universally accepted so you cannot use it as a source. The majority of humans on the planet rejects the Bible as anything more than a collection of myths.

In civilized countries in North America and Europe, there is still a VERY large Christian population. Moreover, anyone who isn't Christian is by definition a bad person and has no buisness discussing ethics or moral questions. Good is defined by God's whim and Bad is defined as going against God's will.

Gah, you are a troll. Now I feel embarrassed.

---

I play my Structural Supersessionism together with my New Covenant in defense mode, and I also activate my Corinthians 13:4-7.

See what I did there? Cookies to whoever gets it.

---

At 8/7/10 07:06 PM, zephiran wrote: I play my Structural Supersessionism together with my New Covenant in defense mode, and I also activate my Corinthians 13:4-7.

See what I did there? Cookies to whoever gets it.

Yu-Gi-Oh?

---

Greeks had homosexual relations, they weren't really persecuted for it in their time. Indeed the Spartans were encouraged to have affairs with other men, especially in their fighting unit as they would try to outfight their lover. Greek philosophers are often quoted to this day and they were a highly advanced civilization.

First recorded homosexual couple were two Egyptian males in 2400 BC. I didn't find any reference to them being looked down upon. Male Azande warriors in the northern Congo region often took male lovers. Women in Lesotho (also in Africa) often engaged in socially sanctioned long term erotic relationships.

In the America's before European colonization there were often folks who were homosexual and became tribe shamans. Spanish conquerers were horrified to see open displays of sodomy and tried to crush it out with such actions as public executions, burning, and being torn to pieces by dogs.

Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.

All Roman Emperors, except Claudius and ending with Theodosius I, took male lovers. A Christian Emperor (Theodosius I) was the one to put a stop to this with public burnings of "passive" male lovers, and Justinian extended this to "active" male lovers at the end of his reign.

During the Renaissance, there was plenty of homosexual intercourse in the wealthy cities in Northern Italy, though the authorities tried to crack down on this as much as possible.

That's just a little bit of cultures. Not even mentioning China, the Middle East and so forth. It would seem that many cultures throughout history were either tolerant or outright accepting of homosexuality until Christianity came along (sometimes crushing it out with brutal force. Ripped apart by dogs? Really? That's moral?). That's not even me mentioning how today in Afghanistan, there are a great many men who claim that "women are for breeding, men are for pleasure... but homosexuality is bad. Yes it is,". Figure that one out.

So it would seem that a religion I believe was meant to teach respect and love, has done some pretty horrible things to crush out the love two consenting adults have between each other.

---

At 8/7/10 04:48 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: I think it is interesting how the first thing others accuse others of is often more reflective of themselves. You obviously hate religion yet you are probably yet another in a long line of people who don't realize atheism itself is a religion since its central tenant "there is no god" must be taken on faith.

How do you know I hate Religion, or even the religious? What evidence do you have that I hold some form of disdain for any religion in any country at any time? There isn't any because I have never said I hate religion. What you're doing is taking my statement, assuming the motives/intentions and trying to make me look bad.

If Atheism is classed as a religion because it adheres to the claim that a god or gods do not exist, then by your logic it is not a religion because atheism is a none acceptance of a claim, not the asserter of one. Atheism is a label for people who do not accept the claim that a god or gods exist. There is a big difference between disbelief and asserting none existence of something.

No faith is required to be sceptical about a supernatural entity which (from the information available) has never been documented, observed, tested or analysed in anywhere whatsoever.

There is nothing douche about the argument against homosexuality, it is about God fearing Christians making a stand against something offensive and wrong.

Shoving your own personal and irrational beliefs down other people's throats is far more offensive and wrong than you could ever imagine. There is no logical argument you can ever produce that isn't drawn from lunacy and sugar coated with religious beliefs. Or to put it more simplistically, you're bigoted and argue things you have not bothered to research or learn and you're using a religion as an excuse to not have tomatoes thrown at you on the street. Or you're a troll, which I'm more inclined to believe.

---

Would like to leave this link here.

A bit of a rebuttal to all those using the Bible and or Christianity as the reason that homosexuality is wrong.

---

At 8/7/10 09:25 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

See what I did there? Cookies to whoever gets it.

Yu-Gi-Oh?

There's a bit more to it, actually.

No cookies.

---

At 8/8/10 05:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

At 8/7/10 09:25 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

See what I did there? Cookies to whoever gets it.

Yu-Gi-Oh?

There's a bit more to it, actually.

No cookies.

Aww. :(

Your joke's funny, nevertheless.

---

We have cracked the Human Genome; through much research based upon the Genome, there is a strong relation between specific genetics and sexual orientation.

Gay marriage is only being brought to the table consistently now because the higher-ups have finally realized how to get rid of the "crisis" of homosexuality.

Simply allow acceptance so people who were born gay are not pressured to marry with a partner of the opposite sex. You need to remember that a homosexual couple is much less likely to have a child than the heterosexual-closet-gay couple.

---

At 8/8/10 08:04 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/8/10 05:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

No cookies.

Aww. :(

Your joke's funny, nevertheless.

You know what, here's half a cookie, for your delight.

---

I went to Iowa where I was born and it was one of the few states that legalized same-sex marriage, obviously. It was an interesting experience, but I noticed that there was really nothing different about it than the last time I was there. Judging from this, I can conclude that there is really no reason to not legalize it, because there is a difference and that was that people had more freedom. I have studied psychology and there is absolutely no evidence that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be dysfunctional, or even more likely to be gay themselves.

---

At 8/9/10 09:42 AM, zephiran wrote:

At 8/8/10 08:04 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/8/10 05:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

No cookies.

Aww. :(

Your joke's funny, nevertheless.

You know what, here's half a cookie, for your delight.

Sweet. :)

---

At 8/10/10 02:20 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/9/10 09:42 AM, zephiran wrote:

At 8/8/10 08:04 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/8/10 05:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

No cookies.

Aww. :(

Your joke's funny, nevertheless.

You know what, here's half a cookie, for your delight.

Sweet. :)

*Nabs your cookie*

---

Marriage isn't simply "A Christian ceremony". The constraints and beliefs that apply to the Christian faith are not the same as the ones applied to marriage in general.

Marriage is not 'owned' by any religion or specific group, and should therefore, restrictions created by that group SHOULD NOT APPLY TO EVERYONE.

---

The use of both marriages and recorded marriage laws predate Christianity.
Marriage is a legal term of which some religious beliefs include, but these uses should not dictate what marriage is, or who it should legally apply to, given the fact that legal and religious uses are separate and should not affect the meanings of each other.

---

At 7/21/06 11:41 AM, jlwelch wrote: Fact #1:

To get things straight, marraige IS a Christian sacrament. The reason there are other religions is because people fell away from God and began to develop their own "gods" and so forth. Nonetheless, marraige is a sacrament of the true religion...Christianity.

You-You cant be serious. There are many religions which predate Christianity! Hinduism is quite possibly one of the worlds oldest living religions, predating Christianity by some millennia! and marriage laws date back to Hammurabi!

---

At 8/10/10 09:39 AM, camobch0 wrote:

At 8/10/10 02:20 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/9/10 09:42 AM, zephiran wrote:

At 8/8/10 08:04 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 8/8/10 05:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

No cookies.

Aww. :(

Your joke's funny, nevertheless.

You know what, here's half a cookie, for your delight.

Sweet. :)

*Nabs your cookie*

Don't make me come over and spank you young lady! Give the nice boy his cookie back.

Enough derailment already, there's enough cookies for everyone. At my place.

---

At 8/10/10 01:46 PM, zephiran wrote: At my place.

I'M COMING OVER TO YOUR HOUSE!

---

looks like California might get gay marriage back

---

At 8/12/10 05:34 PM, LordJaric wrote: looks like California might get gay marriage back

Thank God.

---

At 8/12/10 05:34 PM, LordJaric wrote: looks like California might get gay marriage back

YAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!