Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/06 06:51 PM, Monocrom wrote:

Still, I bet there are more than a few homosexuals out there who are happy that their mate doesn't bug them with requests to get married.

That's like me saying gay guys are in such good shape thanks to the spare time from not being allowed to have family.

At 7/23/06 06:58 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/23/06 06:51 PM, Monocrom wrote:

Still, I bet there are more than a few homosexuals out there who are happy that their mate doesn't bug them with requests to get married.

That's like me saying gay guys are in such good shape thanks to the spare time from not being allowed to have family.

No, I'm saying there are some gay people who just want to f**k. They don't care about marriage.

I've got a question for the pro-marriage people:

The state and federal governments are running record long-term debt and short-term deficit. Programs like Social Security can hardly pay out, and insurance benefits are skyrocketing because of the number of elderly making claims on the deaths of their spouses. How do you propose state and federal governments find the money to supply the benefits that would be earned by homosexuals who were married, since it can hardly pay out the substantial drain caused by heterosexual marriage benefits?

Similarly, joint tax returns lower the total amount paid by the two individuals, as well as adoption tax credits. At the same time more marriages would be occuring because of the legalization of homosexual marriage, the amount of claims for rebates and decreased individual returns would leap up with the increased amount of marriages. Costs to the government increase while returns to the government decrease. Someone is going to have to be left out of the loop here.

At 7/23/06 05:27 PM, Maus wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:47 AM, SirXVII wrote: IN FACT Jesus himself was present at a marriage. Thought I'd point that one out.

He didn't minister it, though. He attended as a guest. I'll also point out, He never spoke out AGAINST same sex marriage, either.

I'm not sure as it counts, but this is Jesus speaking.

(Cor 6:9-10) 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

This is what the dictionary says: ef·fem·i·nate ADJECTIVE: Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men.

Now unless he's talking about those guys who are straight and refuse to act manly then no he didn't. Of course I haven't really heard of cases of "metrosexuality" in that period of time.

Marrage, maybe, i seariously don't give a shit, its still nothing normal in my eyes.

To adopt kids? NEVER , its fucking disgousting, imagine being raised by a gay couple, that is not normal enviorment, if they chose to live like that, sorry, no kids.

At 7/23/06 08:06 PM, SCG wrote:

To adopt kids? NEVER , its fucking disgousting, imagine being raised by a gay couple, that is not normal enviorment, if they chose to live like that, sorry, no kids.

No less normal than raising a kid alone. Should widowed people give their kids up?

At 7/23/06 07:31 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: I've got a question for the pro-marriage people:

The state and federal governments are running record long-term debt and short-term deficit.

I understand your point, but this is not relevant. Just because the government can't pay it for anyone doesn't mean that homosexuals should be excluded from those who won't get money.

At 7/23/06 08:09 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:06 PM, SCG wrote:

To adopt kids? NEVER , its fucking disgousting, imagine being raised by a gay couple, that is not normal enviorment, if they chose to live like that, sorry, no kids.

No less normal than raising a kid alone. Should widowed people give their kids up?

Why so? If they have enough money to suport them, its ok.

At 7/23/06 08:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/23/06 07:31 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

I understand your point, but this is not relevant. Just because the government can't pay it for anyone doesn't mean that homosexuals should be excluded from those who won't get money.

I think it's incredibly relevant, unless you intend to bankrupt the government and destroy the social services you claim to exalt in a symbolic gesture to a movement hijacked by far-left political action groups.

At 7/23/06 08:13 PM, SCG wrote: Why so? If they have enough money to suport them, its ok.

And if a Gay couple have enough money to support them it's OK too.

At 7/23/06 08:16 PM, -Fudge- wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:13 PM, SCG wrote: Why so? If they have enough money to suport them, its ok.

And if a Gay couple have enough money to support them it's OK too.

No, not really. It is a completly wrong influence on the kid. He would be outcasted from the other kids for having gay parents, he could never have have normal sexual relations after that, he would either turn out gay or hating his parents, theres a high chance he would become antisocial and aggresive, run away from home (thats what i would do), in other words there is a veeery low chance he would be normal by the time he grows up, so yeah i would rather be a fucking hobo than have gay parents.

At 7/23/06 08:15 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/23/06 07:31 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

I understand your point, but this is not relevant. Just because the government can't pay it for anyone doesn't mean that homosexuals should be excluded from those who won't get money.

I think it's incredibly relevant, unless you intend to bankrupt the government and destroy the social services you claim to exalt in a symbolic gesture to a movement hijacked by far-left political action groups.

Being married doesn't automatically give you huge tax deductions. But look at it this way, who is more likely to purchase a new home and pay all those taxes that go with it? A married couple. Who is more likely to purchase more vehicles and pay the extra taxes on it, married couple. Who is more likely to spend even more money on things, and the taxes that go with them? The married couples, so by allowing them to be married your tax revinue other than straight income tax would probally increase since you would have more combines incomes that could afford much nicer, more taxier items.

Hey look Republican viewpoint on taxes works out in favor of gay marriage.

At 7/23/06 08:26 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:15 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Being married doesn't automatically give you huge tax deductions.

The joint tax returns are less of a burden than individual returns for co-residence couples.

But look at it this way, who is more likely to purchase a new home and pay all those taxes that go with it? A married couple. Who is more likely to purchase more vehicles and pay the extra taxes on it, married couple. Who is more likely to spend even more money on things, and the taxes that go with them? The married couples.

I think that's a stretch, and depends a lot on the couple in question. Generalizing a bunch of things to married couples isn't going to work very well, because it's not hard to find a bunch of married couples who wouldn't buy into very much of what you're saying here.

so by allowing them to be married your tax revinue other than straight income tax would probally increase since you would have more combines incomes that could afford much nicer, more taxier items.

Unless they opt to not live ostentatiously; and even then, the significant drain of tens of millions of couples suddenly getting married would be a massive jar to the national economy and domestic programs that a few new car purchases wouldn't fix.

I used to think the same thing as Lettuice Clock: that it would be so much better to just give gays civil unions to avoid the whole religion-politics thing.

That wont do. We're either all Americans or we aren't. To break it down the Federal government has no business whatsoever telling people who they can and can't marry: that's a state issue. What it all comes down to is basic rights derived from marriage, and it's disgustingly wrong that we deny people those rights based on our own opinions of how they live their lives.

I don't think it's moral. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. But if I wanted all my opinions dictated into law I'd up the minimum wage to fourty dollars an hour and every Sunday would be free hot-wing day at Hooters.

Let them marry, we have better shit to deal with as a nation.

At 7/23/06 08:22 PM, SCG wrote: No, not really. It is a completly wrong influence on the kid. He would be outcasted from the other kids for having gay parents, he could never have have normal sexual relations after that, he would either turn out gay or hating his parents, theres a high chance he would become antisocial and aggresive, run away from home (thats what i would do), in other words there is a veeery low chance he would be normal by the time he grows up, so yeah i would rather be a fucking hobo than have gay parents.

Utter bullshit. Studies have shown that simply is not the case. Kids with gay parents (yes, they do exist, in fact there are some on this forum) are not more likely to be any of things you mentioned (apart from being teased about gay parents, of course) than kids with straight parents.

At 7/23/06 08:36 PM, -Fudge- wrote: He would be outcasted from the other kids for having gay parents, he could never have have normal sexual relations after that, he would either turn out gay or hating his parents

Dude that happens all the time anyways. Have you not seen the shit emo kids wear these days?

At 7/23/06 08:36 PM, -Fudge- wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:22 PM, SCG wrote: No, not really. It is a completly wrong influence on the kid. He would be outcasted from the other kids for having gay parents, he could never have have normal sexual relations after that, he would either turn out gay or hating his parents, theres a high chance he would become antisocial and aggresive, run away from home (thats what i would do), in other words there is a veeery low chance he would be normal by the time he grows up, so yeah i would rather be a fucking hobo than have gay parents.

Utter bullshit. Studies have shown that simply is not the case. Kids with gay parents (yes, they do exist, in fact there are some on this forum) are not more likely to be any of things you mentioned (apart from being teased about gay parents, of course) than kids with straight parents.

Studies? There isn't alot of kids with gay parents anyway.

And it may work for some kids, but it wont work for most of them. And besides here we would get to a talk is homosexuality normal, and in mine and alot of other peoples opinions, it isn't. I dont hate homosexuals or would have anything against any of them, but it still isn't normal...

If being raised by gay parents makes you gay then how are there so many gay people with straight parents?

At 7/23/06 08:32 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:26 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:15 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Being married doesn't automatically give you huge tax deductions.

The joint tax returns are less of a burden than individual returns for co-residence couples.

But look at it this way, who is more likely to purchase a new home and pay all those taxes that go with it? A married couple. Who is more likely to purchase more vehicles and pay the extra taxes on it, married couple. Who is more likely to spend even more money on things, and the taxes that go with them? The married couples.

I think that's a stretch, and depends a lot on the couple in question. Generalizing a bunch of things to married couples isn't going to work very well, because it's not hard to find a bunch of married couples who wouldn't buy into very much of what you're saying here.

I'm not saying they all are, but they are more likely to purchase things like houses and such married since its more easily affordable. You take your average person's income single and then an average married income, which can more likely afford a home? Does this mean that all of them are going to do it? No, but they are a lot more likely which will help a lot by paying extra taxes. And while yes, a mortage itself is a tax writeoff, it doesn't make as much of a difference as some people think. It barely effected our tax return last year.

so by allowing them to be married your tax revinue other than straight income tax would probally increase since you would have more combines incomes that could afford much nicer, more taxier items.

Unless they opt to not live ostentatiously; and even then, the significant drain of tens of millions of couples suddenly getting married would be a massive jar to the national economy and domestic programs that a few new car purchases wouldn't fix.

I seriously doubt tens of millions of gays would run out and get married immediately after it becomming legal. Would there be a lot? Yes, but it doesn't mean every gay couple in the US would get married. But by them paying less in income taxes that is more money that they will spend elsewhere, you can look at what most people to today to see this. What is it for every 1 dollar on average earned peopel are spending $1.21 I think it was when I was reading the article in the news paper last week? So more money does mean more spending for the most part. More spending = stronger businesses which = more tax revinue. It'll balance itself out fairly well.

At 7/23/06 08:42 PM, SCG wrote: Studies? There isn't alot of kids with gay parents anyway.

Yes, studies. I don't have any links right now, and I'm not going looking at the moment because it's 2am, but I've read them before and I know some other regulars will probably have some bookmarked which they could post.

And it may work for some kids, but it wont work for most of them.

How do you know that, if you've seen no studies? You're guessing they'll get screwed up, but you don't have a shred of evidence.

And besides here we would get to a talk is homosexuality normal, and in mine and alot of other peoples opinions, it isn't.

What's normal? A lot parents do things which aren't "normal". What matters is how it affects the child (if at all) not whether it is "normal" or not.

At 7/23/06 08:45 PM, stafffighter wrote: If being raised by gay parents makes you gay then how are there so many gay people with straight parents?

I never said it would necesseraly make them gay. I said it would make them outcast and traumatised, it depends on how someone would react to it.

At 7/23/06 08:52 PM, SCG wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:45 PM, stafffighter wrote: If being raised by gay parents makes you gay then how are there so many gay people with straight parents?

I never said it would necesseraly make them gay. I said it would make them outcast and traumatised, it depends on how someone would react to it.

That's assuming they are as uncomfortable around gay people as you are. But if you were raised by gay parents I don't expect you would feel that way.

At 7/23/06 08:42 PM, SCG wrote:

Studies? There isn't alot of kids with gay parents anyway.

There have been plenty of studies done, many of them posted on these forums in the past. And they showed that homosexual parents do make suitable parents. Hell one of the most popular guys in my high school had gay parents, he was given shit about it sometimes but no more than anyoen else got shit for other things. Catching shit is a natural part of life, and gay parents doesnt' make it any easier or harder.

And it may work for some kids, but it wont work for most of them. And besides here we would get to a talk is homosexuality normal, and in mine and alot of other peoples opinions, it isn't. I dont hate homosexuals or would have anything against any of them, but it still isn't normal...

Do you have any studies showing that homosexuals are not suitable parents? If not stop trying to pull shit out of your ass. You're just as bad as Lettuce about comming up with baseless conclusions.

At 7/23/06 08:46 PM, ReiperX wrote:

I'm not saying they all are, but they are more likely to purchase things like houses and such married since its more easily affordable. You take your average person's income single and then an average married income, which can more likely afford a home?

You're hinging a lot of bets on the word "likely," which, if housing indicators for the last few quarters are any indication, is well off the mark.

I seriously doubt tens of millions of gays would run out and get married immediately after it becomming legal.

Did you not see the deluge of gay couples who flew ACROSS THE COUNTRY to Massachusetts when gay marriage was legalized there, and then flew back across the country when San Diego illegally started issuing marriage licenses? It took on all of the trappings of a circus show.

Would there be a lot? Yes, but it doesn't mean every gay couple in the US would get married. But by them paying less in income taxes that is more money that they will spend elsewhere, you can look at what most people to today to see this.

Well, the economy now tends to disagree with you, especially when you consider more and more people are not spending the money they have, but putting it in banks and investment accounts because of their worries about economic security and the growth of inflation. So it's not actually getting back to companies, but sitting in a bank account where it isn't being put back into the economy.

Look, it's rediculous that we're even fucking asking ourselves if gay marriage should be justified depending on how many more coins it'll put into the economy.

Sanctity of marriage my ass. More like "show me the money" first.

At 7/21/06 04:52 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 7/21/06 04:50 PM, gamiel wrote: if i was gay and knew where you lived i would kick the shit out of you!

Don't be stupid. we all know from Will & Grace that gays can't fight.

You should die a slow, painful death.

At 7/23/06 07:52 PM, SirXVII wrote: I'm not sure as it counts, but this is Jesus speaking.

(Cor 6:9-10)

Corinthians are the letters from Paul to the city of Corinth.

you cannot ban gay marriage for a lot of people if they are or are not christian. If they're not. Then the authority of the church would have no power over what they would be certified to become. If they are christians, then the church does not have the power since they will declare gay marriage a denouncement of your christianity. In other country's this might be possible. But we have the first amendment and therefore people have the right to practice ceremonies under their religion because in reality the church does not have power over itself.

They can have a ceremony, but it's not going to be legally binding in this country.

At 7/19/06 08:26 PM, Lettuceclock 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

haha this dumbass got SLAMMED.