Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/06 09:30 PM, Maus wrote:
Corinthians are the letters from Paul to the city of Corinth.

I didn't say I knew EVERYTHING.

I thought there was one passage that Jesus said something, but it might of just been the old testament.

I'm not sure, I am not perfect in the Bible.

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

Wrong. Worst idea I've ever heard in my life. The last thing the U.S. needs is to become any closer to a Theocracy.

gays have a huge right to be married...example....1: a man and a womans marrige becomes dry and pointless after a while....a gay marrige is never dry or dead...they are in infinite love...2: if a man and a woman HATE each other they shoud have more of a right to be married than 2 gay people who love each other...bullshit

At 7/23/06 11:37 PM, SirXVII wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:30 PM, Maus wrote:
Corinthians are the letters from Paul to the city of Corinth.

I didn't say I knew EVERYTHING.

I thought there was one passage that Jesus said something, but it might of just been the old testament.

I'm not sure, I am not perfect in the Bible.

Huh?! Each book in the Holy Bible has a Header on the front page that tells you exactly what that particular book contains.

At 7/23/06 09:03 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

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.

Its slowing, its not stopping. There will still be plenty of house buying, especially with the newer combined incomes and the ability to do so. No not every gay couple is going to go out and buy a house, but there will be some.

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.

It was something brand new, a new right that they were able to have. Are they still doing it now? No. If it were legalized nationally then there would be a huge influx at first, and then it would normalize just like normal marriage. Its not going to destroy the US like you predict. I'd love to see the hard numbers on the income from taxes the US would lose and such.

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.

Its called a slowdown, the economy does that. Overally the US's economy is still good. The amount of people saving the money isn't that great still, I'd be willing to bet most people in the US are stll spending every penny they have, plus some.

At 7/24/06 02:36 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:03 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

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

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.

It was something brand new, a new right that they were able to have. Are they still doing it now? No.

Do you know why? Because it's not happening right now. You're telling me they wouldn't act the same way if it was brought back? Of course they would.

If it were legalized nationally then there would be a huge influx at first, and then it would normalize just like normal marriage. Its not going to destroy the US like you predict. I'd love to see the hard numbers on the income from taxes the US would lose and such.

It's not the job of the Federal Government to infringe on the rights of State Governments in creating same-sex marriage, to do so is an abuse of the Constitution.

Its called a slowdown, the economy does that. Overally the US's economy is still good. The amount of people saving the money isn't that great still, I'd be willing to bet most people in the US are stll spending every penny they have, plus some.

I didn't know you were an ECONOMIST! Where'd you get next month's savings figures?

You're a dick

At 7/24/06 01:22 PM, stewie4evrr wrote: gays have a huge right to be married...example....1: a man and a womans marrige becomes dry and pointless after a while....a gay marrige is never dry or dead...they are in infinite love...2: if a man and a woman HATE each other they shoud have more of a right to be married than 2 gay people who love each other...bullshit

gay marry the same way as straights. They are subject to dry marriages and are rarely subject to 'infinite love'. There are many gay divorces performed or similar in manner.

I remember this argument from family guy. It's morally right, but not a religious enough argument to prove the main point.

At 7/24/06 02:45 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/24/06 02:36 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:03 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

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

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.

It was something brand new, a new right that they were able to have. Are they still doing it now? No.

Do you know why? Because it's not happening right now. You're telling me they wouldn't act the same way if it was brought back? Of course they would.

Yes many would rush to get married right away, but that would die down quickly. If prostitution was legalized there would be a huge influx in prostitution, and then it would die down. I'd be willing to be same with the legalization of pot. Its something new, and its something many homosexuals have been wanting for a very long time, so they're getting what they deserve, equal rights. But it wouldn't be every single gay person in the US. I doubt it would be the 10's of millions that you think it'll be.

If it were legalized nationally then there would be a huge influx at first, and then it would normalize just like normal marriage. Its not going to destroy the US like you predict. I'd love to see the hard numbers on the income from taxes the US would lose and such.

It's not the job of the Federal Government to infringe on the rights of State Governments in creating same-sex marriage, to do so is an abuse of the Constitution.

Marriage is about rights, and I think it is the Federal Governments job to ensure that everyone's rights are protected across the nation. There is no rational reason why a gay married couple would have to live in Massachusettes <sp> and not be able to move from there without their marriage becomming invalid. Its not right for them to lose their benefits because one of them gets a better job in Florida or Washington.

Its called a slowdown, the economy does that. Overally the US's economy is still good. The amount of people saving the money isn't that great still, I'd be willing to bet most people in the US are stll spending every penny they have, plus some.

I didn't know you were an ECONOMIST! Where'd you get next month's savings figures?

It may change, but somehow I doubt it. Some of the people who actually pay attention to this stuff may be starting to save more, but your lower and middle class probally still doesnt' give a rats ass and are going to continue to spend their money. They may spend a little less, but you can't tell me that most people in the US are going to start saving a majority of their money that doesn't go to necesities.

At 7/24/06 03:40 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/24/06 02:45 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Marriage is about rights, and I think it is the Federal Governments job to ensure that everyone's rights are protected across the nation. There is no rational reason why a gay married couple would have to live in Massachusetts and not be able to move from there without their marriage becomming invalid. Its not right for them to lose their benefits because one of them gets a better job in Florida or Washington.

Like I said, marriage has traditionally been an area reserved for interpretation by the states, and so the Federal Government would be wrong to extend its arm and mingle in the rights of the state to decide what marriage constitutes within their borders. To do that would render useless the Tenth Amendment.

At 7/24/06 04:06 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/24/06 03:40 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/24/06 02:45 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Marriage is about rights, and I think it is the Federal Governments job to ensure that everyone's rights are protected across the nation. There is no rational reason why a gay married couple would have to live in Massachusetts and not be able to move from there without their marriage becomming invalid. Its not right for them to lose their benefits because one of them gets a better job in Florida or Washington.

Like I said, marriage has traditionally been an area reserved for interpretation by the states, and so the Federal Government would be wrong to extend its arm and mingle in the rights of the state to decide what marriage constitutes within their borders. To do that would render useless the Tenth Amendment.

When it comes to human equality, the Federal government needs to step in. This is the only way to protect gay marriage from state to state and not forcing a married couple to only live in one or two states in the union.

At 7/24/06 04:10 PM, ReiperX wrote:

When it comes to human equality, the Federal government needs to step in. This is the only way to protect gay marriage from state to state and not forcing a married couple to only live in one or two states in the union.

So you're asking them to fundamentally rewrite a large portion of the Constitution to not only remove the State's power to decide traditionally state laws, but also to remove the State's right to recognize the laws of other states within limits? I've got a question for you: why not just take all of the power of the States and move it under the all-encompassing arm of the Federal Government? That's pretty much what you're proposing.

To shed some light here can any one tell me were in the bible it says homosecuality is wrong? Can you give a particular passage for it? If you point out the one I am thinking of then I can blow your whole "the bible says its wrong "bit right out of the water.

At 7/25/06 07:27 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: If you point out the one I am thinking of then I can blow your whole "the bible says its wrong "bit right out of the water.

It's usually smart to keep the punchline in hand until you're ready to use it.

At 7/25/06 07:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/25/06 07:27 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: If you point out the one I am thinking of then I can blow your whole "the bible says its wrong "bit right out of the water.

It's usually smart to keep the punchline in hand until you're ready to use it.

OK and? I am just waiting for some one to use the one area I know people almos always use.

There are two condemnations of homosexuality and over 130 of heterosexuality, so I don't see how it's nearly as great as everyone thinks to use the Bible.

Lawmakers are putting their hand on a Bible and swearing to uphold the Constitution. Not the other way around.

At 7/25/06 07:27 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: To shed some light here can any one tell me were in the bible it says homosecuality is wrong?

I'm Agnostic and I personally don't believe in any of this but I think they mean these passages from Leviticus:

[18:22] - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

[18:23-24] - "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

[20:13] - "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. "

Then again, most people who refer to Leviticus as an example of the Bible condemning homosexuality shave the sides of their heads so they're not really in a position to judge.

Or this one from Romans:

[1:26-27] "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

This one also specifically mentions girl-on-girl action. One can only imagine the dismay that must have taken a hold of Paul after he came to Corinth and became aware of the number of ways in which the Greeks touched each other and exchanged bodily fluids.

Or I Corinthians [6:9] could be mentioned.

At 7/25/06 07:58 AM, lapis wrote: [20:13] - "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. "

;
So did Jesus say this....
Or some other Prophet?
Not that I give a shit about what some old , full of himself on moralist crap of his own devising.
Has perhaps said, ( there could be editing & misquotes after all)
But I am looking forward to this Saturday July 29/06
My good friend Gracie is marying her lover Lisa.
I'm looking forward to it, I hope they have years of happiness together.
And even though I'm str8, both myself & my girlfriend are invited & looking forward to it.
"There is nothing to fear, except fear itself"
Don't know who said it, but that quote should be on the front page of the bible.

At 7/25/06 11:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/25/06 07:58 AM, lapis wrote:

I'm looking forward to it, I hope they have years of happiness together.
And even though I'm str8, both myself & my girlfriend are invited & looking forward to it.

It's only good because he has to mention he's straight, and that he has a girlfriend.

"There is nothing to fear, except fear itself"
Don't know who said it.

Oh yeah, you're our cultural superiors alright.

At 7/25/06 11:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So did Jesus say this....
Or some other Prophet?

Leviticus is the third book of the Torah so it's the word of God as told to Moses. The quotes from Romans and I Corinthians are from Paul. As far as I know Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality.

The old joke here is that jesus didn't write the bible, his friends did, and you know how your friends always mess up your stories.
Religion bashing homosexuals goes to way before christianity to the ages where it was thought to truely experience God the male and female had to come together, sexually. Here's an entire population with no desire to do that so, boom, ungodly.

At 7/24/06 03:40 PM, ReiperX wrote: Marriage is about rights, and I think it is the Federal Governments job to ensure that everyone's rights are protected across the nation. There is no rational reason why a gay married couple would have to live in Massachusettes <sp> and not be able to move from there without their marriage becomming invalid. Its not right for them to lose their benefits because one of them gets a better job in Florida or Washington.

Proving gay marriage is a right is the problem though. Do that, I have no doubt that the Federal government would legalize gay marriage across all 50 states. But, how do you prove that gay marriage is a right?

Shazam, best argument you can make.

The founding fathers said that state and church should not mix, not church and state, for fear that the government might have power over the church, not vice versa.

THUS! If people who are gay want to marry, which I personally have no problem with, go take it up with the pope, you can give the nazi an extra kick for me.

gay people are ruining every moral and sacred thing on this earth. u shouldnt hate them but its their choice to live like that. and its not soemthing their born with. thats just a lameass way to justify their actions. say what u want. im sticking to my beleifs.

At 7/25/06 03:22 PM, ganondork1990 wrote: u shouldnt hate them but its their choice to live like that. and its not soemthing their born with. thats just a lameass way to justify their actions.

Did you choose to be straight or did you start getting tingles when you thought about girls and then grow into it?

At 7/25/06 07:06 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/24/06 04:10 PM, ReiperX wrote:

When it comes to human equality, the Federal government needs to step in. This is the only way to protect gay marriage from state to state and not forcing a married couple to only live in one or two states in the union.

So you're asking them to fundamentally rewrite a large portion of the Constitution to not only remove the State's power to decide traditionally state laws, but also to remove the State's right to recognize the laws of other states within limits? I've got a question for you: why not just take all of the power of the States and move it under the all-encompassing arm of the Federal Government? That's pretty much what you're proposing.

There are still state laws saying it is unlawful for a boyfriend and girlfriend to live in the same home. Sadly from time to time these are still enforced. Is that within the state's rights to do?

But anyways, for certain things I do think the laws should be Federal and not state, marriage is one of them. You gain Federal benefits from marriage, so I think it should be the Federal government that is left to decide whether or not it is legal or not, not state to state on this issue. If the Federal government hadn't stepped in it would probally still be illegal for a black and a white person to be wed.

At 7/23/06 09:40 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: They can have a ceremony, but it's not going to be legally binding in this country.

In Connecticut, civil unions are 100% recognized. Hooray for "progressivism!"

At 7/25/06 03:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:40 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: They can have a ceremony, but it's not going to be legally binding in this country.

In Connecticut, civil unions are 100% recognized. Hooray for "progressivism!"

With Vermont.

48/50 will not recognize it.

At 7/25/06 07:58 AM, lapis wrote:

At 7/25/06 07:27 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: To shed some light here can any one tell me were in the bible it says homosecuality is wrong?

I'm Agnostic and I personally don't believe in any of this but I think they mean these passages from Leviticus:

[18:22] - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

[18:23-24] - "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

[20:13] - "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. "

Then again, most people who refer to Leviticus as an example of the Bible condemning homosexuality shave the sides of their heads so they're not really in a position to judge.

I expected Leviticus. However didnt Jesus say that the ways of the old covenant are dead? So these are outdated. To be honest Jesus only gave TWO commandments. 1) Love the Lord thy God wih all thy heart, mind, body , and soul. and 2) Love thy neighbor as you love thy self. The only sin he mentions as one that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy of the holy spirit KNOWING it is the Holy spirit. The other areas these things are mentioned by the diciples of christ and in my opinion just the ideas of MEN not of the "savior" that they followed.