Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/15/03 11:23 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: I don't know how many people here know what Yaoi is, but it is all the rage amongst adolescent women in Japan. The polar opposite, Yuri, sees substantially less popularity. (Nothing explicit behind the links, to those of you who are paranoid. ;P)

It's seemed to have crossed the Pacific too. It's all the rage in Fanfictions on the internet.

Frankly, I don't like it, but if everyone had my tastes, the world would be a awfully boring place.

I've got a bit of a question: If gays think that straight people are disgusting, and vice versa, how will there ever be equality? Neither side's willing to give in because of pride, and such.

Look, whether or not gays and heterosexuals find each other disgusting. If each side founded a nation, which one would exist the longest... think about it.

nothing against gays, of course. Just a thought...

At 10/15/03 11:47 PM, General_Patton wrote: Look, whether or not gays and heterosexuals find each other disgusting. If each side founded a nation, which one would exist the longest... think about it.

...

Just...

...

Wow.

Thanks to a lack of sleep, and homework, I'm not sure whether that's sarcasm or genuine surprise.

If neither sides can live together, then how can there be tolerance? If people can't accept gay kissing in public, will equality mean that straight people can't kiss? Show signs of affection?

Just what does "equality" mean to us all?

At 10/15/03 11:47 PM, General_Patton wrote: Look, whether or not gays and heterosexuals find each other disgusting. If each side founded a nation, which one would exist the longest... think about it.

If a heterosexual group of married people founded a nation, and a heterosexual group of celibate married people founded another, which nation would exist the longest?

At 10/16/03 01:54 AM, UNpossible wrote: Thanks to a lack of sleep, and homework, I'm not sure whether that's sarcasm or genuine surprise.

If neither sides can live together, then how can there be tolerance? If people can't accept gay kissing in public, will equality mean that straight people can't kiss? Show signs of affection?

Just what does "equality" mean to us all?

It was genuine surprise. Not -good- surprise, really, but surprise nonetheless.

It's the lack of logic and reality in it. I'm willing to play the 'what if' game, but...with it, reality has to rear it's ugly head.

Gay or straight doesn't have any bearing at all on leadership abilities. And if, by some chance, there was to be a 'homosexual nation' started, do you think none of them would think about the problem of procreating? And remember...there's lesbians and gays. Not just gay men. Because us women can be queer too!

So...in light of this fact, what exactly would be stopping them from starting a clinic for artificial insemination? There's plenty of gay and lesbian parents out there, that successfully raise their children. Granted, not all of them would be gay.

There would be legislation put into place that allowed for the adoption of children by male couples, I'd be willing to be. A surrogacy program, for women willing to bear children for their male friends to raise and care for and love.

Gay is not synonymous with stupid, and in this day and age, there's ways of procreating without ever gettin' in the sack with someone.

Amen sister friend! I was trying to type something along the same lines until a co-worker deleted it trying to clock in. Damn co-workers.

My point was just that, whetehr or not you like it, homosexuality is not a natural tendancy. No offense to gay people, but that is just the way it is. You can't really fix it, and it is not a detriment to them as people, but it still does not make it natural. I merely meant that a culture based on homosexuality could not survive. And no, dont give me bullshit that you could use artificial insemination and test-tube babies to sustain an entire civilization, the margin of error in those cases is too great.
Anyways, Marriage is an institution that was created for a man and a woman. There can be some other legal union created for homosexuals, however, not marriage. Having a homosexual mariage is like asking for tea made out of coffee. Its a totally different thing.

You ignored what I asked: how could an all-holy celibate heterosexual married nation continue to populate?

At 10/16/03 06:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You ignored what I asked: how could an all-holy celibate heterosexual married nation continue to populate?

They could not. That question makes no sense. Who are theses "all-holy" celibate married people. I've never heard of anyone who gets married and never has sex. Yeah... what happened if a nation of people without any privates survive? You are just delving into the realms of stupidity.

At 10/16/03 06:39 PM, General_Patton wrote:

At 10/16/03 06:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You ignored what I asked: how could an all-holy celibate heterosexual married nation continue to populate?

They could not. That question makes no sense. Who are theses "all-holy" celibate married people. I've never heard of anyone who gets married and never has sex. Yeah... what happened if a nation of people without any privates survive? You are just delving into the realms of stupidity.

Celibate married couples are viewed as more holy in the eyes of the Catholic religion. Now, should you have realized what I was saying before taking cheap shots, you might not be viewed as such a moron by the majority of this forum. Celibate couples, who never have sexual intercourse, do not view the chief purpose of marriage to be procreation.

I heard someone say unnatural. Havent we gone through this, gay is natural. A person doesnt wake up one morning and say this will be the day I choose my sexual orientation. One side of the room the parents goin "hetero, hetero" and on the other side the gym teacher yelling "homo, homo". I stole that from a stand up routine someone did at the comedy festival but it illustrates the poiint well.

No, unnatural means that it is not the CORRECT method of sexual intercourse. Would you say someone being born without an arm is natural? Perhaps a person being born without a desire to eat any food, ever? Unnatural means it is not the way that the human body is engineered to function. Ok, its more of a natural error. Anyway, celibate couples are NOT considered more holy by the catholic or christian churches. I dont know where you got this info, but the catholic church does not believe in married life WITHOUT sex. That is why catholics get married, for love and sex.

At 10/16/03 07:48 PM, General_Patton wrote: No, unnatural means that it is not the CORRECT method of sexual intercourse.

Who determines what is correct and right ?

At 10/16/03 05:52 PM, General_Patton wrote: My point was just that, whetehr or not you like it, homosexuality is not a natural tendancy.

read the earlier posts, homosexuality is natural. it occurs in nature, in more species than our own. if it occurs naturally explain how it's unnatural. your explanation ought to be highly entertaining

No offense to gay people, but that is just the way it is. You can't really fix it,

since it's not a problem

and it is not a detriment to them as people, but it still does not make it natural. I merely meant that a culture based on homosexuality could not survive.

right, a culture of socialy and religiously tolerant, intelligent and artistic people who happen to be gay would not survive how? proove this. i would have to say that the same think can be said for hetero society, which is coming apart at the seams with all the ignorance and intolerance inherent in a system where only the majority are granted any sort of rights and where some people get to be "more equal."

And no, dont give me bullshit that you could use artificial insemination and test-tube babies to sustain an entire civilization, the margin of error in those cases is too great.

margin of error? explain this as well? my aunt (who is a staunch homophobe) had to be artificially inseminated do to the circumstances. the kids turned out fine. again, what margin of error? succesful impregnations would actually go up and there'd be less of those ICKY abortions you all bitch so much about, because all pregnancies will be wanted.
and anyway the whole idea of an all straight or all gay society is bullshit. neither would remain pure for very long. straight kids can be born to gay parents, and we KNOW that gay kids can be born to straight parents. the whole idea of an all gay or straight society being superior to the other is pointless, since neither can really exist. but coexist in our own society (there is clearly a gay culture in america) it's just that one subverts and oppresses the other, and that's wrong

Anyways, Marriage is an institution that was created for a man and a woman. There can be some other legal union created for homosexuals, however, not marriage. Having a homosexual mariage is like asking for tea made out of coffee. Its a totally different thing.

who defined it as between a man and a woman? religion? isn't there a seperation of church and state? isn't that sexual discrimination? and isn't sexual discrimination unconstitutional? and that cofee-tea analogy is a terrible one and btw, i really don't think the fuss is over what the government wants to call it. i think it's always been about rights and equality. and as long as it's viewed as unnatural, that equality will always be incomplete

At 10/16/03 05:52 PM, General_Patton wrote: My point was just that, whetehr or not you like it, homosexuality is not a natural tendancy. No offense to gay people, but that is just the way it is. You can't really fix it, and it is not a detriment to them as people, but it still does not make it natural.

Well, to be fair, Anthony Hopkins became straight through therapy...but I guess he probably wasn't really a homosexual to begin with if that could happen, I'm really not sure. Anyway, I don't see how you don't consider homosexuality natural if you believe there is no changing it. To me by saying "you can't help being gay" it's basically saying this is something built into your biology, and that would, to my mind, make it natural. In fact, there are theories out there saying that in every person we have the genetic predispositions to be attracted to BOTH sexes, and then somewhere along the line, we decide which sex we prefer (I would imagine this to be somewhat societal in nature since we seem to see more instances of bi-sexual women then men...or at least, I have in my OWN experience known more women who showed an interest in their same sex, then I have encountered men). So to say it's not natural, especially in that you won't take the position that it is an alterable state, is an extremely flawed argument I think.

I merely meant that a culture based on homosexuality could not survive. And no, dont give me bullshit that you could use artificial insemination and test-tube babies to sustain an entire civilization, the margin of error in those cases is too great.

Still, unless it failed 100% of the time...you could make it work, you could even like House_Of_Leaves already pointed out have a surrogate program. So that dosen't work

Anyways, Marriage is an institution that was created for a man and a woman. There can be some other legal union created for homosexuals, however, not marriage. Having a homosexual mariage is like asking for tea made out of coffee. Its a totally different thing.

Look, dammit. Homosexuality does occur naturally. I am not saying that it does not.However, it is brought on by the mis-introduction of hormones to a fetus at three stages during fetal development. Beings taht these introductions of pheremones and testosterone are done incorrectly, one may say that homosexualtiy is an error from development (ok, maybe unnatural is the wrong term and i apologize).
I am not saying that homosexual are bad, or that they should not have sex. That is their right. They can be what they want. However, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. There can be another legal arrangement made for homosexuals. Every time somehting does not fit everyone's politcally correct view of the world doesn't mean it has to be changed.

i;d like you to turn up the research for me that proves this is what causes homosexuality in both sexes. no attack on you, i'm just curious to see it.
and just because something unjust has stood for thousands of years doesn't mean it must remain simply because it's been around.

At 10/16/03 07:57 PM, izuamoto wrote:

succesful impregnations would actually go up and there'd be less of those ICKY abortions you all bitch so much about, because all pregnancies will be wanted.

Ok, about abortions. One must look at it from a non-theological view. What is a human being? A human being is a multicellular organism with a human genome. Once conception occurs, an abortion is possible, however, once the cells start to multiply (and yes, i know that that is soon), the cell has become human. Once the organism is multicellular, it is human by definition.

At 10/16/03 08:16 PM, izuamoto wrote: i;d like you to turn up the research for me that proves this is what causes homosexuality in both sexes. no attack on you, i'm just curious to see it.
and just because something unjust has stood for thousands of years doesn't mean it must remain simply because it's been around.

I fo0rget where the research is... you could probably type a few words in google and eventually find somehting on it. It was a program on Discover, and a few news articles i looked at too. Anyway, how is marriage unjust? Just create something differnt for homosexuals that is the equal of marriage. I mean, look in the dictionary. The definition of marriage is right there. Just make somehting for homosexuals then.

Maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of keeping the population down. 8P

To say that two people can’t be together purely because they can’t reproduce together is dumb. Logic like that implies that a person can’t marry another person who is sterile. And there are so many heterosexual people having sex that the population would still survive if some weren’t spending their lifetime bring babies into the world.

To bring up the point of one homo-nation on the basis of argument is dumb, cause that would never happen. Granted it would be a very fashionable trendy society, but still it would ever happen.

If two people want to share is in a cultural ritual like marriage, let them. Gay people can go to church and put money in the collection plate, but they can’t go through the steps of ritual? It makes no sense?

on a legal level it is unjust because it discriminates on the basis of gender, which is unconstitutional in america

No, i thought we were talking about religiously. A state marriage is ok. A religious marriage is not, because if their religious tradition holds they cannot get married, then they can't get married under their religion.

Black people couldnt own property for a while, so why instead of giving them the right to own property did they not give them some other right? The definition of things always changes. How about instead of letting women vote, we just let them partake in opion polls, but not elect someone? Or how about not let them work outside a house, but can be paid to work in their or another persons house? Its silly isnt it?

At 10/16/03 08:33 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Black people couldnt own property for a while, so why instead of giving them the right to own property did they not give them some other right? The definition of things always changes. How about instead of letting women vote, we just let them partake in opion polls, but not elect someone? Or how about not let them work outside a house, but can be paid to work in their or another persons house? Its silly isnt it?

Its also funn how thats not what i said. First of all, religions can define marriage as they please, because they are religions. The state should only be able to limit human union between two humans (some people apparently try to marry animals). And when i suggest two seperate unions, i didn't say they would be unequal. However, marriage has one definiation. What you says makes no sense. A legal unio is a legal union. A religious union is somehting based on a faith people CHOOSE to live under.

There's so much to respond to that I just...can't. Not really, and make sense.

The point IS, General, that the definition of 'correct' differs in every single person's mind. That YOU might think 'marriage' is a bad word for it, but shit. Fine. I won't call it marriage.

I want to be able to stand, in a church with my life-partner (since WIFE isn't apparently something you like to hear out of a woman's mouth), and legally be able to say, 'Yes, I'll spend the rest of my life with you, and I love you.' I want the legality of it, and I want everyone in the world to know that she and I are joining for life in the eyes of Christ. I want to be able to have the same tax breaks, the same 'hand-fasting' (since, OMGOMGOMG, wedding is for men and women only) ceremony, in the same way, with the same honors and the same rings. I want to be able to wear a pretty 'hand-fasting' dress while she wears a tux, and have her pull a pretty lacy garter off my leg, after which I'll throw the bouquet. I want to get drunk on champagne and have an intoxicated best man (or woman) give a slurred toast. I want to be able to sign a 'hand-fasting' certificate that makes it legal in the eyes of my state, my country, to live with and enjoy the same freedoms with my life-partner that every other in-love-couple can after they sign a similar certificate.

Does that make you feel better? I didn't once call it a marriage.

Now...see...what YOU have done, General, is delve into the world of word-play. It's a way of saying, 'I'm changing the subject because I don't have a way to answer the other arguments.'

Fine, then. If all I have to do is come up with a brand new word in place of 'marriage', I'll do it. If that'll make it legal? FUCK YES! WAHHOOOO!!!

The new word for a gay 'marriage' is now, officially...

honkshabooblie.

At 10/16/03 08:32 PM, General_Patton wrote: No, i thought we were talking about religiously. A state marriage is ok. A religious marriage is not, because if their religious tradition holds they cannot get married, then they can't get married under their religion.

And who says? Who says that I fall under any religion?

I HATE religion. Hate it. It, in and of itself, with it's doctrines and rules and toxicity...it's a false idol and it spits in the face of a healthy faith.

So, MY religion doesn't tell me I can't get hooshkabooblied to a woman. All it tells me is that LOVE IS GOOD, love is correct, and I should purely. As long she and I give our lives to Christ and praise him every day, that's all we need to know. We're not hurting anyone at all. We just want to -love-.

Dammit, religions have their own damn definition of marriage. A state marriage between gays should be legal. Yes. A religious marriage, depends on the relioign. You can call your wife wife, it does not goddam matter. I merely suggested that religions opposed to GAY marriage may create somehting else so they can keep their cake AND eat it.
The stuff about nation states and such, i was merely trying to show that being gay is NOT a lifestyle choice.

Well I most certainly don’t speak for the Pope, but Catholics have changed their stance on many different “traditions” that they have held in the past. Woman we banned from hearing mass and now they can. And just up until the 1950s, or was it 40s?, Catholic mass was performed with the priest’s back to the people and it was spoken in Latin. For almost 2000 years it is only performed like that and then they change just like that. The Catholic religion is against homo-sex and abortion, cause you can’t get any new recruits if you kill the baby or if two people with vaginas are having sex. Which is horrible!

Man + Man = No Baby = No Catholic Baptism = No $$$$$

The church needed to compete with other cultural influences in the 50s, like radio, Hollywood, books, and the soon to be popular TV. Once they realized they were losing money and converts they gave in and allowed people to hear the mass in their own language, and allowed to priest to face his crowd during mass, this gave a human face to it and people could then relate to the material. And hence they stayed and came back the next week, with money in their wallets.

It will happen again. In the coming years, when more and more people are turned off from the Catholic Religion, the Pope will come out (by then he will be half machine) and will allow gays to be married under his watch, cause it extra money.