Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/2/03 12:12 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Canada has finally, and rightly, begun to legalize gay marriages. The supreme court threw out government legislation stating otherwise, and all that remains in a free vote on the bill in the fall until it is written into law.
Currently they can, and are, marrying.

Sounds like Las Vegas

At 8/2/03 12:12 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Canada has finally, and rightly, begun to legalize gay marriages. The supreme court threw out government legislation stating otherwise, and all that remains in a free vote on the bill in the fall until it is written into law.
Currently they can, and are, marrying.

Id say hallehluyah, but Robertson might sue me for wrongly using one of gods words. buts its great that the governement finaly did what's right, maybe the flow of Gays coming to Canada to get married will help the cattle industries and SARS affected busiesses.

At 8/1/03 03:56 AM, simply_forgotten wrote: What next, adults marrying children?

Why not? Priests are working up a head start to that.

At 8/1/03 03:07 PM, simply_forgotten wrote: It's not natural, penis wasn't meant to go up the ass.

And pork wasn't meant to be digested. What's your point?

Gays aren't a race so you can't argue discrimination

I'm with the responders to this. Discrimination isn't a race only topic. It never was.

they increase their numbers by perverting young children with their gay reality shows.

And what gay reality show would that be? "Alter Boy Weekly"? Ok. Let's accept that homosexuality is a choice. That it's learned. To all those who are insistant that homosexuals are born that way, bear with me. I'm going somewhere with this. Ok. Let's just accept this. We got ourselves the perfect argument to outlaw homosexuality. Let's get homosexuality off our TVs. Get all of that out of the public eye. Let's assume we make it successful. No gay programming. No more youths to be encouraged to be gay.

Now, we need to instill into these boys that lustful thoughts are immoral. We got catholic schools to separate gender. All boy schools and all girl schools to keep their hormones in check. Get into their heads that premartial sex is bad and to stay away from girls until they are mature enough to handle it. Get that strong into their minds so when their hormones are high and they are made to hit the showers with the other boys near the end of P.E. class....

Get it? If homosexuality truly is learned and/or is a choice, Christians and Catholics are far bigger offenders than gay reality shows can EVER be. Porn is evil, but it's ok to shower with other men? Christians can't object to something they're encouraging.

At 8/1/03 09:52 PM, simply_forgotten wrote:

At 8/1/03 09:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Rambles on without end.

Artificial impregnating someone has nothing to do with gays. Damn, you are the stupidest mother fucker I've ever seen!

We're not talking about artificial insemination as has been the case in the past. This is a new branch of science that has been researched and developed in Europe, where the laws against using stem cells for research are not as stiff. Also, I see how when your views are challenged, you simply respond back with childish insults in lieu of actual rebuttals. I don't see much point in continuing this, since your argument appears to be "Gays are bad becuase I say so."

Why does anyone really care who gays marry if they're not gay? I don't care what they do.

At 8/2/03 12:03 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: They're two natural and consenting adults, why can they not love each other?

(shudders at Ted's utter stupidity)

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to enjoy a big dick in your ass, I'm just saying that marriage was meant for a man and a woman.

It wasn't designed for gays, go start your own little gay country if you don't like it. Why do you have to destroy a sacred 'institution' and I just know you all hate that word.

You can argue spousal benefits. Change those laws, not marriage.

At 8/2/03 02:17 PM, simply_forgotten wrote:

(shudders at Ted's utter stupidity)

First of all, the next insult you say will get you banned.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to enjoy a big dick in your ass, I'm just saying that marriage was meant for a man and a woman.

It was meant. What proof is there of that, anyways? The word of the vatican? Worth nothing. They're getting everything from the same source- the bible. Which contains as many references to support homosexuality as it does to denounce it. Besides, a 2000 year old book written by people, not God himself, is hardly a credible source.

It wasn't designed for gays, go start your own little gay country if you don't like it.

So it's "wrong" to allow gays to marry here, but if I were to have another country 5 minutes down the road, it's suddenly right? That doesn't make much sense.

Why do you have to destroy a sacred 'institution' and I just know you all hate that word.

You slap the word "sacred" onto it and suddenly it becomes the most important thing in the world. We must do as it says.
The church has no copyright on the word "marriage", and whether or not it is "natural, or forbidden by God, or designed to be that way has no legal merit whatsoever.
What the bible says, or what the pope says, or whether this is "natural" (a wholly misinterpreted word) or not has no bearing on whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

Let's examine the facts.
1. They're humans.
2. All humans are entitled to equality.

They're not recieving this equality because of some closed-minded individuals who feel that it's a worthwhile cause to argue over semantics like the origin of the word marriage.
I could call a same-sex marriage an Arrige-may. Suddeenly, the structure of the opposition collapses. God has no place in the argument! Why does the church matter? It has no connections to the debate at hand. All from changing the name.

You can argue spousal benefits. Change those laws, not marriage.

These spousal benefits require them to be married. Or Arried-may. Now why would we need to argue spousal benefits? They would recieve all the benefits of a heterosexual couple.
And it is the laws we are changing. Marriage is not changing. We are simply letting everyone be equal- to have the opportunity to be legally bonded with their partner. The word doesn't matter. The people do.

Very well said Ted.

I dont get this whole natural thing. So what if being gay isn't natural? Even if it isn't, then being 7 foot tall isn't natural either.

Should we stop people who are abnormally tall from marrying? Or abnormally clever? (IQ of 160+)

There are more gay people than there are people who are 7 foot tall or hav IQs of 160.

Should we stop them doing anything?

Thank you Ted for making a logical argument here.

I think its sick that we have an elected official that is supposed to represent the people, but instead he feels its more important to respresent himself and his own beliefs.

As far as marriage, most of my gay friends agree that they dont want to have anything to do with the "religious" or "sanctimonious" parts of marriage, they want the legal rights that go along with marriage. They want to be able to file jointly with their parteners, they want to be able to claim inheritance, overall, they just want to be equal to all the heterosexual couples out there.

I dont understand how we can be in a country that was founded by people who didnt want to be oppressed by government, and then we accept a government that discriminates against homosexuals.

I agree with one of the previous posters when I say that down the line, we are going to see that Bush was the most dangerous and horrid president this country has ever had.

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote: Bush is a homophobe. He's probably been raised to hate homosexuals and now he's once again abusing his power as president. With the recent war thing and now this, I can say, without a doubt that Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

Amen. Fuck homophobia.

At 8/1/03 03:56 AM, simply_forgotten wrote:

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote: Bush is a homophobe. He's probably been raised to hate homosexuals and now he's once again abusing his power as president. With the recent war thing and now this, I can say, without a doubt that Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

Marriage began as a religious ceremony meant for those following certain religious beliefs. In accordiance with those beliefs, God created man and woman. God meant for man and woman to be together and not for men to be with other men. Marriage wasn't designed for gays.

Being together is one thing, asking to change God's word is another. Bush is just a Christian who is following the teachings of the Bible.

Gays can marry. What next, adults marrying children? Or even polygamy?

First off the Constitution demands a seperation of church and state, meaning the government isn't allowed to behave in accordance to any church's laws. That includes Christianity.

Second, marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years, and although I don't approve of marriage anyway, I do think everyone should have equal rights to do so. And many religions that predated Judaism or Christianity allowed gay bonding. Such as the Babylonians, Canaanites, and the Jewish favorites the Sodomites (who were an offshoot of the people of Canaan anyway).

Third: Bush isn't following the teachings of the bible. The bible commands you to murder gays. If he followed that, I would put a bullet in his head myself.

Fourth: Polygamy is legal for certain religions, including Mormons. Also adults can marry children if they get parental permission. My friend married his second wife when she was 16 and he was 22.

At 8/1/03 04:24 AM, GameboyCC wrote: I am curious, though... have you ever actually read Romans? I've hear all this bullshit before, so I decided to be informed. I read it, and saw two ways it could be interpreted.

a) The homophobic "Jesus was lying when he said he loves us all" shit that most "religious" hypocrites tend to latch on to.

b) The way I took it, it meant that God wants us to live the way we were born. And since all research has shown that homosexuals are BORN THAT WAY, we shouldn't disobey God's word can we?

I think this is the verse that has more weight to most Christians on that issue:

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

And then Jesus commands people to follow the Torah (laws of the bible, first five books, written by Moses) here:

[Matthew 23:1] ¶Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Which was to bring the law to the people...

[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

Whatever they "bid"/tell you to observe (observe/take note of), that observe and do (obey). The Pharisees (as any number of NT scriptures indicate) taught the people to follow the laws of the Torah, which included murdering gays, slavery, murdering those of other religions, genocide of various races, etc. So Jesus is telling the people to follow the laws that the Pharisees are bidding people to observe. So contrary to popular Christian belief, Jesus did not intend for people to ignore the OT laws, he wanted them followed, matter of fact, I theorize he wanted them to replace the comparibly humane Roman law of the time.

"but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

This is the only part most Christians get. He calls the Pharisees hypocrites because they teach the law but don't follow it. This of course is typical political propaganda. Point out your opponents flaws in a manner of projectionism, when the same rules apply to you as well. Had the Pharisees followed the Torah perfectly, the Romans would have been forced to put them to death to save the rest of the people from extermination. So basically these verses state that Christians are to follow the laws the Pharisees teach, but don't do after their actions (works) because they don't practice what they preach. Not that Jesus did.

At 8/1/03 05:53 AM, BaKsHi wrote: how do you know god created man to only marry woman?

[1 Corinthians 11:9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

On a happier note, the Bill to bring Same-Sex marriage into law is inevitably going to be passed.

For those of you unfamiliar with Canada's polical/legal situation, we're a constitutional democracy.

We have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is basically the most important document in legal use. When it was written however, the government included a nonwithstanding clause that allows them to throw the charter out the window when they want to.

BUT, Jean Chretien (Canada's Prime Minister) has said he will never use the nonwithstanding clause, and our next prime minister in line (yes, we already know who he will be), Paul Martin says he will not use it for same-sex marriages, and it needs the approval of the PM to be used.

So the church and homophobes can bitch and moan all the way to the bank, because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to not allow same-sex marriages.

The bill that's passing through Canadian Parliament could lost by 100%, (which it won't) but the Supreme court's ruling still stands. The government will simply have to draft a new bill.
Because the only way to change how something works is through: One) The Supreme Court (Who is in support of same sex marriages), or Two) The Parliament.
But Parliament is powerless in this case, because they can vote down the bill, but that simply means that it does not pass, and nothing changes.
So there will be bill after bill after bill written up by the goverment (Under order of the Supreme Court, and these bills will keep being voted on until they pass.

The powerlessness of the government trumps all.

marrige is by license, not by right. you will find no mention of heterosexual or homosexual marriage in the bill of rights!

if the states only want to accept hetero-marriage, then so be it. however the states will bend under enough pressure and fags will get their marriage eventually if you all work hard enough at it. i think that it's perfectly acceptable for gays to have civil unions that give benifits to couples who make a commitment to each other, but leave us our traditions and tradition says that marriage is between man and woman for procreation. sure it might be a bit out-dated, but the current rules for marriage are fine, they just need a seperate form of union for gays that is somewhat equal.

the question really is, should gays have the ability to raise children as they are engaged in an abnormal lifestyle. it's obviously natural for homosexuals to exist as all animals have them, but it's not normal and no gay animal has children. and isn't it the fact that married couples have children that is the most important part of their union? children are our nation's future, so the government tries to reward our parents for their service to the nation in a small way. but what do gays have to offer? nothing as i see it, so why is it such a big deal i wonder... especially since many couples are not even getting married these days!

Isn't the church supposed to be separated from the state?

I never said it was a right. It's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And discriminating against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry is in violation of that charter.

gay marriage is jst wrong. there is a reason why there is a man and a woman and that is the way it is supposed to be. u don't see any gay animals and humans should be that way too.

At 8/3/03 07:33 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The powerlessness of the government trumps all.

Heheh, almost makes me wish I was Canadien.

At 8/3/03 07:46 PM, n0g0d wrote: marrige is by license, not by right. you will find no mention of heterosexual or homosexual marriage in the bill of rights!

Incorrect. The 14th Amendment specifically states that all citizens are equally protected under the law.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Marriage is a state granted "privilege", and as such, if they offer it at all, they must offer it equally to all citizens of the United States, regardless of their sexuality.

At 8/3/03 09:04 PM, goTricE9989 wrote: u don't see any gay animals and humans should be that way too.

I'll go easy on you since you are young. Go do some research before stating such ignorant bs. You can find a billion sources that tell of studies of homosexual animals and insects. It's just as natural as heterosexuality.

At 8/2/03 12:09 AM, FlyingAce wrote: karasz, that was a well thought out post; I'm glad you replied to me first.

i cant tell for sure, but im willing to bet you mean that

I marriage has nothing to do with Church and State, because it isn't specific to one Religon, or any for that matter, so that thing about Bill Frist infringing on Church and State is flat-out incorrect.

i can accept that

In response to your "it's about money" point, I was going to put up this comprise after someone replied to my thread.

I suggest the government declares a new legal title for couples, who don't have to be gay to have it, which is a purely secular arrangement, which gives the same legal and fiscal status of a marriage, but isn't involved in the institution itself. I haven't thought of a good name for the legal status yet, but other than that, I think it should pan out fine.

It doesn't piss off any of the staunch defenders of Marriage, because it isn't called a "Marriage", and has nothing to do with their ceremonies or what not.

It satisfies the people who would otherwise remain unmarried (homosexuals, or couples who have a strong commitment but can't be married, such as one couple where the woman is a die-hard feminist who won't let herself be enslaved by marriage "i know a couple like this"), because they recieve the same legal courtesies that come with the marriage.

It may sound absurd, but then again, gay marriage does too.

actually they have them, its called a civil union... vermont, under its former governor Howard Dean who is running for the democractic nomination for president, and is being attacked by conservatives as being far-left... which means the right is scared of him, trying to kill him in the general election a year before it gets here

Marriage is way more than a piece of paper dude; it's a large fiscal agreement, a spiritual bond, an emotional bond, and the foundation for a family. I don't have anything against homosexuals, but I think marriage ought to be respected for what it's supposed to be.

personal belief and i will never ever be able to change that

What's the status on Gay Marriage in Europe and Canada btw?

At 8/1/03 02:14 PM, biteme2514 wrote: ... sexual preference ...

biteme, I agree with what you said, but I object to the use of "sexual preference." The word "preference" makes it seems as though there is a choice there, which there isn't.
My sexual *orientation* is homosexual, my sexual *preference* is often ;)

At 8/1/03 03:07 PM, simply_forgotten wrote: It's not natural, penis wasn't meant to go up the ass.

Not all gay men enjoy either having their penis up a man's ass or having another man's penis in their ass. I personally view the ass as an EXIT ONLY!
Also, some heterosexual men enjoy having their penis up a woman's ass... would you deny those men the right to marry as well?

Gays aren't a race so you can't argue discrimination,

"Woman" is not a race. I need not say any more.

At 8/1/03 03:56 AM, simply_forgotten wrote: Marriage began as a religious ceremony meant for those following certain religious beliefs.

And, guess what. Religions can define marriages however the hell they want to. The issue at hand here is not the religious marriage, but the civil marriage.

At 8/1/03 07:12 PM, simply_forgotten wrote: Gays can't have children by sticking their cocks up another man's ass, so it's un-natural.

I'd just like to say that is a stupid argument.
You can't have a child by eating a grapefruit... is that then unnatural? (Yes, I realize this is an absurd argument here, but it's meant to prove a point)
Sterile men can't have children, so is a sterile man having sex with a woman unnatural? Should we then deny sterile men the right to marry?

Unsafe? Well, did you know that more gays have AIDS than any hetrosexuals

The rate of incidence among homosexual men is higher than that of heterosexual men and women. But, also realize that the rate of incidence among homosexual women is lower than heterosexual men and women.
The contraction of HIV does not have to do with whether you're gay, straight or bi, but with how promiscuous you are. In general, men are more promiscuous then women, so men are more prone to contracting HIV.

At 8/1/03 02:46 AM, Lpmofo wrote: I pose the question, why do homosexuals need marriage? Do homosexuals need a marriage to be happy? Why is gay marriage so important to these individuals? Do most homosexuals even want gay marriage?

I do not need marriage to be happy, but I would like to have the option of a civil marriage, for some simple reasons:

When I find a man to spend the rest of my life with, I would like to be able to visit him in the hospital if he gets sick or injured, and I'd like him to be able to visit me if I get sick or injured. If one of us is unemployed or has a job where medical insurance is not provided, I would like the other one of us to be able to provide said medical insurance without having to pay taxes on it, just like a married couple.
If one of us were to die, I would like the survivor to be able to inherit all of the family's possessions without having to pay an estate tax, just the same as a married couple.
There are so many rights and priveledges that a married couple gets that are taken for granted. But, when you're denied those rights and priveledges based on who you are, you really realize just how good those benefits are.

At 8/3/03 09:04 PM, goTricE9989 wrote: u don't see any gay animals and humans should be that way too.

You also do not see any other animals using electricity. Should we then forbid the use of electricity as being "unnatural"?
No other animals have cars, or a monetary system, or a democratic form of government. Need I continue?

At 8/4/03 01:17 AM, phunky1 wrote: The rate of incidence among homosexual men is higher than that of heterosexual men and women. But, also realize that the rate of incidence among homosexual women is lower than heterosexual men and women.
The contraction of HIV does not have to do with whether you're gay, straight or bi, but with how promiscuous you are. In general, men are more promiscuous then women, so men are more prone to contracting HIV.

There are some other factors involved in this that aren't being taken into consideration. A lot of gays live in gay communities where they can live freely without feeling the oppression of most places (like Hillcrest in San Diego), and in these communities, they have plenty of chances to communicate about sexual issues, and as such tend to be very informed on the risks involved in intercourse. They are encouraged to get checked very frequently for STDs and as such tend to be a lot better about checking up on their health. The negative side of this is that the more frequently gays get STD checks, the more frequently gays will be found diagnosed with something (not that I'm in all way condemning checkups, but it does cause misleading stats). So in actuality, homosexual males may not actually have more STDs than hetero males, but the high rate of reporting may give that impression.

I'd have to say that most lesbians I know are very promiscious too, I think that both gays and lesbians tend to be more promiscious. Especially in gay communities. Because they tend to be more open minded people who once they are out of the closet, don't feel compelled to follow society's taboos. One of which is against acting on lust. Most gays don't feel this inhibition, and as such their societies are generally not very monogomous, and tend to have a lot more sexual activity. So the main reason why gay males have more STDs than lesbians is actually the most common forms of sexual activity to each person. Generally anal sex (whether you participate in it or not) is the most common form of intercourse with gay males. And anal sex tends to be a lot more dangerous, because of the delicate nature of the rectum. It's easily torn or scratched, and this increases the chances of fluid exchange during intercourse.

So, anybody have any gay relatives who have gotten married? If so, how do you feel about it, and why?

My mom's gay, but she's not married. She's twice divorced from two different men, and now just dates women. It would bother me if she married again, but not because she's gay-

It's because she devours the souls of everybody (men and women) who are foolhardy enough to engage in any sort of relationship with her. She's a leech. A slutty leech. Who has a really good lawyer.

Anyhoo-

Anybody out there with gay married relatives?

At 8/4/03 02:27 AM, PreacherJ wrote: It's because she devours the souls of everybody (men and women) who are foolhardy enough to engage in any sort of relationship with her. She's a leech. A slutty leech. Who has a really good lawyer.

Hahahah, that's rich. I liked that.

At 8/4/03 03:27 AM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/4/03 02:27 AM, PreacherJ wrote: It's because she devours the souls of everybody (men and women) who are foolhardy enough to engage in any sort of relationship with her. She's a leech. A slutty leech. Who has a really good lawyer.

Hahahah, that's rich. I liked that.

Hear, Hear! I think I have an encyclopedia of photographs of ol' PJ's mom. She's a dish.

this is one time in 1000 that i applaud bushs efforts, its unnatural, despite how redneck bush sounded saying gay marriages are unatural and are not godly sounded, i back him

At 8/5/03 12:17 AM, luckoftheirish wrote: this is one time in 1000 that i applaud bushs efforts, its unnatural, despite how redneck bush sounded saying gay marriages are unatural and are not godly sounded, i back him

Are you saying homosexuality is unnatural? And if so, how is it?