Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have not heard a single argument proving that it is unnatural. It occurs in nature. There is no outside interferance. What is unnatural?

And besides. The word "Natural" is taken completely out of context and is grossly overused.

I think Bush is a hypocrite for saying that we should welcome individuals but then he goes bashing gay marrige. Dosen't it say in the bill of rights that we should have freedom of religous beleifs?. Well I'm not saying gays or lesbians are a religon but it means people should have the right to have gay marriges becuase it is their desion and they beleifs to be gay. I know it is a tradition for a man to marry a woman but if you have to stay with tradition why not stone somone to death for talking bad about the ruler or King. (I'm glad they don't do that or I would be dead along time ago). But when bill of rights where made most of the laws wheren't really carried out until over 160 years later so maybe ideas will change in the future.

The mention of God as a reason during a presidential speech should be prohibited. It's flaunting intolerance in the face of Seperation of Church and State.

At 8/5/03 10:15 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: I have not heard a single argument proving that it is unnatural. It occurs in nature. There is no outside interferance. What is unnatural?

And besides. The word "Natural" is taken completely out of context and is grossly overused.

I'll admit it's really overused, especially since it's almost impossible to set a definition on it. I mean people say that humans driving around in cars is unnatural, but since humans are naturally adept at invention, and we naturally look for easier and faster ways to do everything, I think inventing a car to do it in is a short train of linear reasoning, and thus a car becomes part of nature. It's kind of hard to say anything is unnatural for certain.

At 8/5/03 02:09 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The mention of God as a reason during a presidential speech should be prohibited. It's flaunting intolerance in the face of Seperation of Church and State.

One of the main reasons I despise Bush. ^ He always feels the need to make it seem like America is only Christian, and he's unconcerned with any listeners that aren't Christian. He does his best to act on his daddy's words that non-christians aren't citizens. He works for us just as much as anyone, and I find that terribly disrespectful.

I'm sorry, i only read the first post so i'm just going to jump in here...

My thoughts: I guess i believe in the bible, and the bible says homosexuals are bad. But i also think that the bible obviously doesn't guide everyone. So they can do whatever the hell they want.

At 8/5/03 02:31 PM, Magna wrote: My thoughts: I guess i believe in the bible, and the bible says homosexuals are bad. But i also think that the bible obviously doesn't guide everyone. So they can do whatever the hell they want.

The bible also says it guides everyone. So why do you believe one aspect but not the other? According to the bible the punishment for not conforming to it's laws is death, do you concur with that?

At 8/5/03 02:28 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/5/03 02:09 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The mention of God as a reason during a presidential speech should be prohibited. It's flaunting intolerance in the face of Seperation of Church and State.

One of the main reasons I despise Bush. ^ He always feels the need to make it seem like America is only Christian, and he's unconcerned with any listeners that aren't Christian. He does his best to act on his daddy's words that non-christians aren't citizens. He works for us just as much as anyone, and I find that terribly disrespectful.

Thank you, Ted and Roy, for sharing my personal viewpoint on the situation. Bush is always out there quoting the Bible or making out the entire nation to be a bunch of Christians, when there are massive amounts of other religions and philosophies in the United States. Bush can not think that just because he is the figurehead leader of the nation (we all know the real leader(s) of the United States reside in the U.S. Congress), he can portray the whole of the nation to be Christian. Some would say "Well, since a lot of Americans are Christian, we should get some say in the situation."

No. You shouldn't. No one should. That's not how Church and State was designed, so that the opinion of the majority religion could be drafted into law. If we're going to start following all the things the Bible says as total law, what makes us so different from the nations like Afghanistan that use the Koran as absolute law?

At 8/5/03 02:38 PM, RoyBatty wrote:
The bible also says it guides everyone. So why do you believe one aspect but not the other? According to the bible the punishment for not conforming to it's laws is death, do you concur with that?

I can only be so intolerant to other humans before my common sense takes over. I can't hate homosexuals because i just can't. If i were 'in charge' i wouldn't stop them from getting married. What i meant was the bible doesn't govern everybody. You see? I don't know if i think it SHOULD govern everybody.

Damn.

At 8/5/03 02:31 PM, Magna wrote: My thoughts: I guess i believe in the bible, and the bible says homosexuals are bad. But i also think that the bible obviously doesn't guide everyone. So they can do whatever the hell they want.

If the bible said that killing gays was fine, would you do iy? Just because a book says it is doesn't mean it is right.

At 8/5/03 03:09 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
If the bible said that killing gays was fine, would you do iy? Just because a book says it is doesn't mean it is right.

Hey, it depends on if you think it is more than just a book. Besides if it did condone such a thing than i wouldn't read it. But it does not and i agree with just about everything in it.

At 8/5/03 02:48 PM, Magna wrote: I can only be so intolerant to other humans before my common sense takes over. I can't hate homosexuals because i just can't. If i were 'in charge' i wouldn't stop them from getting married. What i meant was the bible doesn't govern everybody. You see? I don't know if i think it SHOULD govern everybody.

So you disagree with YHWH (that's right YHWH not JHVH) in Leviticus where he commands people to murder others for teaching of other gods? How about his commands to murder homosexuals? His commands to enslave other races? His commands for genocide? Does god (who'm you're witnessing for) seem like he shares your beliefs?

Wow. Never had dawned on me that "Thou shalt not kill" would have an astrick next to it.

Anywhoo, I've stated my opinion on the natural state of homosexuality once before where I see it as both natural and unnatural. It's all in how you define "natural".

Just to explain again how it isn't natural in one sense of the word, the human body is designed for reproduction via man and woman. Any sex ed class should make that clear.

Most of you understand how it is natural so I won't bother you with detail to that.

Bottom line to this, don't argue with me on whether it is natural or not. I see both side equally to where I'll just agree no matter what. Actually, I'll just say I agree most with Ted and his view of the word "natural". It's such a loosely defined word, it's just pointless to use in an argument.

In related news, let's have a few quick opinions on the confirmation of an episcopalian (whew! What a word) Bishop that was openly homosexual. 62 to 45 was the final vote.

At 8/6/03 04:38 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: In related news, let's have a few quick opinions on the confirmation of an episcopalian (whew! What a word) Bishop that was openly homosexual. 62 to 45 was the final vote.

I don't know why he'd want to take part in a religion that abhors him, but at least it's a sign of the arising awareness and the momentum of the gay rights movement.

Yes! He made it.
At the last minute, someone tried to accuse him of sexual assault or some such nonsense. I'm glad he made it.

And stop attacking Manga! He's religious and tolerant. That's what we're aiming for!

At 8/6/03 10:19 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: And stop attacking Manga! He's religious and tolerant. That's what we're aiming for!

I'm not attacking Manga, I'm attacking a religion that happens to command the murder of gays. I attack Nazism too. I attack any belief system that I find oppressive, I don't have anything against Manga, but if he's going to defend something that is oppressive and the main reason we have to even fight for gay rights, I'm going to debate it with him.

At 8/6/03 01:08 AM, OSC wrote: Bottom line to this, don't argue with me on whether it is natural or not. I see both side equally to where I'll just agree no matter what.

I don't think homosexuaslity is natural. In fact, i think it is un-natural. I just don't care. They aren't hurting anyone, so let them continue.

At 8/7/03 11:11 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: I don't think homosexuaslity is natural. In fact, i think it is un-natural. I just don't care. They aren't hurting anyone, so let them continue.

If it's unnatural then how does it occur? Do you choose who YOU are attracted to? Or does it just happen. Instinct controls sexual attraction, and instinct is natural.

My thoughts: I guess i believe in the bible, and the bible says homosexuals are bad. But i also think that the bible obviously doesn't guide everyone. So they can do whatever the hell they want.

You cant live your life by the bible. It was written thousands of years ago where you can get stoned to death for having different belifes

Here's how I look at it:

Some people want to be gay. For whatever reason, that's what they want. You can hate them, but they'll still be gay. You can love them, but they're still gay. You can hop up and down on one foot and whistle Yankee doodle, they'll still be gay. It makes no sense to me, BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY. But if I was, I'm certain I would understand their side of things.

I would also have a threesome with Ted and a goatse if I was gay, but that's beside the point.

Seperation of church and state. One of the first amendments. If a religion accepted gay marriage and performed it, would it be illegal because gay marriages aren't legal? I'll quote from the first amendment, "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof" Isn't prohibiting gay marriages prohibiting the free exercise of that religion? Whether being gay is natural or not, it is out of the question (but i do feel it is odd that prostate stimulation can only occur anally).

If I had a religion saying I could drink the blood of virgins, then would it offend my religion because I believe I can and drinking the blood of virgins is illegal?

At 8/7/03 08:32 PM, J0KER8 wrote:

My thoughts: I guess i believe in the bible, and the bible says homosexuals are bad. But i also think that the bible obviously doesn't guide everyone. So they can do whatever the hell they want.

You cant live your life by the bible. It was written thousands of years ago where you can get stoned to death for having different belifes

The Bible also says women turn to salt, but we can only justify the parts of the book that suit the cause. That's how it's always been with Christians.

Damn. Nobody answered my question. Oh well.

At 8/1/03 03:56 AM, Oni- wrote:

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote:

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.

Okay, I've never seen a quoting system like this before, so bear with me here.
What does God have against 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.

I'll quote a bumpersticker: "Last time politics and relion were mixed, people were burned at the stake"

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

Dude, there is a difference between two consenting adults and an adult and child.

On the subject about whether homosexuality is natural or unatural, chosen or biological:
For the most part, I believe it to be biological, mainly because I've seen it in so many animals that I've taken care of. Horses, cows, cats, dogs, etc.
In humans (though it's pretty rare), you'll occasionally find someone who isn't biologically that way, but like I said, it's rare, and they usually find that it doesn't work for them.
There is this prevailing notion that homosexuality is inextricably tied to child molestation. Um, big difference here.
We know that molestation is wrong because the child is not mature enough to be exposed to sexuality and to truly understand or say yes or no. It also is against the childs will and causes very harmful reprucussions. Homosexuality occurs between TWO CONSENTING adults.
*yawns*
To be continued....

At 8/2/03 02:17 PM, Oni- wrote:

At 8/2/03 12:03 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:

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.

Vibrators aren't natural...should we not allow people to use them ?(if someone tried to take mine away I'd break their fucking arm personally)

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.

Well I guess I already destroyed it by being a pagan bisexual who can legally marry people :D. I shall absolve you of your sins of ignorance, my son. :D

What is it with people? If two consenting adults are doing something that they both like and agree to, and they aren't hurting or affecting anyone else, let them do it.

damn people, marriage was made for man and woman. if gay people want to marry each other jst call it gayrry