Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/08 12:21 AM, Grammer wrote: Keep religious services religious.

Do you think that atheists shouldn't be given a proper funeral?

At 4/22/08 12:58 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/22/08 11:38 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 4/22/08 12:21 AM, Grammer wrote: Keep religious services religious.

Do you think that atheists shouldn't be given a proper funeral?

Respect for the dead is not a religious thing. A man and a woman being united through God is.

Funerals, like marriages, have originated from religion, but you don't need to be religious to have one. Besides, marriage may be a religious event to some, but to others it is done for other legal benefits that couples need.

At 4/22/08 02:00 PM, Grammer wrote: Some sort of ceremony to bury the dead has been around even in cultures who weren't necessarily religious.

Can't the same be said for marriage?

At 4/22/08 02:00 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/22/08 01:07 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Funerals, like marriages, have originated from religion, but you don't need to be religious to have one.

Some sort of ceremony to bury the dead has been around even in cultures who weren't necessarily religious.

Yes, but funerals were adopted by a religion and given a religious meaning. Just like marriages have been adopted by a secular society and given a more secular meaning. There are some religious implications to marriage, but most do no view it in that way in our society. Of course, funerals have also gained a more secular meaning as well over time.

That was hilarious, I also had a laugh at the expense of the people that felt like they need to defend themselves against that "troll post", not sure if they realize they come off as quite unintelligent.

The sarcasm made me laugh, unless it's not meant sarcastic, then I'm gonna laugh even harder xD.

At 4/22/08 12:29 AM, arcansi wrote:

At 4/22/08 12:21 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/21/08 01:46 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: stuff

stuff

Grammer, you sir, have taken the win. This is for you.

The flag on that card has 48 stars. Commie.

At 4/22/08 02:01 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 4/22/08 02:00 PM, Grammer wrote: Some sort of ceremony to bury the dead has been around even in cultures who weren't necessarily religious.

Can't the same be said for marriage?

No, because monogamous marriage between two people is a fairly modern activity. Back in the day, it was anything-goes as far as sexual relationships went. It's not like they had any idea of how babies came to be. Men usually had several sexual partners, and rape was not uncommon.

I think all marriage laws should be scrapped, along with all the tax breaks and replaced by legitimate business arrangements which couples can get at a bank. This would save tax payer's money and prevent discrimination against those who are single.

At 4/22/08 05:51 PM, Grammer wrote: Probably, but... marriage is mainly seen as a religious ceremony, and marriage was mentioned in The Bible, which means it goes way back, most likely conceived by the Abrahamic religions.

Which is true, but take it with a grain of salt...
Those marriages were also polygamists and incestual as well.

Yet,
People condemn those marriages even though it's in the Bible.

Being gay is nasty.

Lesbians another thing...

This thread has continually shown exactly what is wrong with this country. I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall. Peace out cub scouts.

At 4/22/08 10:26 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall. Peace out cub scouts.

Same here.

At 4/22/08 06:14 PM, Grammer wrote: Most marriage in The Bible wasn't incestuous, though I can think of one example where Abraham's daughters had him drunk, but I considered that a sin.

And polygamy... aw who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt anybody.

Milcah and Nahor...
Niece and uncle--

Isaac and Rebekah
Distant uncle and niece......... THROUGH Nahor's lineage.

Jacob and Rachel and Leah.
First cousins.

Amram and Jochebed
Nephew and aunt, which produced Moses.

But anyways...
You have a very capricious and accepting attitude on polygamous marriage considering that gay marriage also doesn't hurt people either...

LOL Excellent post, my friend. This PERFECTLY explains the flaws in all arguments against gay marriage. I just wish the state legislature in Ohio felt the same way.

At 4/21/08 05:41 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

At 4/20/08 04:46 PM, Grammer wrote: The only reason I'm against gay marriage is because marriage is a religious institution, and religion frowns upon that sort of thing. Instead, I support civil unions.

But there are religions that tolerate gay marriage.

The Abrahamic religions aren't the only religions in the world, you know.

Yes and besides, marriage licenses aren't religious at all; they're legal documents. I could understand a church not allowing a same-sex union under the house of God if that's their belief, but it shouldn't be illegal as well.

Would it really offend your beliefs so much if two gays got married by Elvis and Marilyn Monroe impersonators in Vegas, and it was actually called a marriage? Would you and your religious brethren take that as a direct affront?

Well, if you would, too bad, because gay people see it as more of a direct affront to make them get 'civil unions' instead of the 'marriage' thing we permit to all other couples who turn up at a church. And I would say 'things you can't help', ie things you were born with or that got imprinted into you deeply in your very early years, like your language or your sexuality, take priority over changeable belief systems that object to them.

So long as nobody is physically or psychologically hurt against their will. And if they are, there's always divorce.

jesus christ! some people are fucking retarded enough to take this seriously!

At 4/23/08 11:49 AM, MCRFAN1134 wrote: jesus christ! some people are fucking retarded enough to take this seriously!

Someone even argued against the thing about being around tall people. This just makes me facepalm.

wow, the OP is made of fucking pure win

At 4/22/08 06:04 PM, fli wrote:

Which is true, but take it with a grain of salt...
Those marriages were also polygamists and incestual as well.

Yet,
People condemn those marriages even though it's in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, sure.

Fail.

At 4/23/08 04:10 PM, Grammer wrote: Homosexuality is a sin condemned in The Bible.

Polygamy is not.

Technically, Gay marriage isn't condemned in the Bible at all, only gay sex.

At 4/23/08 04:18 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/23/08 04:10 PM, Grammer wrote: Homosexuality is a sin condemned in The Bible.

Polygamy is not.

Technically, Gay marriage isn't condemned in the Bible at all, only gay sex.

Whoa, really? I didn't know that.

At 4/23/08 04:18 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/23/08 04:10 PM, Grammer wrote: Homosexuality is a sin condemned in The Bible.

Polygamy is not.

Technically, Gay marriage isn't condemned in the Bible at all, only gay sex.

Yeah because the thought of gay marriage was unheard of back then.

that and the concept of marriage was also kind of assumed in some cases with the act of sex, I think. at least, I think in Orthodox Judaism that is how it worked.

At 4/23/08 04:18 PM, Grammer wrote: You two people are the kind that I wish never got into Politics. Whiny bitches who refuse to compromise and insist only their way is the "right" way,

Look who's talking

You insist it be called what you want regardless of what other people feel,

Have you taken in how homosexuals feel

and regardless of how it doesn't affect you if you compromise anyways.

Why can't you compromise

Well guess what dick weeds, the American people have spoken, and an overwhelming majority of states, even liberal states such as California, are banning gay marriage.

Dosn't make it right

Gay marriage will never be allowed in every state as it is an affront to marriage,

Never say never

At 4/23/08 04:45 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/23/08 04:18 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/23/08 04:10 PM, Grammer wrote: Homosexuality is a sin condemned in The Bible.

Polygamy is not.

Technically, Gay marriage isn't condemned in the Bible at all, only gay sex.

Homosexuality is a prerequisite of consensual gay sex...

So prisoners who often sodomize one another are automatically gay? I always thought rape as something that was some form of dominance and humiliation and not truly sexual. I once read on some ancient history website that when certain armies conquered another army, the victors would sodomize any survivors, thus further humiliating them.

At 4/23/08 04:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/22/08 06:04 PM, fli wrote:

Which is true, but take it with a grain of salt...
Those marriages were also polygamists and incestual as well.

Yet,
People condemn those marriages even though it's in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, sure.

Fail.

Yet, the main argument against gay marriage is mainly BASED on Levitical scripture.
Because the other arguments doesn't command people like Leviticus... just merely says how God dislikes it.

But that's not the point-- The point is that opponents of gay marriage say that gay marriage is not traditional and then refer to the Bible, which is ALSO includes the Old Testament.

Yet, clearly-- a traditional marriage also includes polygamy... sometimes distantly within a family. Although, once we get to Moses... he changes many traditional things by forbiding incest and even giving a guideline of what's acceptable marriage between certain peoples (none of which between men, lol.)

So we need consistency in this argument. You guys can't say, "It's not traditional" and point the Bible... and then say, "Well, we don't look at the OLD part." But refer to it when it does support your idea, and other times not.

At 4/23/08 04:18 PM, Grammer wrote: Well guess what dick weeds, the American people have spoken, and an overwhelming majority of states, even liberal states such as California, are banning gay marriage.

Wait a sec...
Half the population want to pass gay marriage... it's that point something percent that wins the majority.

And-- guess what--
that very conservative bodybuilder/governer has said that he WILL NOT sign any legislation that would ban gay marriage should a bill come to him.

He may not have signed one for the proponents... but at least he has a good head and not went with the nutty opponents.

well let the gays be gays, let the gays marry. the only harm they are really doing is getting rid of our competition, and that isn't even harmful