Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/6/08 06:20 PM, tonybeme wrote: I think you should be able to love and marry who you want!
As long as you are not bothering others!

The sad thing is, gay and lesbian marriage does bother people. I'm not gay myself, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to marry anyway.

good for them, i have a few gay relatives, and apart from the fact they dig other men, they are the same as everyone else

At 11/8/08 03:11 PM, D-Wahl wrote: I don't see what people have against gays.
They are human beings! God damnit they are not any fucking different then the rest of us, they just like their own sex! What the bloody fuck is wrong with that?! I don't give a shit about what the bible says, I used to be religious, but after I saw what many conservatives wanted to do, such as stop people from loving each other, I immediately turned athiest.
I mean what is wrong? They are us!
As long the the U.S.A. supports the whole idea of marriage, they should support all types of marriage, whether it be gay or lesbian or straight or interracial! Why do you discriminate against people that are different. They think that they will get rid of the power of the rich by protesting or whatever, well this is just my opinion on the matter, but seriously just think, what is wrong about being different? What wrong with being black? Or gay? What makes whites and straights the superior race? Because the bible said so?

Yes. Gays are the cancer killing America and killing America's moral values, good thing they banned gay marrage in California, blame the Blacks as they voted against Gay marrage. Also take your bullshit somewhere else, fags aren't welcomed.

At 11/8/08 01:47 PM, Tekken9292 wrote: The problem is, you like gay people or not, this is a violation of the constitution, no matter how you look at it, and that's not right. If this would get to the supreme court, gay marriage would be OK'd.

The California Supreme court ruled gay marriage ok.... That's how homosexuals in California got married.
What I think: They have every right to get married, why shouldn't they? Tell me exactly how it would affect you, children, or anyone.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I do beleive God made us the way we are. We just have to play the cards we've been delt.
That's life.

Mommy says "God hates fags."

Didn't they just get same-sex marriages legalized in California?

dude i live in cali and im pretty much indifferent all i can say is that im undicided about what i am like really i dont care all i care about is OBAMA 08!!!!!! BITCHES

It's going to change when Obama becomes president in two months, they just need to wait.

At 11/8/08 04:55 AM, Monocrom wrote: Not quite the same..... I take 20 people, dress them up in business suits or dresses, take you into the room, and ask you to pick out the 5 gay people in the room without speaking to anyone.

Same situation, but I ask you to pick out the 5 Black people in the room.

Fairly obvious which task will take about 3 seconds.

doesnt really matter which is more obvious*, they were discriminated against legally, and currently homosexual couples are as well; specific example:
-interracial marriage was not always legal in the us, obv it is now.
-gay marriage is not currently legal in the us; overall

*if a homosexual couple is looking for marriage than its going to be obvious, and theyll be discriminated against; it will also be obvious to anyone whom they are out of the closet to as well as if they dont try to hide pda towards any loved ones

At 11/8/08 04:37 PM, karlu20 wrote:

At 11/8/08 04:55 AM, Monocrom wrote: Not quite the same..... I take 20 people, dress them up in business suits or dresses, take you into the room, and ask you to pick out the 5 gay people in the room without speaking to anyone.

Same situation, but I ask you to pick out the 5 Black people in the room.

Fairly obvious which task will take about 3 seconds.

doesnt really matter which is more obvious*, they were discriminated against legally, and currently homosexual couples are as well; specific example:
-interracial marriage was not always legal in the us, obv it is now.
-gay marriage is not currently legal in the us; overall

You're forgetting one thing though..... Marriage has, for thousands of years, been defined as being between a man and a woman. This concept of Same-Sex marriage is a very new one. For many folks, the new definition is not widely accepted outside the homosexual community. Since two men (or two women) wanting to get married doesn't even meet the basic requirement of a "marriage," it's not considered by many to be a case of discrimination.

It would not legally be considered discrimination if a guy walked into a regular strip club and was turned down for a job as a stripper. A young man goes to an acting audition, wanting the lead role in Phantom of the Opera. But he gets turned down because he's too young for the part. Also, not discrimination. A guy walks into an abortion clinic, do you honestly expect the receptionist to ask if he'd like to make an appointment for himself? No, of course not.

The above are all examples of folks who got turned down for what they wanted. Why? None of them could meet the basic requirements to get what they wanted. The guy in the strip club didn't have breasts and a vagina. The young man wasn't alive long enough to play the part of a character in his mid 40s. The other guy..... He's never been pregnant, and he's never going to be. And the receptionist at the abortion clinc knows it. As far as gay marriage goes, if you look at the traditional definition; once again you have a situation where the basic requirement is not met and never will be. So how is that discrimination?

You're right that interracial marriages were not always legal. But those were between a man and a woman. Many folks see a huge difference between racial discrimination, vs. homosexuals being told that they don't meet the basic requirement to get married.

Once again, it's the fact that no one wants to look at the issue from the others' point of view. If they did, they'd see that both sides have strong arguements. Instead, what you have is one side that sees it as discrimination from a bunch of Bible-thumping, repressed, Christians. While the other side sees it as a bunch of perverts who lead a disgusting, immoral, lifestyle; and are now trying to pretend to be normal by having decided to steal a sacred institution that for thousands of years has belonged only to couples of different genders.

Yeah, this issue is not as simple as folks like to make it out to be.

It's straight people like this (Bigots/homophobes) that make the rest of the straight people look like assholes.

gays are people too!! just because they like it in the cornhole, it doesnt make them evil...
damn prudes.... can we just like up all the utterly Christians and republicans in one spot and blow it up?

At 11/10/08 04:27 AM, Monocrom wrote: You're forgetting one thing though..... Marriage has, for thousands of years, been defined as being between a man and a woman. This concept of Same-Sex marriage is a very new one. For many folks, the new definition is not widely accepted outside the homosexual community. Since two men (or two women) wanting to get married doesn't even meet the basic requirement of a "marriage," it's not considered by many to be a case of discrimination.

And an older concept is one man and several women...
Or, one man and a prepubescent girl...
Or, one man and his sister, aunt, cousins, etc.

Times change. So do people. Gays have a need for marriage because they are raising families, including children. And because they face certain challenges that makes this much harder based on their sexuality... IT IS DISCRIMINATION.

You get married and have children, and you got a whole set of legal stuff that helps you.
But if two gays get married and have children, they have to worry about inheritance, property issues, custody, and even seperation. They have their wills contested, their children removed, can't be insured on the same plan, have bitter disputes about seperation-- and there is no real body of law guiding the process. Just lawyers and rather useless civil unions which has no real function in terms of serving family life and needs.

Of course it's discrimination when people have to jump huge hurdles just so they can have equal (or almost equal) service.

It would not legally be considered discrimination if a guy walked into a regular strip club and was turned down for a job as a stripper. A young man goes to an acting audition, wanting the lead role in Phantom of the Opera. But he gets turned down because he's too young for the part. Also, not discrimination. A guy walks into an abortion clinic, do you honestly expect the receptionist to ask if he'd like to make an appointment for himself? No, of course not.

Your analogies are soooooooo false.
you might as well compare a car accident to the Chernobyl!

Sure, both of these are accidents-- but are they really similar????

The above are all examples of folks who got turned down for what they wanted. Why? None of them could meet the basic requirements to get what they wanted. The guy in the strip club didn't have breasts and a vagina. The young man wasn't alive long enough to play the part of a character in his mid 40s. The other guy..... He's never been pregnant, and he's never going to be. And the receptionist at the abortion clinc knows it. As far as gay marriage goes, if you look at the traditional definition; once again you have a situation where the basic requirement is not met and never will be. So how is that discrimination?

You're right that interracial marriages were not always legal. But those were between a man and a woman. Many folks see a huge difference between racial discrimination, vs. homosexuals being told that they don't meet the basic requirement to get married.

The people of then made the same arguments by setting up false dichotomies. Back then, it was all about that nobody dated outside the race, that it wasn't natural, that God wanted people to stay seperate because he put them on different continents. Now today they made simiar arguments like you setting up a false analogy saying, "It's not discrimination because it's like a guy wanting abortion and not getting one."

Haven't ever considered that, quite possibly, this issue ISN'T about making people equal. Perhaps this is about a need that gays have to protect their own interests, their families, and finally having a body of law regulating such things.

Cause today, we still see crap like... a guy being with another guy for 20 years, yet a hospital won't allow the same sex partner if his boyfriend is in the emergency room. Because he is neither family... OR MARRIED.

Years ago, a lesbian couple made a will in case one of them died. I think this was in 1994. Well, one of them died and left all her inheritance to her partner. But the family of the dead woman contested the will on the grounds that they weren't married and thus... do not qualify to inherit. She lost her home, property, and pratically everything. They were together for 15 years.

Well, let's see how you would like to go through these things and tell me you wouldn't want a body of law-- and let's see how you would feel when somebody says, "No way, and don't say it's discrimination cause it ain't cause you didn't face what Black people did."

You would change your tune pretty quickly when you actually faced this.

Once again, it's the fact that no one wants to look at the issue from the others' point of view. If they did, they'd see that both sides have strong arguements. Instead, what you have is one side that sees it as discrimination from a bunch of Bible-thumping, repressed, Christians. While the other side sees it as a bunch of perverts who lead a disgusting, immoral, lifestyle; and are now trying to pretend to be normal by having decided to steal a sacred institution that for thousands of years has belonged only to couples of different genders.

Yeah, this issue is not as simple as folks like to make it out to be.

This issue goes above Christian vs Gay.
I've given legal reasons, but now let me tell you intrinsic human value.

It's inhumane to want to will harm to anyone innocent. You may not like them, but willing them harm is evil.

Prop 8 pretends that this is about families, but it ain't. It's about devalueing families by aiming where it hurts: their humanity.

Yes, marriage may have been defined between men and women. But guess what? The marriage that we think is traditional is infact extremly modern in concept... a man dating a girl, then proposing to her? Well, guess what. Marriage before was a way for families, NOT THE INDIVIDUALS, to will political power. It still exists today... like in India, where families set up marriages for their children.

But today, we have something modern, something uniquely human. Sure, there are some gays who marry to piss off people because they're being told they can't marry. That's why I married. Because nobody is going to tell what to do with my life.

And then there are people who married because they needed to.
I saw lesbian couples who had babies together. Gay men who had their sons be the ring bearers and Best Men for their weddings. They're happy as happy can be cause they're families finally with civil rights.

Then a bunch of people say, "You can't marry because-- YOU'RE not 'real' families."
BULLSHIT.

Cause gays are humans and even though many people hate them, they will be treated like humans on the legal level.

So what's the difference between this and say... Having a 'straights only' and 'gays only' section of a restaurant?

Sure they both get the same food, but maybe a gay person wants to sit where the straight people get to sit.

Maybe the 'straights only' section is by the window, and the gay person just wants to be able to look out and watch the landscape.

But no. This restaurant's been around for 20 years, and that policy has been around since day one.

You can't change it now.

That's not what this restaurant's about.

At 11/10/08 05:24 AM, Kuro wrote: But no. This restaurant's been around for 20 years, and that policy has been around since day one.
You can't change it now.
That's not what this restaurant's about.

Yeah--
You musn't been seeing Rosa Parks, MLK, Little Rock, the Woolworth's store sit-in, etc--

Nope...
they weren't successful about changing policies that were in place since day one. Nope... they didn't change it at all...

At 11/6/08 06:20 PM, tonybeme wrote: I really think we are going to look back in 20 years and look at this ban like the way we look at Slavery.

Good lord, shut the bloody fuck up.

You're being denied the right to make your union formal, on paper.

You're not being tortured. You're not being whipped. You're not being bought and sold.

Nowadays, there's a SHITLOAD of people that are actually rooting for gay people. It has become widely unpopular to look down on homosexuality for personal reasons (i.e. people getting booed/shunned/fired for using the term "gay" in the derogatory sense). So much so, that I'm actually surprised that gay marriage hasn't been legalized in California as of yet.

How many people d'you think were "rooting" for the black minority, back when they still used the term "colored"?

Imbecile.

At 11/10/08 05:14 AM, fli wrote:
And an older concept is one man and several women...
Or, one man and a prepubescent girl...
Or, one man and his sister, aunt, cousins, etc.

Just for shits and giggles...in what era was incest considered appropriate, universally?

I'm guessing it was at least more than 2300 years or so, because even the Romans taught that it was illegal to have sexual relations with one's second cousin.

At 11/10/08 06:35 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote: truth....

i cant believe im about so say this... after we got into it about me maybe moving... but link's right

At 11/10/08 06:35 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote: Just for shits and giggles...in what era was incest considered appropriate, universally?

I'm guessing it was at least more than 2300 years or so, because even the Romans taught that it was illegal to have sexual relations with one's second cousin.

Take a look in the Bible...
A major part of the Egyptian dynasty...
and even other dynasties through out the world.

If they were sexual or not-- nobody, I think, will know.
But married-- yes.

Here's why I think gay marriage is dumb.

First off, being gay is not by any means a choice. I can say this because I'm straight and the fact that I am straight automatically means I know everything there is about being gay. I know that being gay is not a choice because, despite the millions of people out there who actually are gay that can account for the fact that they didn't chose to be gay, my daddy told me that they chose to be gay so it's true. Oh, and I know I'm right two times over because ShadyUntrustworthyBlogs.WeHateGays.com says so.

Secondly, gay marriage will make the institution of marriage fall apart. This is because everyone will see all the gays and then they'll want to be gay and then everyone will be gay with each other and then the human race will die out and we'll all be sad. And dead because we're gay.

Oh, and all our kids will be gay because, like I already said, they'll see the gays and become gay because they see it.

Thirdly, the bible says being gay is a sin. Well, actually, the bible doesn't actually say it's a sin, it says it's an abomination, but everybody knows that back then, abomination = sin. Oh, and eating pork is a sin too because the bible says that's an abomination too and abomination = sin.

Fourthly, gay marriage is bad because if people start having sex with their same gender, then the human race will die out. I mean, that's why people considered it bad back in Jesus's time. The population was scarce and they thought that if people wasted their sperm, then there wouldn't be enough kids to keep the species goes. I mean, that's totally relevant today, right? It's not like we have seven billion people on the planet or anything.

Makes sense to me.

At 11/7/08 04:34 AM, davisev5225 wrote: You are born with certain pre-defined characteristics that cannot be changed. Those include gender, race, eye/hair color, and certain physical parameters. You are NOT, however, born gay. That is a CHOICE that a person makes.

People CHOOSE to be gay. Just like any other choice, you are free to make it.

You're an idiot. If being gay is a choice, then fags either:

1. Choose to be gay just to be rebels, and to piss off retards like you, or
2. Don't enjoy gay sex, then randomly decide to be gay, then enjoy gay sex.

Both options are obviously ridiculous. Millions of people aren't gay just because they want to be treated like shit, and it's not possible to make yourself prefer something.

I'm assuming you're straight, and you don't like taking it up the ass. If being gay was a choice, then tomorrow you could decide to be gay for the hell of it, and then you would enjoy taking it up the ass. Do you really think that's possible you fucking dolt? Do you honestly believe that you could not like sucking cock, then by choice, like sucking cock?

But even if it were somehow a choice, why the fuck do you care? The only way gay marriage ever affects you is when retards bitch about it being "omg ew gross" on Fox News.

Imagine this scenario: Two gay people get married. You have no idea that two gay people just got married. You continue life, completely unaffected.

Now imagine this one: Two gay people want to get married, but they can't because it's illegal. Gay people are sad. You have no idea that two gay people didn't just get married. You continue life, completely unaffected.

1. Gay people are married. Fags are happy. You are unaffected.

2. Gay people are not married. Fags are sad. You are unaffected.

GAY PEOPLE = :)
YOU = :)

OR

GAY PEOPLE = :'(
YOU = :)

And don't try to say that if we don't waste time and money passing anti-fag laws, schools will start forcing students to have gay sex with each other. Why the fucking fuck would schools start teaching students about gay marriage just because it's not illegal? Teachers aren't going to start saying "OH BY THE WAY, GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT ILLEGAL KIDS. GAYSEX GAYSEX GAYSEX" in the middle of class. However, kids are exposed to homoness with all the anti-queerfag shit in the news all the time.

What this comes down to is religion. That is the only reason for somebody to be against gay marriage. And if you religious asscunts don't want me bitching about religion, keep your fucking shit out of other people's lives.

At 11/6/08 06:48 PM, mohe3439 wrote: I really think this is a mistake, there should be no reason for same-sex marriage to be banned anywhere. The only reason that this is happening is because religion deems it morally wrong to marry someone of the same gender.

actually, it specifically mentions men, never women

wow, it surprises me that california would approve that.

At 11/10/08 05:55 PM, dkwrtw wrote: wow, it surprises me that california would approve that.

It shouldn't.

California citizens already voted on the issue. Problem is, a handful of activist judges decided to pretend that the popular vote somehow violated the state's consitution. They told the citizens that their votes didn't mean shit, and approved Gay marriage. Prop 8 came along mainly because of the gross abuse of power that those handful of judges showed. And, once again, the citizens of California voted no on Gay marriage.

No reason to be surprised that the votes were exactly the same as a few months ago.

At 11/10/08 06:36 PM, Monocrom wrote:

At 11/10/08 05:55 PM, dkwrtw wrote: wow, it surprises me that california would approve that.

It shouldn't.

California citizens already voted on the issue. Problem is, a handful of activist judges decided to pretend that the popular vote somehow violated the state's consitution. They told the citizens that their votes didn't mean shit, and approved Gay marriage.

They didn't approve gay marriage, they just said that the state constitution, as it stood, could not illegalize gay marriage. Prop. 8 was a proposition to amend the constitution to allow a referendum to outlaw gay marriage. If there was a national vote to reinstate slavery and it won, it would still be unconstitutional and struck down. That part of what the judicial branch DOES- it validates whether legislation or executive decisions are in conflict with state/federal constitutions. It doesn't make them activists, it means that their interpretation of the law said it was presently prohibited.

Prop 8 came along mainly because of the gross abuse of power that those handful of judges showed.

It was the California Supreme Court, not a bunch of small time district judges or DAs. It was a 4-3 decision, and it was perfectly legitimate.

And, once again, the citizens of California voted no on Gay marriage.

They voted to be allowed to illegalize it. Now the state Constitution does NOT prohibit the banning of same sex marriage. And as much as I disagree with it, it would appear that it's legal to ban it- at least, as far as the State constitution goes.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why people have to get so fucking upset when gay people get married. Fuck your "sanctity of marriage", if you really cared about the sanctity of marriage, those little quickie marriage stands in Vegas and Reno would be outlawed, as would divorce. Fuck your "marriage is a purely religious institution", it became a governmental issue as soon as marriage became regulated and those married were given certain privileges by the government. Marriage is straddling Church and State. Marriage isn't just for religious people anymore. You don't have to be baptized to be legally married. You can be an atheist and marry. Marriage isn't purely religious. It has emotional and legal factors as well, and until Civil Unions offer the EXACT SAME LEGAL BENEFITS THAT MARRIAGE DOES, then Gays are definitely getting fucking shafted. And even if Civil Unions are equal to marriage in everything but the word used, it still fucks over those people who believe that marriage CAN be seen by God as legitimate. What if a new sect of Christianity popped up that was virtually identical to Protestantism, but said that homosexuality was NOT abomination? How could states deny that religion to practice marriage without totally fucking up the line between Church and State? Honestly, if that's what it takes to legalize gay marriage, then I'm all for it, because if there's one thing that pisses me off, it's a slight majority saying that the nearly identical minority can't have its way when the majority would be virtually unaffected either way.

I just love how when the judges vote something of conservative... it's just.
But when they say it's a ban is unconstitional, then all of the sudden they are "rogue judges."

Hypocrites.

woot. Ban the gays! Ban them I say!

cuz it's weird.

At 11/10/08 07:14 PM, fli wrote: I just love how when the judges vote something of conservative... it's just.
But when they say it's a ban is unconstitional, then all of the sudden they are "rogue judges."

Hypocrites.

One of the judges who refused to nullify the vote of the people, openly admitted that she felt that homosexuals should have the right to marry..... But that she could not find a constitutional violation with regards to the first vote that took place. If there was indeed a constitutional violation, it seems that her collegues would have an extremely easy time convincing her to change her vote. They could not, and she showed her integrity by doing her job properly, despite being personally opposed to a ban on Gay marriage.

Doesn't matter what the issue, when you have activist judges pushing their own personal agenda, it's going to be a disaster. A large percentage of people vote, and then a handful of people can nullify the popular vote..... Just becasuse they wear black robes?? Prop 8 reminded them that their black robes are not golden crowns. Their activism created a backlash. In a generation or two, as more people get to know members of the homosexual community, and the stigma of that community begins to vanish; Gay marriage will become legal. Incramentalism works far better than trying to shove an issue down someone's throat. That's what those judge's did. No surprise that it horribly backfired.

At 11/10/08 07:02 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Marriage isn't just for religious people anymore. You don't have to be baptized to be legally married. You can be an atheist and marry. Marriage isn't purely religious. It has emotional and legal factors as well, and until Civil Unions offer the EXACT SAME LEGAL BENEFITS THAT MARRIAGE DOES, then Gays are definitely getting fucking shafted.

it's true that marriage barely has anything to do with religion before and it's the same with Christmas, every atheist i know celebrates that

i think the truth is that everyone against gay marriage is secretly homophobic. They might not even realise it but they don't hesitate to look through the smallest details to find a reason against it.
And no doubt most people that voted for religious reasons didn't really give a shit about marriage being religious until the vote was proposed.

YAY I LOVE THIS BAN, best decision made by California.
I mean, why would they allow same sex marriage, its possible to turn straight.
Go get a bible faggots.