Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/17/08 04:21 AM, Fierce-Deity wrote: The thing is, gay rights activists want to get married under the thing that they threw against the ground and stomped on. If they hate the cross so much, why don't they just get legal unities like most religious activists/politicians want? The thing is, the only difference between a legal binding and a marriage is that religion is involved. By what I saw here, these gay rights activists are throwing down and stomping on the exact thing they are fighting to be represented by.

NO THEY DON'T.
They want a secular marriage.

Religious people will still have an option to marry anyone who they wish. If they don't (the majority of religous institutions) then they have the option.

But if gays want a religious ceremony, they also have options with Metropolitan Community Church and others.

But, on the issue--
This was one person, after what appears, someone knocking down a gay marriage proponent's sign...

Still, not forgivable, but on the whole-- the rallies has been extremely peaceful.

At 11/17/08 03:52 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: These are the people that are bitching about equal rights, and they attack an old woman's freedom of speech by knocking her cross out of her hands and stomping it, shout and point in her face, and force her to leave their "peaceful" protest.

How is that violent? Kicking a cross out of someone's hands stoping on it and pointing in their face? that's a far cry from beating someone to death (which is what has actually happened to gay people by religious activists)

:Yes the clip is from Fox News. I could not find a single other national station that aired this story.

Yes fox, that's a reliable source. Take the clip out of context and add as much bias as possible. For all you know the old woman provoked them. She might have maced them or something.

:Just imagine if that was a pro religion group, and someone knocked a gay pride sign out of a homosexual's hand. It would have made top story on every other "news" network. Open your eyes. Christ how lame beating on a old woman.

pulling a cross out of her hand and shouting at her is a far cry from "beating"

Source

At 11/17/08 04:21 AM, Fierce-Deity wrote: The thing is, gay rights activists want to get married under the thing that they threw against the ground and stomped on. ... By what I saw here, these gay rights activists are throwing down and stomping on the exact thing they are fighting to be represented by.

Marriage is NOT a strictly Christian institution. Jews, Muslims, Zorastrians, pagans and secularists who are straight get married. There is a sociological factor in the practice/ritual of marriage...that goes beyond the religious institution.

I personally believe that if marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution then the government needs to get out of the business of deciding who can or cannot get married. That is a church question...not a government issue. Therefore this Republican believes that the only thing the government should deal in for straight, gay or second cousins is civili unions. Leave the marriage thing up to the couple and their God (or nothing for the Atheists).

At 11/17/08 02:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: How is that violent? Kicking a cross out of someone's hands stoping on it and pointing in their face? that's a far cry from beating someone to death (which is what has actually happened to gay people by religious activists)

Ummm...you kinda answer your own question here. They may not be same level of violence...but all of what you described is violence.

Imagine If I was gay and I walked into a group of anti-gay protesters. It does not matter if I am black white, a child or elderly, that crowd will beat the living shit out of me. This woman was just stupid enough to do so. She is incredibly lucky that the gay community showed some restraint. Otherwise she would probably be a cadaver right now.

Let's take a similiar scenario: At a jewish holocaust memorial day, there is a demonstration against fascism. A young guy with shaved head and a large sign with a swastika stands there, shouting "sieg heil", and the jews get pissed of, shout at him, and take his sign.

Would you be upset? He was just using his freedom of expression, and they ASSAULTED him! I would say: Yes, it was stupid to take his sign, but come on, seriously? He has himself to blame.

At 11/17/08 07:36 AM, Earfetish wrote: oh yeah cos gays are SO VIOLENT; that's the first time I've heard that stereotype

Doesn't have to be a stereotype... gays could be violent because their capacity for it is exactly like anyone else...

I don't even see the big deal, you call that 'attacking'? They were just responding to her counter-protest. You wouldn't complain if she was in the Westboro Baptist Church. She went in there to cause trouble and be on the news and if there was one contrary protester at ANY rally I'm sure they'd get treated in a similar way.

They are really blowing this by saying "attack an elderly woman."
It seemed that confrontation was boiling, but it was one of her people that started it when that person (the one with the hat) runs over to the guy with the white sign... and then tries to rip it down.

And it was only then a gay marriage prononent went tit-for-tat and knocked down the cross.

Calling both sides violent is a far cry from attacking.

You guys should be disgusted that someone is using your cross and your religion to condemn homosexuals.

I think there are more gays who believe in God than gays that don't.

At 11/17/08 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/17/08 02:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: How is that violent? Kicking a cross out of someone's hands stoping on it and pointing in their face? that's a far cry from beating someone to death (which is what has actually happened to gay people by religious activists)

Ummm...you kinda answer your own question here. They may not be same level of violence...but all of what you described is violence.

They are both violent and they should both be condemed but can you really put both those acts on the same level?
Its obvious killing is much much worse.

At 11/17/08 04:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: All gays are autmaticaly this ignorant and stupid.

Why not? People automatically assume the same thing about everyone professing a belief in Jesus Christ whenever the subject of Fred Phelps is brought up.

At 11/17/08 04:22 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The people who voted to take away the gays' rights of marriage were largely funded by extremist Christians.

Case in point. Far be it from the people of California (a distinctively blue state, I might add) to actually be responsible for their own actions, evil fundamentalist religions must be behind their actions!

This is what annoys me about society today; no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore, it always has to be somebody else's fault. Could it just simply be that there aren't near as many supporters of gay marriage in California as everyone thinks there? Could it not be THAT simple?

At 11/17/08 04:43 AM, am-WEE wrote: Bisexual, Homosexual, Heterosexual. Everyone should have the same rights. It's the 21st century for fucks sake.

Homosexual and Heterosexual I can understand, but to say that you're pre-programmed by nature be sexually attraced to both sexes? Nope, that's a choice, and you're a greedy little pervert for chosing it as your lifestyle.

At 11/17/08 07:49 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: If they weren't allowed to point and shout, wouldn't that be limiting THEIR freedom of expression?

It was supposed to a peaceful, nonviolent protest. Doesn't getting violent, yelling, and physical with a counter-protester defeat the purpose of a peaceful protest?

At 11/17/08 02:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Yes fox, that's a reliable source. Take the clip out of context and add as much bias as possible. For all you know the old woman provoked them. She might have maced them or something.

Uh huh. So why didn't anyone say something? I mean, there WERE live camera's and a newslady on the scene?

At 11/17/08 05:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/08 04:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: All gays are autmaticaly this ignorant and stupid.

Why not? People automatically assume the same thing about everyone professing a belief in Jesus Christ whenever the subject of Fred Phelps is brought up.

Who does that? Im an atheist and I don't think all Christians are bigots.

At 11/17/08 04:22 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The people who voted to take away the gays' rights of marriage were largely funded by extremist Christians.

Case in point. Far be it from the people of California (a distinctively blue state, I might add) to actually be responsible for their own actions, evil fundamentalist religions must be behind their actions!

That wasn't the only reason but Mormons did play a part.

This is what annoys me about society today; no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore, it always has to be somebody else's fault. Could it just simply be that there aren't near as many supporters of gay marriage in California as everyone thinks there? Could it not be THAT simple?

But the people that voted for prop 8 were mostly very religious and gay marriage is usually opposed on religious grounds.

At 11/17/08 04:43 AM, am-WEE wrote: Bisexual, Homosexual, Heterosexual. Everyone should have the same rights. It's the 21st century for fucks sake.

Homosexual and Heterosexual I can understand, but to say that you're pre-programmed by nature be sexually attraced to both sexes? Nope, that's a choice, and you're a greedy little pervert for chosing it as your lifestyle.

Are you joking?

At 11/17/08 07:49 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: If they weren't allowed to point and shout, wouldn't that be limiting THEIR freedom of expression?

It was supposed to a peaceful, nonviolent protest. Doesn't getting violent, yelling, and physical with a counter-protester defeat the purpose of a peaceful protest?

There were some incedents of violence but that does not mean the whole protest was violent.

Hahaha, I love the way you link to isolated incidents as if they actually mean anything. You did this with the assault on the Polish girl, and then talked about it as if it was an Islamic attack on Catholicism.

And in this case. One gay attacks an elder, therefore all gays are hypocrites. That's real intelligent.

At 11/17/08 04:04 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: here is some more of there brutality
Source

Hahaha, I love this.

Earfetish touched upon this, but it's not every day the gays are portrayed as a rampaging, marauding mob. That's a shattering of old stereotypes for sure.

At 11/17/08 05:57 PM, aninjaman wrote: Are you joking?

No, why?

At 11/17/08 06:29 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/08 05:57 PM, aninjaman wrote: Are you joking?

No, why?

Well then explain why being attracted to both sexes makes you greedy.

At 11/17/08 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/17/08 02:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: How is that violent? Kicking a cross out of someone's hands stoping on it and pointing in their face? that's a far cry from beating someone to death (which is what has actually happened to gay people by religious activists)

Ummm...you kinda answer your own question here. They may not be same level of violence...but all of what you described is violence.

Look if someone pulled something out of my heands and stomped on it you could consider that violence, but it is so mild I wouldn't care. If someone pointed a finger at me and yelled at me that is not violence. An old woman who has probably lived through the great depression, world war two, and many catastrophic events should be able to handle being yelled at. If not then what the hell was she doing at a protest?

At 11/17/08 05:11 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/17/08 02:05 PM, thedo12 wrote: the fact your holding an apple can be proven,

No it can't, lol

ever heard of a camera :O

god, as desrcibed in the christian bible, if he exsited could be easily proven.

How?

THIS

read the first page,

but if your too lazy,

basicly waht its saying that if the christian god exsisted, he would awnser belivers prayers, wich is easily testable.

your just trying to get out of this, by saying
"thats my opinion leave me alone n stuff"

Nope, not saying that, lol

yeah preety much.

religous people : gay marrage is bad becuase the purple dragon told me

rationalists: the purple dragon even dosent exist

religous people: yeah he dose!

rationalists: prove it

religous people: well, uhhhh thats just my opinion so you cant ask me to prove it

see?

you claimed that god exsisted, and you claimed it as fact,

You first claimed him as imaginary, so prove it :O

prove the purple dragon is imaginary

At 11/17/08 09:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/17/08 09:33 PM, thedo12 wrote: ever heard of a camera :O

What if I had no camera? Then would NEVER KNOW if I was holding an apple. Whether or not you could prove it, that doesn't change whether or not I was holding it.

but until you prove that your holding the apple I have no reason to belive youve done so.

god, as desrcibed in the christian bible, if he exsited could be easily proven.

How?

THIS

That doesn't prove anything lol

it proves, that a christian god could be proven if he existed

You need better reading comprehension skills. You don't really seem that smart, honestly.

and your calling me the troll , lol

You're such a troll, lol

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

what , qualifactions do I meet?

I don't have to prove God because it's up to faith. It's the same faith you carry in any situation in which you cannot prove things one way or the other.

so your saying that , you have aboslutly no evidence for god exsistence and yet you belive in him?
so your using that, which you have no evidence for, to deny gay people /poligimists equal rights?

:If God could be proven,
what would it mean to believe in him? Nothing, everyone would. So how would you distinguish the believers from the heathens?

I thought that was like gods goal , to get everyone to belive in him is it not?

honestly, all were doign is going around in circles,

you cant even adress half my points, you basicly say NOPEZ LOLZ without elaborating .
as far as im concerd this battle was won before it even started...

At 11/17/08 09:33 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 11/17/08 05:11 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/17/08 02:05 PM, thedo12 wrote: the fact your holding an apple can be proven,

No it can't, lol

ever heard of a camera :O

god, as desrcibed in the christian bible, if he exsited could be easily proven.

How?

THIS

read the first page,

but if your too lazy,

basicly waht its saying that if the christian god exsisted, he would awnser belivers prayers, wich is easily testable.

You know I know a guy who had never tried ice cream before. He knew a guy who hated ice cream and never bothered to try it for himself. One day he was in a car crash and his spinal cord was crushed. He was paralyzed from the waist down. One day five years later he was sitting in his wheelchair and just purely at random decided to eat a bowl of ice cream. His paralysis was miraculously cured. By that logic ice cream is the cure for disease, and therefore some magical ice cream god must exist.

Now that story isn't true. I just made it up to prove a point (and I know the story sucked but deal with it). The fact that someone gets better after praying doesn't necessarily mean that prayer cured them, it just means that their cure happened at about the same time as they prayed.

At 11/17/08 09:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/17/08 09:33 PM, thedo12 wrote: ever heard of a camera :O

What if I had no camera? Then would NEVER KNOW if I was holding an apple. Whether or not you could prove it, that doesn't change whether or not I was holding it.

god, as desrcibed in the christian bible, if he exsited could be easily proven.

How?

THIS

That doesn't prove anything lol

"thats my opinion leave me alone n stuff"

Nope, not saying that, lol

yeah preety much.

You need better reading comprehension skills. You don't really seem that smart, honestly.

religous people : gay marrage is bad becuase the purple dragon told me

lol

prove the purple dragon is imaginary

You're such a troll, lol

I don't have to prove God because it's up to faith. It's the same faith you carry in any situation in which you cannot prove things one way or the other. If God could be proven, what would it mean to believe in him? Nothing, everyone would. So how would you distinguish the believers from the heathens?

The purple dragon or whatever they were saying is an old athiest argument. It was originally used by some guy describing a teapot floating in outer space. The most well known modern day examples are the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (google them)

Let's take two assumptions commonly used by theists (and earlier in the debate on the thread) I'm an atheist, I don't believe these points true I'm just saying they are for the sake of argument.

1. There is a god
2. It is all powerful
3. It wants us to believe in it

If those three assumptions were true, wouldn't god use his power to make us believe in him?

If you say he wants us to have free will, then why would he send us to hell (according to most christian sects) for not believing in him when Jesus (who is somehow actually him) wanted him to save us from himself (not exactly sure how all that works). Couldn't he just decide to send us to heaven? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the bible or combining beliefs of differing sects of Christianity, but I just don't understand how that is exactly possible.

At 11/17/08 10:13 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
You know I know a guy who had never tried ice cream before. He knew a guy who hated ice cream and never bothered to try it for himself. One day he was in a car crash and his spinal cord was crushed. He was paralyzed from the waist down. One day five years later he was sitting in his wheelchair and just purely at random decided to eat a bowl of ice cream. His paralysis was miraculously cured. By that logic ice cream is the cure for disease, and therefore some magical ice cream god must exist.

Now that story isn't true. I just made it up to prove a point (and I know the story sucked but deal with it). The fact that someone gets better after praying doesn't necessarily mean that prayer cured them, it just means that their cure happened at about the same time as they prayed.

yes, thats true,

however you could do multiple tests, and if on a consistent basis people who ate ice cream recovered faster then thoose who didnt(and it wasnt by a negliable amount). then you could concloud ice cream had healing powers.

The purple dragon or whatever they were saying is an old athiest argument. It was originally used by some guy describing a teapot floating in outer space. The most well known modern day examples are the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (google them)

yeah, thought I would use something new for a change :p

At 11/17/08 08:27 PM, aninjaman wrote: Well then explain why being attracted to both sexes makes you greedy.

Because human beings are genetically programmed to be attracted to one sex or the other, we're not amphibians who can change our own sex organs and how they act two or three times in our own lifetimes in order for the species to continue on surviving. We're mammals, there is no evolutionary purpose for being sexually attracted to BOTH sexes at the same time. It's a choice, not an instinct, and it's a perverse choice at that, because it shows that you don't have the mind to decide what it is you want out of life so you go for both, making you greedy.

That's the way I see it, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Now if you're going to sit there and side with sabj about how bi-sexuals deserve just as much rights as heterosexual couples and by extension homosexual couples do, then all you have to do is come up with (1) scientific evidence showing bi-sexuality is normal, and (2) argue bigamy as a fundamental right, seeing as how you cannot be a bi-sexual IN a monogomous relationship without multiple partners such that you could continue carrying around the bi-sexual tag.

In other news, gays disrupt a church service, throwing paper in the ground.... yeah yeah, I know, its fox news, but its the only video I could find.

I wish someone would do this in the church I go to... of course the perps wouldn't get away, there's only 1 way in and 1 way out, and the way out would be blocked by several people until the cops showed up to haul the criminal scum to prison for their criminal behavior of disturbing the peace and littering.

yeah, haul them litterbugs away. (i do wonder what all they could be charged with though)

At 11/17/08 10:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/08 08:27 PM, aninjaman wrote: Well then explain why being attracted to both sexes makes you greedy.

Because human beings are genetically programmed to be attracted to one sex or the other, we're not amphibians who can change our own sex organs and how they act two or three times in our own lifetimes in order for the species to continue on surviving. We're mammals, there is no evolutionary purpose for being sexually attracted to BOTH sexes at the same time. It's a choice, not an instinct, and it's a perverse choice at that, because it shows that you don't have the mind to decide what it is you want out of life so you go for both, making you greedy.

That's the way I see it, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Now if you're going to sit there and side with sabj about how bi-sexuals deserve just as much rights as heterosexual couples and by extension homosexual couples do, then all you have to do is come up with (1) scientific evidence showing bi-sexuality is normal, and (2) argue bigamy as a fundamental right, seeing as how you cannot be a bi-sexual IN a monogomous relationship without multiple partners such that you could continue carrying around the bi-sexual tag.

You can be a bisexual person in a monogamous relationship. Just like a strait man can have a monogamous relationship even if he is attracted to other women a bisexual can have a monogamous relationship even if attracted to other people. Bisexual just means that you get turned on by people of both genders.

At 11/17/08 04:55 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 11/17/08 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/17/08 02:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

Ummm...you kinda answer your own question here. They may not be same level of violence...but all of what you described is violence.

They are both violent and they should both be condemed but can you really put both those acts on the same level?
Its obvious killing is much much worse.

And what part of "The may not be the same level of violence" don't you understand?

Well...I did neglect to put a 'the' between 'be' and 'same'...

At 11/17/08 03:52 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Yes the clip is from Fox News.

Need I say anything more?

At 11/17/08 10:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/08 08:27 PM, aninjaman wrote: Well then explain why being attracted to both sexes makes you greedy.

We're mammals, there is no evolutionary purpose for being sexually attracted to BOTH sexes at the same time.

What do you know about that? Animals with bisexual behaviour is quite common, and there's a lot of reasons why it COULD be an evolutionary advantage.Most of the evolutionary reasons for homosexuality also applies to bisexuality.

you cannot be a bi-sexual IN a monogomous relationship without multiple partners such that you could continue carrying around the bi-sexual tag.

Wait, what? You cannot be bisexual if you don't have an active sexual life with both genders? Why, here i thought sexuality was about ATTRACTION.

Yes it's a choice who you live with, no it isn't a choice who you are attracted to. I started out gay, but became increasingly bisexual and now I'm almost only for chicks (though there's still a few men I'd screw any day).

At 11/18/08 03:42 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

What do you know about that? Animals with bisexual behaviour is quite common, and there's a lot of reasons why it COULD be an evolutionary advantage.Most of the evolutionary reasons for homosexuality also applies to bisexuality.

We are talking about mammals, right?

Besides, with that kind of argument you can pretty much say what EVER happens is automatically "common" simply because it happened, regardless of its rarety.

At 11/17/08 11:22 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/17/08 10:03 PM, thedo12 wrote: but until you prove that your holding the apple I have no reason to belive youve done so.

That doesn't mean I couldn't actually be holding the apple. Regardless of what you say or think, I could be doing either if you don't have the proof to know.

this is preety much your last poitn so ill just adress that

it proves, that a christian god could be proven if he existed

No it doesn't, lol

see what I mean,

NOPE LOLZ without elaborating

and your calling me the troll , lol

You're making basic flubs in logic

what , qualifactions do I meet?

I'm sorry I didn't read your definition because I don't care, lol

wow, you call me a troll, and I give you a perfect oppurtunity to prove it .

and then you use another cop out, shos what kind of person you are.

so your saying that , you have aboslutly no evidence for god exsistence and yet you belive in him?

So you're saying that, you have absolutely no evidence for an apple in my hand but you don't believe I could have one anyways?

having an apple n your hand isnt a fucking huge claim.

people have had apples in theres hands before, we can see people with apples in their hand .

so your using that, which you have no evidence for, to deny gay people /poligimists equal rights?

No, I already said I'm not using God as a reason for banning gay marriage.

then why?

you cant even adress half my points, you basicly say NOPEZ LOLZ without elaborating .
as far as im concerd this battle was won before it even started...

You can't prove God wrong. Get over it. We could discover a new species of fish tomorrow, but that means it always existed, even though we didn't have evidence of it's existance yesterday. Get it? Now be quiet :o

you cant prove, big foot wrong, the flying spagetti monster, the purple dragon , the mermaid, thor, zues , aleins, or any mythical creature.

THAT DOSENT MEAN THEY EXSIT

the burden of evidence is on the belivers, (let me guess NOPEZ LOLZ)

At 11/18/08 03:42 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: What do you know about that? Animals with bisexual behaviour is quite common, and there's a lot of reasons why it COULD be an evolutionary advantage.Most of the evolutionary reasons for homosexuality also applies to bisexuality.

Animals that have homosexual relations are extremely rare. Animals that are "bisexual" are nonexistant.

There is NO evolutionary reason to be gay or bi.

Wait, what? You cannot be bisexual if you don't have an active sexual life with both genders? Why, here i thought sexuality was about ATTRACTION.

At some point you have to make a choice. When you marry and decide to commit your life to a woman or man, you drop the bi label.

Yes it's a choice who you live with, no it isn't a choice who you are attracted to. I started out gay, but became increasingly bisexual and now I'm almost only for chicks (though there's still a few men I'd screw any day).

Your own argument destroys itself.