Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Belief in something that came after the creator, a perversion of the real truth, despicable short-sightedness.

At 11/19/08 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

THIS IS FUN!!!

At 11/19/08 07:44 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Just because we haven't seen it having gay sex doesn't mean it never has.

Argument From Ignorance. You need valid proof to back up your claim that homosexuality in nature is as widespread as you claim it is, otherwise you're point is nothing more than rhetorical bullshit that can't be backed up and should not be taken seriously.

Now I didn't make the argument from ignorance. "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened" is very different from "just because we haven't seen it means it has happened" I was making hte first point. It is possible that they haven't.

But the point you were making was that homosexuality was a bizarre activity exclucive to humans.

We were discussing human behavior originally, remember? You're the one that brought lesser being on the food chain into the picture.

Being Bisexual means that you are ATTRACTED to people of both sex.

Being a zoophile means that you are ATTRACTED to animals, but by your inconsistent argument you're not a zoophile if you've never done it.

Actually my argument was that as long as you are attracted you are a zoofile whether or not you have done it.

people have already shown statistics showing there are many more I am just giving a few examples.

By "exclusively homosexual" I was expecting you to show examples of a species that was exclusively homosexual as a genetic trait, not a species which showed having members who were exclusively homosexual as a genetic mutation in small segments of the population.

The question was phrased in such a way that you couldn't provide an answer to a claim you yourself made. You lost.

It hasn't been proven that homosexuality is genetic.

Who ever said sex was just about reproduction?

We were talking about evolution, correct? The primary function of sex in evolution is to create offspring, is it not?

That is the primary reason, but there are others. Socialization, communication, social status, stress relief etc.

Yes, but being gay implies a desire, not necessarily acting on it.

1. Gay marriage was common place in Greece and Rome

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

Gay marriage in ancient greece is pure speculation for which no evidence can be found. But we do know one thing; If there were gay marriages in Ancient Greece, they certainly weren't legal or validated by the law.

Regardless of Greek law gay marriage was legal in Rome up until the fourth century AD.

You do realize the claim that someone can be gay or bi-sexual without ever having done the deed is kind of a stretch, right?

no it isn't. If you are attracted to men but haven't ever actually taken the step to doing it doesn't mean you aren't gay.

4. Marriage was originally a way to create alliances between families. Being gay or strait made no difference.

Still waiting for proof on this one.

Who said the California voting populous is always right?

Ever heard of the ancient greek philosophy of Democracy?

Or are you going to call it "Tyranny of the Majority" next because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, because it's really interesting seeing you dance around the truth that the majority of californians (a distinctively BLUE state, I might add) voted down Proposition 8.

Yes, I will agree California voted down prop 8. I just disagree with your idea that just because they voted for it it must be good.

But in federal programs that recognize marriage, such as social security, civil unions are not recognized.

That's it? That's you're only point?

I was arguing that civil unions are not equal to regular marriages under the law. They cannot get the same benefits in federal programs that ordinary marriages can.

And a relationship between an old man and a young boy is still homosexual.

But it's just that; a relationship, not a marriage.

Substitute the word relationship for marriage.

Earth.

Then you must either not be from the U.S., or an alternate dimension where bigamy is legal.

Yes, I will say it right now. I am not in the US. Does that mean that everything I say is wrong?

At 11/19/08 10:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 1. Prove it.

Gay Marriages in Sweeden have a higher divorce rate than straight marriage.

Show me a causal link. Statistical trends prove nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_al liances

At 11/20/08 03:52 PM, Grammer wrote: You can't prove God's existence to be wrong. At all. We could discover proof of God tomorrow, which means he always existed even though we didn't have evidence for him today.

Proteas can take care of this for you:

Argument From Ignorance.You need valid proof to back up your claim that god exists as you claim him to, otherwise you're point is nothing more than rhetorical bullshit that can't be backed up and should not be taken seriously.

At 11/20/08 03:52 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/20/08 07:43 AM, thedo12 wrote: god = huge claim / not even possible sceintificly

bigfoot = smaller claim/ IS possible

Uh, yeah, you're boring, so ima just say one more quick thing and get on to business that isn't mind-numbingly boring.

You can't prove God's existence to be wrong. At all. We could discover proof of God tomorrow, which means he always existed even though we didn't have evidence for him today. Your basic concepts of what God and logic actually are are mistaken, which I suppose is my fault because I let this debate escalate with someone such as yourself who I should've known had no idea what he was talking about. Sorry, my bad.

translation: I cant proof my claims, so im going to flame you instead of actualy debating.

grammar your such a poet .

at least one thing came out of this though, .......
you made me smile.

At 11/20/08 04:26 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/20/08 04:07 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: You need valid proof to back up your claim that god exists as you claim him to,

So because you can't prove it, it cannot be true?

I didn't say that. All I said was that if you're going to claim god exists, "You can't disprove him" is not a valid argument.

That itself is an argument from ignorance. In fact, the wikipedia article you cited actually helps me. You can't argue God doesn't exist because you can't prove it,

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Where did i say it means god can't exist?

just like you can't argue he does even though I can't prove it. I'm not even saying he must exist because we don't know, I'm saying we don't know so then we don't know. Believe what you will.

I know we can't know (LOLZ), but doesn't it stand to reason that it's silly to believe in something until there's evidence for it?

At 11/20/08 04:53 PM, Grammer wrote: We can't prove either way, that's a fact. It could be either, we don't know. Let's not pretend either one of us has the upper hand here.

Because we cannot be absolutely sure whether God exists, therefore there is exactly 50/50 chance that Jesus doesn't like guys who take it in the butt.

At 11/20/08 03:55 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Business-wise, wouldn't it actually be betterto have a greater audience?

I mean, businesses shouldn't forced to do things that aren't law, but I don't see how this is a bad thing for them.

They think that if they offer same-sex options than crazy Christian redneck retards will boycott them or something.

This is actually kind of ironic, seeing as websites like E-Harmony were where gays went to meet before straight people even thought about it.

At 11/20/08 04:42 PM, Grammer wrote:
Nope, never said that and I hope you learn better reading comprehension skills. Please try reading what I wrote to Sadistic and think it over without hurting yourself

I read, and its still stupid to belive in god without any evidence.

Dude, I seriously chuckled like every time you said something stupid. I'm not just saying that like some loser whose trying to be intimidating like: "lol ur posts are so funny ur stoopid", no, it's not like that. I LITERALLY chuckle out loud to myself when I see you making a logical fallacy or making a jump in logic that makes no sense whatsoever. I really did.

then proof what I said wrong.

its funny, abosolutly no one, posted agianst me when I was argueing with you, but several attacked your logical fallicys.

get off your high horse and admit it, you lost cry baby.

At 11/20/08 05:54 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/20/08 05:49 PM, thedo12 wrote: I read, and its still stupid to belive in god without any evidence.

In your opinion. God could still exist. Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it's not true. That's been universally true since the beginning of time.

yes, but its still illogical and irational to belive in him.

just like its irrational to belive in santa cluase.

then proof what I said wrong.

I already did~

no you didnt,

saying you proved something and ACTUALY DOING IT is two differnt things

But it's getting repetitive and with all the flubs of logic you've made, are you even worth it? meh

once again prove it.

its funny, abosolutly no one, posted agianst me when I was argueing with you, but several attacked your logical fallicys.

Only other atheists like SadisticMonkey and AapoJoki. Proteas was whining that I'm arguing religion, but he's not actually saying I'm wrong in what I say.

why havent other theists attacked me and say I made logical fallacys?

maybe , it could possibly be I havent made any?

I have made no logical fallacies by the way. I'm too awesome to do that.

no, youve made several, and its been proven.

Hahahahahah

yeah its preety funny, you have to make up reasons why you cant adress my points.

At 11/20/08 09:34 PM, thedo12 wrote:
yes, but its still illogical and irational to belive in him.

just like its irrational to belive in santa cluase.

No it is quite different.
Even people who don't believe the Judeo-Christian God can believe in some kind of god, completely rationally.

Hell even the Father of Logic believed in a god.
One day you will understand the vast difference between belief in god and belief in Santa Clause. But it is not this day.

I watched lotr again this week

Alright, let's just compromise:

For the conservatives: Gay people don't deserve to be treated equally under the law because of their preferences.

For the liberals: Jesus was a myth and when you die you turn off like a machine.

Are we happy?

At 11/20/08 09:44 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/20/08 09:34 PM, thedo12 wrote: yes, but its still illogical and irational to belive in him.

In your opinion. That's not a fact.

saying you proved something and ACTUALY DOING IT is two differnt things

Yeah, I did, but you just making stupid points so I disregarded it all :X

more like you couldnt adress them so you found an excuse not to.

But it's getting repetitive and with all the flubs of logic you've made, are you even worth it? meh

once again prove it.

Well in this post right here you don't seem to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

I either didnt make , "flubs" in logic or I did.

I dont give a shit about opiniion I care about truth.

why havent other theists attacked me and say I made logical fallacys?

Because they don't care. I don't blame them. I hardly want this to continue. Are you saying you need people to back you up for what you say to be true? That's a logical fallacy, you know ^.~

I never said that,

im saying that adds evidence to what I said not being a logical fallacy.

I have made no logical fallacies by the way. I'm too awesome to do that.

no, youve made several, and its been proven.

Hahahahaha

You can't prove God wrong.

:0

You're so clueless. What are you, 15? 16? Shit, I never should've debated someone still going through puberty, Lord knows how moody you children are >:S

accidently pressed enter or something have to double post

At 11/20/08 09:51 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 11/20/08 09:44 PM, Grammer wrote:

You're so clueless. What are you, 15? 16? Shit, I never should've debated someone still going through puberty, Lord knows how moody you children are >:S

it says right on my profile , 17, male.

anyways, im a preety level headed guy, I never get angry or sad im always preety neutrel even in comparason to adults.I dont ever remeber getting mood swings,......

The fact that the conversation has slipped into god is proof yet again that the state has absolutely no right to make laws in regards to marriage what so ever.

The fact is, whether they allow gay UNIONS or not, the term needs to be re-written because as it stands it is unconstitutional law.

I really don't understand why a bigger deal hasn't been made about that.

At 11/20/08 09:59 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: The fact that the conversation has slipped into god is proof yet again that the state has absolutely no right to make laws in regards to marriage what so ever.

The fact is, whether they allow gay UNIONS or not, the term needs to be re-written because as it stands it is unconstitutional law.

I really don't understand why a bigger deal hasn't been made about that.

Seriously. If they could recognize gay unions on a federal level, perhaps this issue would ease up a bit?

At 11/20/08 03:25 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Now I didn't make the argument from ignorance. "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened" is very different from "just because we haven't seen it means it has happened" I was making hte first point. It is possible that they haven't.

You made the claim that Homosexuality occured in nature more than we observed or would know. It might, but based on current data, it hasn't. Therefore your argument is based on the idea that you're not wrong because you can't be proven wrong, which is an argument from ignorance.

It hasn't been proven that homosexuality is genetic.

I'm keenly aware of that, and have mentioned it several times.

That is the primary reason, but there are others. Socialization, communication, social status, stress relief etc.

Regardless of Greek law gay marriage was legal in Rome up until the fourth century AD.

Greek marriage outlawed gay marriage under the penalty of death, and Rome mirrored their culture after the greeks. Your argument holds no water, and you're guilty of argumentum ad nauseum for repeating this crap and not providing a single scrap of evidence to support it.

Yes, I will agree California voted down prop 8. I just disagree with your idea that just because they voted for it it must be good.

I never said it was good, I questioned your disbelief that it was voted down.

Substitute the word relationship for marriage.

Not until you start showing me some actual evidence that it happened as a legally binding marriage under the law.

Yes, I will say it right now. I am not in the US. Does that mean that everything I say is wrong?

No, but it does explain a few things.

Show me a causal link. Statistical trends prove nothing.

.... what?

At 11/20/08 04:24 PM, Grammer wrote: If so, why would you agree with avie that an official topic be made on something you don't even feel should be debated? HMM?

Because it had reached an epidemic, as avie pointed out. To many topics about the subject.

You don't know my motivations. You can't speak for my motivations, you have no fucking clue. So don't say you do, and question my commitment to Christ.

You're right, I don't know your motivations. I only know what you've posted, and what you've posted is consistent with behaviors and attitudes of someone who takes great pleasure in annoying others. You're acting like a troll, and I'm calling it as I see it.

If you want to stop acting like this and talk to me respectfully in PM's, then I will talk respectfully in return. You reap what you sow.

You've done nothing to earn my respect that I should have any reason or desire to speak with you privately. And I am certainly not swayed (or impressed) by your reverse psychology in this instance, as though you were the one with-holding your pm conversations from me for something I've done.

At 11/20/08 09:56 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/20/08 09:51 PM, thedo12 wrote: more like you couldnt adress them so you found an excuse not to.

No. You're really, really boring. I already proved you wrong. I win. You lose. Go away.

ahhaha, troll

I proved you wrong on every level.

you didnt even provide an argument for god ,s exsitence, you just started saying, oh its possible he exsits.and then you started comparing an apple (a pyshical, seeable thing) to god.
well to that I respond, its possible santa cluas exsits too, but belive in santa a rational belive.

or belive in god is irrational, get over it.

I either didnt make , "flubs" in logic or I did.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

yes it did O_o

I was saying how , either im making logical falicys or im not, theirs no "opinin" invloved.

its not subjective on any level.

I dont give a shit about opiniion I care about truth.

You're posting opinions

now im posting rational belifes.

im saying that adds evidence to what I said not being a logical fallacy.

No it doesn't. Wade fucking Fulp and the entire mod team could come in here and tell me I'm wrong, it doesn't actually make me wrong.

yes, but it dose mean there is a higher likelyhood of you being wrong .

no, youve made several, and its been proven.

Hahahahaha

You can't prove God wrong.

0

That's a fact, yes

you used that as an argument for, god.

thats a logical fallicy.

At 11/20/08 04:42 PM, Grammer wrote: no, it's not like that. I LITERALLY chuckle out loud to myself when I see you making a logical fallacy or making a jump in logic that makes no sense whatsoever. I really did.

Again with the logical fallacies Billy? My my, I thought we were past all that.

couldn't resist. Also hiiiiiiiiiii Grammer!

So what we have here is a bunch of passionate people who really want their point of view to be seen? It's not like this concept is anything that hasn't been seen before. I just note how the OP is trying to make a big deal out of it because it's gay people who are doing the act. But last I checked, the other side of the spectrum has also done similar acts of attempted censorship to quiet critics and people who stand for things they don't like either.

The point is that no side is entirely innocent. You're always going to have people who are passionate about what they believe in and when they encounter someone who differs in their beliefs, they can't accept it and they do something that probably isn't the brightest idea such as resort to aggression or violent acts. I can understand why someone would act like that because I've been in that situation where I've wanted to retaliate against someone for disagreeing with me over something I felt was so right, but that doesn't make it right. I don't think that what happened was right either, but I can understand why it happened. It's just human nature.

At 11/18/08 05:10 PM, aninjaman wrote: You didn't look at the link did you?

No, I really didn't. I've done a lot of research on the subject and when you ACTUALLY look at what's going on, homosexuality in nature is extremely rare.

" First of all, is homosexuality a specifically human behavior? If it is a fundamentally biological behavior, there should be some other species which share it. And, in fact, there are close to 500 known species which are known to engage in homosexual behavior, including elephants, dolphins, sheep, bears, deer, rats, cats, dogs, cows, rabbits, kangaroos, squirrels, whales, bats, pigs, mice, goats, as well as just about every other primate. And that's just the mammals! There are many more birds, fish, reptiles, and even insects which have also engaged in homosexual behavior."

Yet in very few of these do we see actual sex between the same sex. Male dogs humping male dogs is classified as homosexual, whether or not sex actually occurs. Again, "homosexual relations" in animals are extremely rare.

:blah blah blah

Do you know what you call a female who refuses male advances to be with women? One calls her a lesbian. Do you know what a man is called who goes after men instead of women? Gay. I hope this helps, children.

blah blah blah

Because of course any of that has ANYTHING to do with an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

Douche.

Animals do it on occasion. Therefore it must be an advantage. Also an advantage...horses running to their deaths in burning barns!

All right- well, that was a lot to chew on for this week. To review- homosexuality is not a strictly human trait- it is practiced commonly throughout the animal kingdom. It has a clear evolutionary benefit in that it fosters better socialization among members of both genders. In humans, the evidence strongly suggests some kind of genetic component in the development of homosexuality, although the specific genes have not yet been discovered. "

In everything else wetalk about nature vs. nurture. Yet in sex there's only nurture? What a load of crap.

At 11/18/08 02:51 PM, fli wrote: 1 out of 10 people are gay...

That's an extremely high number, considering everyone else estimates gays to be between 1-3% of the population.

At 11/20/08 05:15 PM, CBP wrote: This is actually kind of ironic, seeing as websites like E-Harmony were where gays went to meet before straight people even thought about it.

Seeing as how E-Harmony was just sued for not providing gay dating, you are clearly wrong.

E-Harmony was set up as a dating site to promote straight marriage from a staunch Catholic.

Try again.

Proteas is it just that one passage in the bible that says sodomy is wrong?

Because as you know there were many books that did not make the bible cut.

Basing your view of life off of a politically charged script.

How intelligent.

At 11/21/08 11:00 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Proteas is it just that one passage in the bible that says sodomy is wrong?

As far as I know, and weirdly enough it only mentions gay sexuality, nothing about lesbian sexuality.

I researched it a while back, and the only thing I could find was that at the time that particular commandment was written, Israel was a warring tribe and needed as many members of the male populace as they could get in order to fight. And it's supported by the story of God's striking down of Onan, the Biblical idea that it's better to put your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground, that sort of thing.

Basing your view of life off of a politically charged script.

How intelligent.

Unless you noticed, I said I had no problem with gay marriage, and by extension, no problem with gay people.

At 11/21/08 08:23 AM, Grammer wrote: Ok then why'd you point me out, lolz

For old times sake. The second part of my post wasn't responding to you. It was my freeform response to the topic in general.

At 11/17/08 03:52 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Christ how lame beating on a old woman.

You call that a beating? What, are you like some little kid that cries from a paper cut?

The old lady knew what would happen at the protest. She was HOPING the other side would do that shit. Them pulling the cross out of her hands was the best thing that could have happened to her. Now she can brag to all her crotchety old lady friends about how "those queer brutes" tried to defame the cross in a satanic orgy.

Should the Anti-Prop 8 rally have done that to her? Of course not. Not only was it uncalled for, it was also counter-productive for their cause. Why? Because it lets little shits like you raise it above your head and scream about it.

Frankly, if I was gay and wanted to get married, and some old hag fronted some counter-protest right where I was having my own rally, I'd be fucking pissed as hell. I wouldn't pull those theatrics, but I'd like to pick up the old lady and put her back in her hoveround and boot her down the road.

When two rallies meet, shit happens. Welcome to everyday shit.

At 11/21/08 08:25 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/21/08 02:48 AM, thedo12 wrote: I proved you wrong on every level.

Nope

this, is going nowhere.

anyways im going to be the bigger man and not post anymore.

but anyways grammer , I hope you and your opinions have a good time together.

At 11/21/08 08:19 AM, Grammer wrote: keeps bringing me up and saying bad stuff.

Now that you've mentioned the part where I asked for less name calling, I'd like you to STOP IT ALREADY! Telling him to suck your nut or whatever doesn't help your point, it's just flameing. I've been letting it go because I don't want to step into Proteas's business (he's a big boy and can handle himself) but I'm awfully tired of you dragging the discussion down with any sort of childish name calling. Just stop it already and move on.

At 11/21/08 04:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Seeing as how E-Harmony was just sued for not providing gay dating, you are clearly wrong.

E-Harmony was set up as a dating site to promote straight marriage from a staunch Catholic.

Try again.

I am not saying that E-Harmony was a gay dating site, I am remarking on the irony of how internet dating has changed. E-Harmony was not a gay site, but it capitalized on ideas that were originally those of gays.

At 11/21/08 05:01 PM, Grammer wrote: I know. The object is to abuse and degrade him for doing it to me.

That's. The. Whole. Point.

Well, you certainly hit abuse, but anyway, it's off-topic and bordering on trolling so yeah, please to make with the knocking it off. I try to be a nice guy, but even I can only take so much before my mod conscience says I have to do something :). Kthanks.

On this thread have been arguing back and forth for days about whether or not gay marriage was common or legal in greece or rome. We have argued as to whether or not Gay marriage, polygamy or other practices are legal around the world. We have argued as to the lack of existance or existance of deities. We have argued whether or not discrimination against gays can be compared to discrimination against women or minorities. Frankly speaking, it is irrelevant. Slavery existed for thousands of years with only a few societies (classical greece for a brief time, one chinese dynasty (don't remember which but I think Song? Many societies practiced suedo-slavery such as serfdom in medieval western Europe.) and many societies in todays world. It was very common place throughout history for it to be legal. That does not mean that slavery is good. That means slavery is common. The bubonic plague was very common throughout eurasia throughout the 14th century. That does not mean that it was good.

The only real questions we should be asking are
1. How could gay marriage help the gay community?
2. How could gay marriage hurt the gay community?
3. How could gay marriage help the strait community?
4. How could gay marriage hurt the strait community?

At 11/21/08 11:44 AM, Proteas wrote:
Unless you noticed, I said I had no problem with gay marriage, and by extension, no problem with gay people.

Maybe that wasn't directed at you.

let's say for the sake of conversation

Do you think most people know how politically motivated the creation of the modern bible was?