Harwood Butcher

Such as?

I don't think they'd be bitching if it was on the PSP. I don't think people expect too much out of it.

An idea for a video game?

Bold: So did thousands of other people. I'm pretty sure this idea got started even before Vice City Stories came out. I'm pretty sure people started to speculate this after Liberty City Stories was announced.

If you want your GTA games with shitty quality then just get GTAIV for the PC and lower the quality of the game...it's that simple. I think they should revisit Vice City, San Andreas and then add a new location to the series at the end of the GTAIV era. Just like Spaz said, all they're basically doing is using the names again. GTAIV was an entirely new map and the storyline wasn't at all like GTAIII. When people in here say that they want another Vice City or San Andreas doesn't mean that they want the exact same game with better graphics, they just like the setting and or theme of those games and wants those to return. I for one really want to see another GTA game with the Miami/Florida type of setting. I could really care less if the title is "Vice City", although I'd like to have another protagonist like Tommy Vercetti.

Then what's the acceptable distance between real cities that Rockstar could use? I think it would be a good location for a GTA game, but like people have been saying, it wouldn't be called Washington D.C. I'd assume it'd be something like "Capital City"...or maybe not because that's the name of a bank...

So has anyone bought any of the downloadable content?

Yes, be jealous.

LOL, someone deleted one of my comments. That's just silly.

The name "Grand Theft Auto" use to suit the game pretty well, but it seems that more recent games have been steering away from the grand theft auto concept. I think that they should name the games individually instead of calling all of them Grand Theft Auto. Maybe something like, "Vice City: The Tommy Vercetti Story" Or something like that.

Oh! Don't get this crap, it's pointless! It's gay! Get Killzone 2! I personally don't think it's worth $10. Maybe $2.

This is one of the funniest fucking videos I have ever seen! It deserves its own topic.

Holy shit, where the hell have you been? (Already answered, but...you know) I don't think I've talked to you on MSN in a long ass time. How's your sister? Or am I confusing my MSN buddies again...AHHHH

This is the newest video added to my friend's and my channel. Check it out and let me know what you think. EDIT: Yes, shitty video quality...DON'T JUDGE ME!!1!!111!

Basically because I haven't been banned yet. That's enough for me to wuv it.

That seems like a religious look at it, but that could just be me. With Christianity, being gay is a sin. So that's why most Christians don't believe in gay marriage, although I'm Christian and I believe that homosexuals should be able to do what they want, but now I'm beginning to question why it's necessary, that's all. You can't stop someone from seeing someone. It's not like homosexuals are being thrown in jail simply because they're homosexuals. We're discussing gay marriage and just because they can't get married doesn't mean they're being stopped from being together. Do homosexuals need documents to tell them that they're together? I believe gay marriage was outlawed by the population of the states. Yes, it shouldn't be other people's decision on whether or not homosexuals should marry, but that's how it works. If this topic were titled "Should the population decide whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry", then I would say "No." Like I stated above, it was voted by the people and the majority said, "No." I would find it kind of hard for a male bum to find a female out there that would want to agree to this. I agree with you though, it would be hard for a homosexual couple that was not truly homosexual to convince people that they were.

I never said that every child would become a homosexual, but I do think there is a higher chance for them to become that way if they have homosexual parents. I don't think it would be a problem, but it has potential to grow into a problem after a few thousand years or so. Again, you can look at it in many different ways, so take it as you will, that's just my opinion. Diseases could cause a decrease in population as well, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. Don't take that the wrong way though...I'm not really trying to compare homosexuals to diseases. Marriage is a religious ceremony even if people do look at it as a simple document explaining how two individuals are joined. If religions are beliefs that someone has chosen...then why are there homosexuals that want to be married through a religion that doesn't accept their way of life? Are there people actually stopping homosexuals from being together? If there are religions that accept them for who they are...are there people stopping them from getting married? People might be protesting this shit, but that doesn't mean that it's stopping them from doing what they want. BUT if homosexuals want these privileges that the government doesn't want to give them...then aren't homosexuals technically trying to taking away the state's decision? Look at America as a fat kid with a box of cookies, if he chooses to hand out cookies to all of his friends instead of other peers...then that's his right. If you were to take away the cookies from the fat kid...then you're taking part of his freedom. That's true, but I think there is a greater chance of two individuals of the same gender agreeing to something like this for a loop-hole instead of two individuals of the opposite gender.

I think Vice City Stories had better features, but I think Vice City still had a better storyline.

Its the financial ones that are the problem. There are aparently too many loop-holes with it. The name sharing and joint adoptions are most likely not the problem with gay marriage. If those are the only things homosexuals want then I think homosexuals should fight for those rights instead of being allowed to get married.

You should check with her parents first. If it's cool with them...then you should be fine. Just don't cross the line.

Treating people differently could be slightly different from not allowing people to do certain things. If there is not a religion that allows gay marriage then I believe that homosexuals should begin a new religion that allows it instead of trying to change other religion's beliefs. OR homosexuals could try to get the government to create another way to unite homosexual couples. Again, it comes down to the benefits that leads me to assume that that's all marriage is to these couples, which straight couples might think as well. Although, some of those benefits aren't necessarily restricted from single individuals. An individual is able to choose someone other than family to make that sort of decision, but those people obviously have to be chosen before hand.

That document grants couples certain privileges, such as the ability to adopt. Exactly. When it comes down to it, all they want are the privileges. Marriage used to be, still is by some, looked at as a religious bond between two individuals that love and care for each other that want to start a family. Unfortunately gay couples are unable to reproduce together and I don't think there is a religion out there that accepts gay marriage. If there were then I don't think we would have this current problem. Then again...I don't believe you have to be married to adopt a child. So I'm not sure what other reasons there would be as to why they would want to get married.

Well I've been starting to think about the initial reason for this topic, "Gay Marriage". Marriage is basically receiving documentation that says that two people are united as one, as a couple. If homosexuals don't care what other people think about their sexual orientation then why does it matter whether or not their relationship is placed into a document stating that they are partners? Do they really need a document to tell them that they're partners? Any kind of point for gays getting married is starting to slip away in my mind. Straight couples usually get married because of their religious beliefs and if gays want to get married based off of their religious beliefs then there should be no problem with them getting married provided that their religion does not exclude gay marriage. If their religion excludes gay marriage then I don't see the reason for them wanting to be apart of a religion that excludes their way of life.