Harwood Butcher
-
Posts
3910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Harwood Butcher
-
-
^Agreed.
And besides, Washington DC is close to New York City.
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...
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
And diseases are another way that nature prevents over-population. Granted, it's a lot less pretty way. But people don't realize that there is a reason for natural occurring things.
That seems like a religious look at it, but that could just be me.
Unless the two people go to Las Vegas and elope. But they want to be married through said religion because that's what they have to do in a Christian-based country. And furthermore, there ARE gay Christians. Just because most Christians don't "believe in"((because THAT makes sense)) homosexuality, doesn't mean they all have to be against it. Again, religions aren't straight-edged rulers that you must fit in perfectly. You don't choose a religion because it accepts you, you choose it because YOU accept IT.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.
First off, apparently there are people stopping them, because we're here talking about it, no? And most American states do no recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate marriages, regardless of how or where they got married. It doesn't matter. They won't LEGALLY recognize it.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."
And the state doesn't have rights, BTW. They aren't suppose to run us, we're suppose to run them. That's how a democracy is suppose to run. Majority vote. The government doesn't deserve the freedom it currently has. When the government gets more freedom/power/rights, it just fucks things up more.Like I stated above, it was voted by the people and the majority said, "No."
I still would see it more possible for opposite gender friends doing this. I mean, it would look more "natural", people would have less to comment on it, etc. Keeping homosexual marriage unrecognized as a legal union because of this reason would just be stupid.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.
-
Being raised by gay parents doesn't = gay child. If that child isn't going to be homosexual, they aren't going to be homosexual. It isn't about WHAT a child is exposed to, it's HOW that child is exposed to things. Why do people have such a tiny understanding of the child psyche? I haven't taken a single class of psychology, child development, or anything of the such and I can still understand these things.
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.
Another way to look at it, though, is even if we produce more homosexuals, that means we get a nice decrease in population growth, and we are OVER-POPULATED. Homosexuality, to me, is kind of like nature's way of keeping species from over-populating. It isn't suppose to make lives different, it is just suppose to help the world from becoming over-populated. But people attack it for "being different", and are entirely destroying what small attempts it now has at saving our world from over-population.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.
Actually, only religious people get married for religious reasons. Non-religious people get married all the time. Shouldn't they be not allowed to marry, too? And quite frankly, religion shouldn't be a bunch of straight-edge rulers that you must choose one and stick with it 100% always and forever. Religion isn't marriage. Your religion should be beliefs that YOU chose, not someone else. It should grow as you grow, and change the same. If your religion stays the same always and you never let it alter or grow with you, it isn't even a religion. It's a rule-book.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?
Actually, there's plenty of religions that accept gay marriage. There are religions that don't care in the least about TRIVIAL things such as sexual orientation. We have this problem because there are governments that won't accept a homosexual marriage as a valid marriage between two people. You can get married to the same gender in America, provided you're in the right state((Cali?)), but the other states won't recognize you as a married couple.And as stated, there are various things that couples can do, ACCORDING TO LAW((not religion)), if married that they couldn't do otherwise. This is the LAW. I'm speaking of America here, we are suppose to be a free country, we are suppose to be free to make our own life decisions. Why are Christian values being forced upon us? THAT is where a problem is arising.
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.
What, exactly, are you trying to say? Any "loop-holes" in financial gains from a homosexual marriage would be apparent in a heterosexual marriage. And even more benefit, you're not looked at as funny if you're in a straight marriage.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.
-
A lot of those rights are principled rights - the name sharing and joint adoptions and next-of-kin status. They mean more than financial ones.
If they don't matter, why hold them back from us? There's no real reason.
We're not trying to opress straight couples, we're not trying to devalue what they have. We just want to be ALLOWED to value what we have with each other in the same way, cos there really is no difference.
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.
-
It's two things. Firstly the principle, secondly the rights and other legal benefits.
The principle is that we believe that to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples in this way is deeply discriminatory. We just want to be treated the same - and our relationships (that we deem sacred) should be able to be made official, just like straight couples.
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.
There are lots of extra rights married couples (and thus official families) get, depending where in the world you are. They share the tax burden, they can inherit estates from each other, you are exempt from estate/gift taxes to your spouse, you can set up special trusts and accounts, you would be the first person if they need to make a medical decision etc (like organ donation, turning off life support etc), you get Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, you receive veterans' and military benefits for spouses (such as those for education, medical care, or special loans) and general welfare benefits.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.
Think about the medical decision one - with a straight couple, if one of them is terminally ill, the other gets priority to decide when to let go and turn life support off, because they're married and thus next of kin. With a gay couple, that right does not exist at all, and the decision would have to be made by a parent, child, or sibling. That would be an awful situation, especially if the partner didn't agree with the parent/child/sibling.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.
-
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.
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.
-
My reasons for thinking gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt does not involve their parenting skills. In regards to that, I think gay couples could be just as good at parenting as any other kind of couple out there.
This is all I could find. This post clearly states that you don't think they should be able to adopt, in the bold area. If you didn't think they shouldn't adopt, you wouldn't have reasons for thinking it((because well, that just doesn't make sense)). However, underlined you state that they would make good parents. Just as good as any other couple. This, does not, make sense. If they can make good parents, why shouldn't they be allowed to be parents? If you aren't against them, why do you think they shouldn't adopt?
Well the reason it doesn't make any sense is because you either don't remember or never read my previous post that explain my reasons. I didn't really want to repeat myself, but I guess I'm going to have to.
I feel that gay couples have the same possible chance of being good parents as any other kind of couple out there. Although, just because they could be good parents doesn't necessarily mean they should be allowed to adopt.
The reason I don't think they should be allowed to adopt is not based on them being homosexuals, but because of the effect their homosexuality could have on the children they adopt. Now depending on the way you look at it, it could mean it's because of their homosexuality or the sponge-like effect of the human brain.
If the child of homosexual parents is exposed to homosexuality, there is a greater chance of them too becoming a homosexual. It really depends on how old the child is when they are adopted, how they're raised, what they're exposed, etc.
Hypothetically, if this were to happen then that child won't grow up to reproduce. Then again, depending on the way you look at it, the child/children that could have been might have turned out to be the next Einstein or the next Hitler.
As this spread worldwide then there is a possibility that the percent of homosexuals of our population would slowly shift, which could possibly cause problems thousands of years in the future.
The idea is a little out there, but it's a possibility.
Since the outcome could go either way, it brings the whole scenario down to a "Is the glass half empty or half full?" type of questions.
Now don't get me wrong, I feel they should have the same rights as any other couple out there. I just feel that there could be risk, which is why I don't think they should, but again, it's not my life. I'm basically just putting my two cents in.
There's really no point in trying to prove me wrong or anything because this is just a random thought I had a month or so ago that I don't necessarily stand by as much as some of my other views or beliefs, so I don't really care too much what you think of my opinion or what you think of me based on my opinion.
Can we stop arguing about arguing? And lets resume arguing about whether or not people should be restricted rights cuz they like teh cock. -
So wait... You don't think they would make bad parents... But they still shouldn't be allowed to adopt? So you're saying you just want to take away rights just for the hell of it?
I already explained my reasons a few pages back.
You don't make any sense and/or are a very closed minded individual.I don't think ANYONE should have their rights taken away based on their sexual orientation. I don't think a homosexual couple should not be able to display PDA just because they are gay. I don't think any homosexual should be stripped of anything a straight person can do at all.
Some of you act as if homosexuals are scum. That's a pretty pathetic and disgusting attitude. I'm pretty sure you'd be upset if your rights were taken away just because of your sexuality or religion or whatnot.
(Read reply above)
EDIT: I like how you assume that I'm against homosexuals even though I've sided with homosexuals(Not actual people in this topic) countless times in this topic.
-
March 13,2009?
Well that just sucks. This will just give us a semi-fast answer as to if this thing is correct.
-
It actually depends where you go.
Some places are more accepting of homosexuality than others. I think it stems from how religious the community is.
I have to laugh at the idiots who think gays shouldn't adopt. I would be more inclined to send a kid off with two same gender parents who will provide a great life for them than some bastard parents who wont provide much for the kid in terms of love and such.
Homosexuals are people, too. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they suddenly can't be good parents.
My reasons for thinking gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt does not involve their parenting skills. In regards to that, I think gay couples could be just as good at parenting as any other kind of couple out there.
-
I can understand not liking the idea of gay couples adopting, but to be honest, I don't see the point of banning it.
Imagine two lesbians, both nurses, a stable household with plenty of income, probably the two best parents you will EVER meet. But they are banned from adopting children just because they're both female? That isn't really sensible is it?
Now imagine two straight chavs (white trash) - both age 18 (the minimum age to adopt in some places). A totally unstable household, drugs everywhere, fighting everywhere, parents in and out of prison every week, no education between them, no jobs (living on state welfare/benefits). But because they are the opposite gender to each other, they are allowed to adopt.
Does that make sense to you? Read the Guide to Parenthood.
Actually, that last couple wouldn't be able to adopt either. Each possible couple is reviewed before they're able to adopt a child. A couple with a shitty ass background like that would not be able to adopt a child...they shouldn't even be able to get a fucking gold fish.
-
"Ronald Reagan. Yes doc, the actor."
Should the Next GTA Remake Previous Maps?
in GTA V
Posted
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.