Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/06 02:22 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote:

At 7/12/06 10:05 PM, InnocentAmelia wrote:

At 7/12/06 10:00 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: It's because a large portion of what you're reading is from a group of males. When thinking homosexuality the first relation they assume would obviously be male.

Still, you could be right. Your idea is plausible. *nod*

You're assuming that just because somebody enjoys something they don't feel it's wrong. If you ever talk to drug addicts you'll see 90% know it's wrong, but they still enjoy it and keep doing it.
Now to cover the trolls, yes I compared being gay to being a drug addict, it's just a comparison at 2 different levels but equal on their own. No I'm not saying homosexuality is right or wrong, I'm simply trying to profile someone who would use the bias example suggested for this topic and my personal opinion means nothing in that sense.

Hm, well yes... I suppose that's true. It's just in my own experience, not many seem to consider it "wrong" and if they do, they see it as something as common as a little white lie, hence some dismiss it altogether and don't even register the possibility that it's "wrong". But, hey, as I said, that's just my own experience.

And yes, I do understand your analogy and take no offense. ( I also understand maybe you weren't trying to clarify your reason to me, rather to anyone else reading this. )

At 7/13/06 09:36 PM, nafs wrote: PDA: Oh give me a fucking break... So I'm not allowed to kiss my girlfriend on the street any more just because you're a close minded asshole? And same with same sex couples. Get over your own complex and allow people to spread some love. (Now I do agree that tongue-down-throat right in front of people is a bit disrespectful (no matter if a couple is gay or straight), but regular kisses are very harmless IMO, and regardless, none of you should have any say in the matter anyway).

I completely agree with you. If it came across as differently, I am sorry abou8t that. I should have clarified more on the subject. I am perfectly fine with hugging, hand holding, and kissing. It's merely the whole make out and beyond scene that just disturbs me. Everything else is honestly very reasonable. I understand completely to those who wish to show affection to the ones they love, I've been there.

At 7/13/06 08:48 PM, Draconias wrote: ( Insert comments from post 30 on page 1. )

There isn't much ( if anything ) I could possibly argue with in your statements! Wonderful! You made a very clear idea that seemed to cover all the bases. Thank you! That really was amazing to me. You comment makes for a perfectly logical explanation to what I was inquiring about and leaves me content. Again, thank you. ^^

At 7/13/06 04:05 PM, earthsea wrote:

At 7/13/06 03:22 PM, pt9_9 wrote: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18;22)

Homosexuality is critsized by mostly religious people. In the bible, there are many "assumptions" that God did not 'like' homosexual men. However, lesbianism was not really emphasized on our given a moral value at all.

That's because the old and new testament are extremely sexist. There's no denying it.

All I can say is you're both right in this case. It's indeed true that the Bible can be a bit hazy at times on certain issues. And it's also true that it was very sexist in comparison to the current times. *nod*

At 7/13/06 11:20 AM, SaiNT_SiLEiGHtY wrote: ^ you're a smart girl and i agree with you fully. My words weren't directed towards you, more to the General public. I am sick of people bashing homophobes. I am an advocate of freedom of speech it is something I believe strongly in. Whenever society develops a biased opinion it pisses me off. There's always two sides of the story.

The only people that I believe should be persecuted in anyway are Pedophiles (Rapists in General) and Pozz's (refer to my sig). The rest: All entitled to some form of benefit of doubt.

Hm, well then thank you very much for clearing that up. I was a bit worried that you were being hostile towards me for something, but I'm glad to know that isn't the case. And again, yes, I agree with you, too. Freedom of speech is a worthy cause to advocate.
I agree as well on the frustration of biased opinions, but it's really unavoidable. People will have biased opinions, and who's to say you or I haven't had them now and again, too? It's just something we have to live with, and if we can, do our very best to know the facts so we can make a fair, hopefully logical, decision based on the facts.

Nice to know you're voicing your opinion and still keeping civil about it. I really appreciate it, and I believe others do, too. ^_^

At 7/13/06 11:01 AM, shimek14 wrote: i agree but they still shouldnt use pda

I agree, however, I agree that all couples, reguardless of sexual preference, should abstain from PDA. Holding hands and hugging seems perfectly fine to me, but anything further is too personal. It's just rude to other people in the vicinity.
Plus if it's at that personal level of affection between you and someone else, why would you want to disrespect that person by violating their right to privacy? Wouldn't intimacy such as that be more suiting in private rooms, where it's already deemed to be?

At 7/13/06 10:18 AM, SaiNT_SiLEiGHtY wrote: I like my homosexuals chopped up and burning.

not not really, but If I had said that and really believed that I would be persecuted. Face it, some people are unconfortable around gays. They have a right to dislike them.

Indeed you do. I'm not trying to say you don't. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the issues, but every gay person I've met (all 2 of them) I honestly can't fucking stand.

o-o; Sorry about that. Yes, it's true, some homosexuals can be unlikable, but so can heterosexuals. It all depends on your experiences, I suppose.

Remember:

"I have as much right to hate gay people as they do being gay"
-Someone I respect

*nod* Truer words were never spoken.

Someone biased against gays? So fucking what. Their opinion, don't force them to change. That'll be fascism

If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify one thing, sir. ( I'm not saying "sir" to mock you, I just don't want to talk down to you by calling you yet I still want to refer to you specifically. As far as I know, saying sir leaves all respect of the person intact. ) If you believe I'm trying to sway people's opinion, I'm really not. ( and I'm sorry if it came across that way. ) I'm simply raising a topic for discussion. Merely pointing out something that seems controversial that I think would be interesting to debate. Isn't that what this boards is for?
You have every right to dislike homosexuals and I honestly respect your opinion. When did I ever say I didn't?

At 7/13/06 09:03 AM, earthsea wrote:
I guess if they were bisexual it would make sense to then develope into a homosexual from attempting to please the other gender and end up with a deeper relationship with the same gender. Or did you mean that the they would engage in a, say, a "3-sum" to please the opposite gender and incidently develope a relationship with the same sex?

Yeah, you've basically hit the nail on the head. That's what I meant. Like one of those "in the beginning things were like this" and they've evolved since then to completely exclude the men into their reasoning, so to speak "eliminating the middle man".

But just to clarify, I'm not, by any means, saying I believe in this idea, I'm just mentioning it because it seemed like an interesting and somewhat different idea from my usual thoughts.

Also, thank you for remaining civil and good natured during this. ^_^ I really appreciate it. It makes for a much easier and light hearted conversation for such a would be "heavy" topic.

Yes, very true. Albeit the fact of it is sad, you do make a fine point. It just seems a bit hypocritical, but then again so are many things in the world.

Personally, I was just wondering and randomly posted my thoughts on the subject and whatever ideas came from replies.
D: Pity you had to leave, you seem like a nice person to converse with. Take care!

At 7/12/06 10:12 PM, CrystalShip wrote:
The fact of homosexual women to straight men is a term of a fantasy world, it might seem something strange, new and exciting and very different. Since straight men generally think about having sex with a women, then what is better then two women?

Ah, true, very true. Then that would raise to wonder if ( these are only thoughts. Not saying I personally believe them to be true ) perhaps some women are "partially" homosexual to please men and conform to their fantasy.
Then that would make one wonder if it was not men who fantasized about two female partners at once to indulge within each other that somewhat "started" the homosexuality among some women.
I say some because surely this couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, pertain to all women.

At 7/12/06 10:03 PM, Zen444 wrote: Now, if you're a straight man against lesbians, you're the gay one.

Or they're just boring. As I find them.

Aha, but that raises another question:
Is the criteria for a "normal" man one who prefers lesbians and disreguards homosexual males?

Then that would supply the reason for such is peer pressure by some unknown source that just decided their ideal rules over all, logical or not.

At 7/12/06 10:00 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: It's because a large portion of what you're reading is from a group of males. When thinking homosexuality the first relation they assume would obviously be male.

Hmm.. That would make sense, too. Still, I wonder why.. I mean, in all honesty, I think maybe if they happen to prefer viewing "hawt lezbian xxx", their brain would block the fact that THAT is homosexual, or maybe approve it, automatically label the other side of the equation wrong.

Still, you could be right. Your idea is plausible. *nod*

At 7/12/06 09:58 PM, CrystalShip wrote: I think two lesbians are hot, two guys are not :)

One of my points exactly. Double standard, my friend! o_o We allow for two females to engage in sexual conduct but not males merely because some people dislike it? Hypocritical and small-minded, much? o_O

Reading a majority of the boards that have anything to do with the "gay/homosexual" issue, I've noticed a majority ( nearly all of them ) that give examples to illustrate their points use exclusively the example of a man with another man.
I just find this rather odd, seeing as how the definition of homosexual is someone preferring the same sex. That includes both genders, male and female.

I'm only pointing this out because I really find it odd and somewhat amusing. People who use the examples negatively scream out against male/male relationships, yet I ne'er hear of a complaint against the female/female agenda.

My question: Why do you think this is?

Perhaps some people want to protect their Girls Gone Wild, hence they conveniently forget to mention it? |3;

Is it because a great many of these people using solely the male/male example are male themselves and letting their disdain and likely disgust live and thrive in their examples which are used to give an excuse to their prejudice?

Is it because people do not register female/female couples as homosexual, thus subscribing happily to the ideal of a double-standard?

Maybe their dislike doesn't ring out as much to female/female as it does to male/male because men happen to have a penis and sperm?

Or is it simply because they just didn't think about it at the time?

What do you think?

( Note: I am not saying I am against the issue of homosexuality, I am merely pointing out something I find funny and would like to hear other people's view on WHY this is. This thread is meant for discussion and debate purposes, not to hold ill will against anyone. )

In addition to my last post:
Oh, by the way, that post wasn't meant to be rude or make fun of you, just a bit of humor in a rather serious and overdone topic. o_o Just letting you know, so hopefully it can all be taken in good context, as it's intended. ^^;;/)

As for the topic at hand:
As long as there are differences in the world, there will be arguements, be they justified or not. The world itself is an example of diversity, meaning differences, so unfortunately there will inevitably be controversy over one thing or another. Right or wrong, it's a fact of life.

Personally, I don't think it's a sin, but I do have to ask, even if people think it's a joke:
Why do I see a larger percentage of people opposing male/male relationships than female/female?

Just wondering... I mean if you oppose homosexuality, why hold more aggression to the men??
*pause* Then again, if you oppose homosexuality, it could be you already believe in a double standard, so why do I even bother asking? o_o; ( Just so you know: I'm not saying all people who oppose homosexuality are pro-double standard. )

At 6/16/06 05:37 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote: When will you Christians understand? The prospect of Jesus dying for your sins MEANS you can sin, as long as you "Love God" and "Love thy neighbour".

>_> That quite possibly sounds like the thinking of our dear and "holy" monk Rasputin. :D By any chance are you related to Maria or the Russian queen or one of Rasputin's many mistresses? :3

>> Or perhaps you are living proof that Rasputin is not dead! O_O *gasp* So he DIDN'T die after getting poisoned, being beat/shot/bleeding for x amount of hour(s), drowning/wading-in-ice-water-for-3-days-or
-so-then-resurfacing?! O_O WOW. Oh by the way, your precious "jewels and staff" are in a jar on display at some Russian museum of erotica in St. Petersburg. o=O;;

I can understand why some people would be highly offended with burning a symbol of their country/belief/etc., especially people who survived war or had family members die because they thought they were fighting for what was right.
It's the same principle as a bully stomping all over a sand castle that a child spent so much hard work to complete.

In one case if you don't do anything about it, the bully will think what he/she did was justified on no grounds and might continue their ways, steadily getting worse.

On the other hand, if you do punish him/her, you would be, in a technical way, stifling his freedom of expression.

How to solve? Well look at the actual act itself, in this case flag burning. Positive and contributing or negative and harmful? In this case, negative and harmful. Hence the justified action would seem to be punishment and henceforth create a rule/law against such actions as to provide a warning of repercussions should the act be repeated.

On a different note, I have to wonder if this will really have any affect. Really, in my own experience, it's just making a challenge to the person and their actions. However, it isn't like we could initiate a reverse psychology tactic by saying it's okay to burn the flag, because no one could hold up the facade that they don't care until the offenders tire of the lack of reaction.
I really think it is rather useless, in this case, to erect a law against it, at least right now, because there are so many more pressing matters that require attention. Those other matters should take priority over this issue.

I know this quote has been exploited many times already, but.. hey, it's reemphasizing.

At 4/18/06 09:00 PM, vulcanus_1313 wrote: I am American, and I hate this country.

And as an American, it is your Constitutional right to believe and say what you wish to say under the Bill of Rights.

It is a tyrrany if there ever was one.

If this is true, please disreguard previous statement. You are not an individual and are not allowed to think what you wish. For doing so you will be sentenced to death by firing squad. Have a nice day! :D

Gays have no rights,

Yes they do, they have as many rights as anyone else except marriage. If there are any rights they do not currently have because of their sexuality, like marriage, they are working to amend that.

Oh but wait, if this is a tyrannical country, then there are no gays. We've already killed or are in the process of killing the rest of them off! Can't have those pesky gays running amok, now can we?

women are slowly losing rights,

Women have more rights now than ever, my dear boy! Currently we're working on obtaining a more equivalent society, so just keep your pants on.

Oh but wait, this is a tyrannical country, right? So then what are you talking about? Women's only rights are to stay at home, cook, clean, and be tolerant sex slaves!

groups like the KKK are allowed to exist.

While racism is wrong, to enforce the banning of a specific social group just because of their beliefs would be a violation of their personal rights, just like prosecuting you for your beliefs would be illegal. Once more, this deals with the First Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, dear.

Oh but wait one cotton-picking minute! We're a tyrannical country, right? Then that means that in all likelihood, these groups are encouraged and the NSDAP still exsist! By the way, what are you doing skipping out on Hitler's Youth lecture today?! Tsk tsk! Now you will miss a chance to meet our wonderful dictator AND get a severe whipping! My, what unfortunate timing you have.

America tihnks it can go and attack any nation it wants, and get away with it.

Yes and the fact that America was attatcked/threatened in the first place has nothing to do with it, nope not a damn thing! Oh, and of course we mustn't forget that the defense of one's homeland is so out of style this season! Can't have that, now can we?

America allows terrorists to blow up buildings for population control,

Uh, no dear, population control does not fall under this country's jurisdiction. That sort of matter is left up to the Asian countries and their female baby-infested waters! In this country, we could care less about how many babies fall out of an unqualified mother between the ages 12 and 60, as long as those children are not aborted beforehand and are made sure to live Hell twice over in an abusive foster home! ( <~ Sarcasm, yet sadly true. *sigh* )

America thinks it is OK to control the weather,

Well in all honesty, if we could control the weather, that'd be wonderful! No more blistering summers or harsh winters! And certainly no more of those nasty natural disasters! If we have a disaster, by golly, then we better damn well make it as artificial as 2% real fruit juice drinks! Minus the 2% of course!
Wow, we're such tyrannical bastards we've managed to beat even England and their track record of Ireland and the elimination of an entire culture! Let's all raise our tumblers of alcohol in triumph!!

and god....

Oh come now, my dear boy! If we could control God, then we'd be the omnipowerful creatures and designated masters of the universe and everything above and beyond it!

But of course being a tyrannical country, we already are Gods, or at least as close as we can get! Controlling your very exsistance is god-like, right?

It is horrible here.

I do say I must agree! D: My biscuits were burnt in the oven! Now I have to make another batch for tonight's Meeting of Historical Zombie Dictators!

Alright, I think I'm through. I've had my fun. |3

It is true we need to stop school drop outs, but this is just unreasonable and overall ridiculous.

People sometimes drop out of school with the intent of returning, but due to circumstances beyond their control, they can't. When they drop out, they sometimes need a break, a time to stablize themselves for whatever reason. They have pressures they can't handle by balancing work and education. So instead, they put an intended temporary pause on the one side that they could always return to: education and take what they know to put it to work to survive. These people struggle very much to make a life worth living so they can have the luxury of education.

( It really seems you don't quite understand what a true privilige it is to get an education. In other countries, education is by no means free, in fact it is extremely costly to the person and their family, sometimes taking a lifetime to fully and completely repay. )

Also, just because people cannot hold up their grades does not necessarily mean they are incapable of holding up jobs and their own finances. This is demonstrated now and then by those who are comfortable despite dropping out. Sometimes people have an easier time doing work than some form of educational study. They are better suited for civil management, social interaction, entertainment, and protection against civil disobedience than quadratic formulas, document/physical analysises, court cases, record documentation and interpretation, and otherwise jobs that require an extensive knowledge of various subjects reguardless of relevance.

Making living statuses impossible as a consequence to those who cannot, for whatever reason, complete their education is a cruel demonstration of trying to dictate and dominate the population. It's an extremist tactic that eliminates the freedoms granted to citizens of their country at birth.

Although essentially this idea is founded on good intentions, it is an irrational solution to a problem and needs to be thought out more carefully with different inputs to give it a more solid foundation.

Racism in general is wrong. To act upon it, such as beating the tar out of or killing someone, is a crime.

( So no, I don't think that they should get the crap beaten outta them just because they are Neo-Nazis. )

In reality, everyone is a little bit racist now and then, be it their upbringing, beliefs, or general commentary, joking or non. The difference in groups of people, however, is that we, as individuals, know that an unreasonable discrimination against someone is wrong, so we know not to treat them "differently". To tolerate them and move on.

However, once someone has it instillied in their mind of their own beliefs that racism is okay and they're instructed to be such towards a certain person/religion/ethnicity/race/etc., it's very difficult to alter it.

The only real way someone who is racist can be left alone is when they aren't hurting anyone. If they are or are planning to do so, then they need to be reported.

If the authority figure you report to disagrees and sees no problem with the plotting of these people, then you need to try someone else. A higher power, of course, and in addition mention the person who found no problem.

Rallies, public or private, that give way to meetings that eventually lead to the hurting of someone else, are wrong and need to be handled with. ( Not brute force, but still they need to be handled. )

Okay, I'm guessing you don't have all your facts straight, because to penalize someone for uncontrollable actions of their body, such as burps and farts, is ridiculous.

Aside from that, I think it's a perfectly fine idea. Students are in school to learn, not to mingle and chat idly with their friends during an important lecture.
That's what lunch and breaks are for. That's what after school activities are for. Socializing and whatever else you wish to do that is within the bounds of legal morality.

So kids pay a hefty fine for chattering mindlessly in class. Good. It will teach them to be more serious. Honestly, there probably wouldn't be such low grades if kids didn't talk/disrupt class as much as they do now. Without someone to talk to, they're left with few options other than do their work. Hence they resolve to do it, THEN likely the teacher will allow a free time once they're all finished. A good lesson that needs to be instilled at an early age in the youth of today and tomorrow.

Oi, if you're suggesting abolishing communism... they tried that various times in history. A memorable example of that was somewhere in the 1970s when the US ordered millions of dollars sent to El Salvador to fuel the extermination of communism by any means necessary. ( This was supported even by Ronald Raegan who basically gave 2mil a day to ES. ) That money did not go to the majority of the populace, instead the funds were basically put into the pocket of the 14-something aristocratic families that ran El Salvador. Mind you, those families made up about 1% of the populace and owned about 50% of the land, whereas the other 99% of a ~2million populace made do on the rest of the land they had.
The funds our country sent were meant to rid the area of communists, instead millions of innocent people were murdered under the sometimes false accusations of comminism. For thinking like individuals, they were silenced by the military ( owned by the 14 families ) and the ORDEN dead squads. Millions of innocent lives were stolen, lives of women, children, preists, nuns, and anyone who dared speak out against the government.

At 4/24/06 09:03 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: You need to stop saying its just the liberals. Thats a down right lie. And we are not even a communistic country by far...

Its all government that is fucking us over, not just one party.

Agreed.

In addition, we have to see it from a different perspective..

In all honesty, I think people who tried to believe communism were wishing for an ideal society where the government isn't corrupt and they CAN control the people without messing things up. Individuals wouldn't be scumbags and there'd be actual morality and logical thinking put into every statement and judgement made...

This is just a dream, a wish, something that will never happen until the corruption of man comes to an end. And we all know that will not happen.

Hm.. Undoubtedly an interesting thing to protest, yet I doubt it can work very well.

An onslaught of illegal immigrants will result in chaos and apparently we can't just give out citizenship certificates like coupons at a thrift store, so what to do is the problem. I still subscribe to the illegal immigration idea that people who aren't legal need to become legal one way or another. However, that does no mean I want them to go through the longest hell on earth and back just to get it. If only the legalizing process was a tad more refined...

Yet we still have the problem of accomodating our own populace, so adding more will make things worse, right? Honestly, I think the real problem isn't illegal immigration and people bitching "They're taking our jobs!" ( which is bullshit. ), the real problem itself seems to be an overinflation of population and an inability to accomodate everyone.
We probably do currently have enough land mass to accomodate everyone so far ( maybe not very comfortably, but we can accomodate them. It's not like they're a giant mass of bodies piling up on top of one another to compete with Mount Everest. ), but the expansion process is still taking time... most likely by the time it is finished and near-everything has been industrialized, the population will have doubled.

If there's a solution, then I gotta ask... How do we "fix" the overpopulation problems??

Sending email as I type! ^^ Hope it is to your liking!

Would be nice with a little more info, but I understand the basic storyline... Sent you a courtesy email! :3 Feel free to reply if/when you wish!