Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/19/03 04:32 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: being gay is unnatural, changeable, and tramples the ethics and moral values of many people.

People must learn to tolerate the sexual orientations of others before the world can move on and continue to grow as a whole. People who view homosexuals as 'less' or 'not worth tolerating' stand against everything America and equality stand for.

first of all, america doesn't stand for anyone creed anymore. this country was founded by men of a religion that is against homosexuality. secondly, i have the right to choose to tollerate and not tollerate. i will only let people tell me to tollerate things that are unchangeable. but as soon as youtell me to tollerate things that can be changed, you are trampling MY rights.

and another thing:

have you ever noticed how no one ever asks, "so when did you decide to be straight"?

everyone is born straight. gay people changed. it's not natural.

At 2/19/03 04:54 PM, swayside wrote:

At 2/19/03 04:32 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: being gay is unnatural, changeable, and tramples the ethics and moral values of many people.

People must learn to tolerate the sexual orientations of others before the world can move on and continue to grow as a whole. People who view homosexuals as 'less' or 'not worth tolerating' stand against everything America and equality stand for.

first of all, america doesn't stand for anyone creed anymore. this country was founded by men of a religion that is against homosexuality. secondly, i have the right to choose to tollerate and not tollerate. i will only let people tell me to tollerate things that are unchangeable. but as soon as youtell me to tollerate things that can be changed, you are trampling MY rights.

I must disagree with you on this. The United States was founded by men of my Religion, Daeist (look it up if you don't believe me). While the founding fathers did dissaprove of homosexuality it wasn't a religous thing.

Also I must say that I believe that homosexuality is a genetic abnormality as I could never ever picture myself switching teams.

(Note I am straight) I don't want any unwanted and disturbing come ons, on my instant messager

i just hope that we dont go to war, with nukes and all that shizzle

At 2/19/03 09:05 PM, Ayscotty wrote: i just hope that we dont go to war, with nukes and all that shizzle

shut up. this isn't the topic for that crap.

At 2/19/03 08:28 PM, implodinggoat wrote:
Also I must say that I believe that homosexuality is a genetic abnormality as I could never ever picture myself switching teams.

obviously other people have.

At 2/19/03 05:01 PM, swayside wrote:

have you ever noticed how no one ever asks, "so when did you decide to be straight"?

everyone is born straight. gay people changed. it's not natural.

The reason that people say "so when did you decide to be gay?" is that they are referring to when they came out of the closet. The reason for this is they have to hide their identities because people like you refuse to accept them.
Even if it WAS a genetic difference, we should still accept them. Sick/different people have as much right to their sexual preferences as you or I. And obviously if homosexuality is genetic, then it is engraved on their DNA. It's not changeable.

You also keep saying "it's not natural". Wether or not it's "natural" has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Even if it was the most unnarural thing society had ever encountered, we should tolerate it.
They don't try push their orientation on us, we shouldn't on them.

And define natural. If it's what most people do, that's an arbitrary choice for why they shouldn't be different. Most people are something, why make it everyone?
And you can also define natural by looking in history. But there have been homosexuals as far back as straights!

And, a little off topic, what do you think of oral sex?
(Bear with me)

At 2/20/03 07:03 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:

Even if it WAS a genetic difference, we should still accept them.

if it was, i would have no problem accepting it, but it's not.

Sick/different people have as much right to their sexual preferences as you or I.

there's a difference in being sick and being different. people can shoode to be different. they don't always choose to be sick.

And obviously if homosexuality is genetic, then it is engraved on their DNA. It's not changeable.

but it's not, so it is changeable.

You also keep saying "it's not natural". Wether or not it's "natural" has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Even if it was the most unnarural thing society had ever encountered, we should tolerate it.

do you support beastiality? i find that to be very unnatural.

They don't try push their orientation on us, we shouldn't on them.

the reason that they don't push it on us is that the whole world can't be or we'll go extinct.

And you can also define natural by looking in history. But there have been homosexuals as far back as straights!

almost as far back.

And, a little off topic, what do you think of oral sex?
(Bear with me)

i see where you're going with this. as long as it's heterosexual, go for it.

So, just to clarify for me, you think it's a sickness?
I'm seeing your stance on this more clearly now, and I have a little respect for it, but I wouldn't take it.
Just explain a bit why you think it's a sickness for me.

And no, I don't "support" beastiality, but I have no problem with other people doing it. If they want to have sex with anything from a cow to a brick, I couldn't care less. All the more power to them.

And finally, you say "go for it" to oral sex. But wouldn't it be unnatural? As unnatural as beastiality or sodomy. In many places, oral sex is considered no different from sodomy, and banned under the same laws.

At 2/20/03 04:44 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: So, just to clarify for me, you think it's a sickness?
I'm seeing your stance on this more clearly now, and I have a little respect for it, but I wouldn't take it.
Just explain a bit why you think it's a sickness for me.

no. i said that you can choose to be different, but not to be sick. since homosexuality is a choice, it's a difference.

And finally, you say "go for it" to oral sex. But wouldn't it be unnatural? As unnatural as beastiality or sodomy. In many places, oral sex is considered no different from sodomy, and banned under the same laws.

in some of those same countries it was/is illegal for a woman to show her face. you're getting into finite detail which isn't really nescesary for this debate.

Many of the US states have, and some still do, ban oral sex. It has nothing to do with discrimination against women, it's just thought of little different than sodomy.
In actually, it is little different. I'm not going to explain how, because this isn't the kind of place for that, but think on it and you'll see.

And you say that homosexuality is a choice?
Then shouldn't we respect their decision and give them equal rights? Humans do hundreds of so called "unnatural" things every day.
It's not natural for us to watch TV, drive cars, wear clothes, etc. Why is this any different?
Sex is a decision like any other, no more important than what pair of shoes you're going to wear.
Unless the government wants to say that you have to wear sneakers, we should let them decide.

At 2/21/03 07:08 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: And you say that homosexuality is a choice?
Then shouldn't we respect their decision and give them equal rights?

as long as you don't take away from my rights.

Humans do hundreds of so called "unnatural" things every day.

It's not natural for us to watch TV, drive cars, wear clothes, etc. Why is this any different?

if i had something against people who watched tv but had a job opening at my place of business, shouldn't i have the right to not hire someone because they watch tv? people can just as easily not watch tv, drive, paint walls, build houses, or whatever. if i have a problem with it, don't trample my rights and force me to pay no mind to that.

don't trample my rights

Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

At 2/21/03 03:56 PM, Slizor wrote:

Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

no. i don't, and you don't. that's like saying i have a right for you to agree with me (probably never going to happen).

At 2/21/03 03:56 PM, Slizor wrote:

don't trample my rights

Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

Despite the views of others, people do have the right to live a free and happy life. If we just let people of homosexual orientation alone and moved on with our lives, putting silly fears and false knowledge aside, things would run smoother. Sadly, there's always going to be some group of rednecks that ties a gay guy to a fence and murders him. That's a horrible chain around the world's neck.

At 2/21/03 04:39 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

putting silly fears and false knowledge aside, things would run smoother.

why d you assume that because i don't agree with you, i'm afraid of something? i'm one of the least homophobic people i know. and i'm not ignorant.

At 2/21/03 04:45 PM, swayside wrote:

At 2/21/03 04:39 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

putting silly fears and false knowledge aside, things would run smoother.

why d you assume that because i don't agree with you, i'm afraid of something? i'm one of the least homophobic people i know. and i'm not ignorant.

I didn't name you at all. I consider you an esteemed member of this political board. I was making a statement about the people that degrade or assault people because of their sexuality.

I really don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to not hire people based on wether or not they watch TV.
It's your own private enterprise, it's your own choice.
It seems that the government steps in and calls it discrimination once a lot of people do it.
So it's ok for people to do it, just not a lot of people?

At 2/21/03 03:56 PM, Slizor wrote:
Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

This is a valid point but the right of freedom of speech is paramount above all. People have the right to be intolerant however how they express that intolerance has its limits....saying something bigoted is your right, however burning a cross on someones front yard is not. Also while one person has the right to say something intolerant those they abuse have equal right to say whatever the fuck they want back.

At 2/21/03 05:21 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 2/21/03 03:56 PM, Slizor wrote:
Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

Intolerance has its limits....saying something bigoted is your right, however burning a cross on someones front yard is not.

Agreed. The KKK is a bad, bad thing that's left a scar on the nation. I think we can all agree on this?

Indeed they were a stain on the Swiffer wipe that is the American history.
They are an interesting read, and and I encourage others to read on them (not support them).

At 2/21/03 07:37 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Indeed they were a stain on the Swiffer wipe that is the American history.
They are an interesting read, and and I encourage others to read on them (not support them).

I've had a teacher for the past year that's given us little readings on the Klan. They're an odd group...their evolution through American history and things. It's hard to ignore, since I'm from Indiana, where there were the triple-lynchings by the Klan near here. I despise the people, but their paranoid and psychotic views of things are interesting to someone who enjoys looking at people's motives. =)

At 2/21/03 05:20 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:

So it's ok for people to do it, just not a lot of people?

ethics like that shouldn't have anything to do with the number of people in question.

No, they shouldn't. I'm agreeing with you that you should be able to not hire anyone for any reason that you choose. It's your own private buisness.
But what I had been saying was the government seems to think that it becomes wrong when a lot of people decide to not hire a certain race/sex/class etc, and then they call is discrimination.

Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

no. i don't, and you don't. that's like saying i have a right for you to agree with me (probably never going to happen).

You don't think that people have a right to live their life, the way they choose (this has acceptable boundaries, but anything not against the law)?

At 2/22/03 08:32 AM, Slizor wrote:

Surely people have a right to live their life free of recrimination?

no. i don't, and you don't. that's like saying i have a right for you to agree with me (probably never going to happen).

You don't think that people have a right to live their life, the way they choose (this has acceptable boundaries, but anything not against the law)?

sure, people have a right to live their life however they see fit, but how can you assume that there wouldn't be any friction? i have a right to express my distaste for your views through any means not ilegal (i.e. not hiring you).

sure, people have a right to live their life however they see fit, but how can you assume that there wouldn't be any friction? i have a right to express my distaste for your views through any means not ilegal (i.e. not hiring you).

Germany, 1933
"You're Jewish!? You're fired"
America 1950s
"You're a Communist?! You're fired."
Israel, anytime
"You're not Jewish!? You're fired"

Fascist!

That may sound bad, but people only think of it in such a horrible way because once a large number of people start doing it to one group, people start to consider it discrimination.
It's a private enterprise, they should be able to hire based on anything. They should be able to fire someone based on anything from sleeping with their wife to a lack of exclamation marks in a paper.