Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/25/03 04:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Lesbians = Thx
Gays = No Thx

just because one group makes better videos doesn't mean you have to hate the latter. why do you think this message is called "tolerance"

By the way, about the whole "load in face thing", some people have weird fetishes like bukkake and piss, but it doesn't matter.

And unnatural: we've been unnatural for over 10000 years by using tools, we've adapted to it, don't hate homos, they're a part of our unnatural society, like vegetarians, SUV drivers, and gun makers. it really doesn't matter. we've defied nature, we'll do it again.

At 2/25/03 12:19 AM, kittie_cross wrote: Why is it that society find girl-on-girl action so hot and desired.. but then they turn around and spit on the guy-on-guy interactions?? This is confusing... I think everyone's just a fucking hypocrite although they refuse to admit it, or are too blind to see it. Hey, I'm not perfect.. I admit my own contradictions... I admit my humanity; why don't you?

Well that's since guys are hornier.
I mean if girls were all pervs gay males would be praised in godlike ways.

At 2/25/03 10:55 PM, DarknessIncarnate wrote:

::

By the way, about the whole "load in face thing", some people have weird fetishes like bukkake and piss, but it doesn't matter.

I was just trying to say something that Mr. Anti-Gay might find repulsive, and to prove a point that if you had considered it disgusting, even if it were "natural", it'd be hard for him to do.

At 2/25/03 12:03 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Ok, explain to us, then, why exactly homosexuality is unnatural.

because it's a choice that goes against all biological instinct.

And you really think, that in your current state of ultra-supreme straightness, that if being gay was more natural than being straight, you could just go off and be gay?

yes. it's choice. why do you think it's so hard to change something like that?

I realize that it's not something that would come up, but humor me on this one. Do you think that you, in all your infinite straightness, could do with all acts homosexual, just becuase society disagreed with you being straight?

society would have nothing to do with it. most society of today is wrong in so many things.

if society considered walking with one foot a sign of sophistication, even though it goes against all natural walking patterns, would you do it?

Freedom is a double edged sword. You've got the freedom to express yourself in any shape or form (within reason to laws and regulation). Which also means everyone else does as well. So Tolerance is required. But then again, it's also a complete option to BE tolerant.

It's not the question wether it is morally wrong/unjust to be/not be tolerant.

It's the person's choice to accept what they wish.

It's like from Pennywise

"Someday you gotta pick your side."

I don't think we can sum up the world's moral problem and tolerance with a line from Pennywise.

At 2/25/03 10:55 PM, DarknessIncarnate wrote:

At 2/25/03 04:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Lesbians = Thx
Gays = No Thx

just because one group makes better videos doesn't mean you have to hate the latter. why do you think this message is called "tolerance"

Point out where I said anything about hate, when you go to a restaurant, and they ask if you need more water, and you say "no thanks," does that mean you HATE water?

Point out where I said anything about hate, when you go to a restaurant, and they ask if you need more water, and you say "no thanks," does that mean you HATE water?

We all HATE water! *Grabs Ted Nugent* Right here, man! Right here!

At 2/27/03 07:19 PM, swayside wrote:
if society considered walking with one foot a sign of sophistication, even though it goes against all natural walking patterns, would you do it?

No. I wouldn't. I'd do what felt right to me. The reason you aren't gay stems from a multitude of things, and biological makeup is only one of them.

Sure, for you it might go against all biological instinct, but gay people aren't all like you. There's plenty of gay people that go after same sex relationships because their hormones are just balanced that way. They literally don't feel attracted to the opposite sex. Thier biological instinct tells them that the opposite sex isn't what you're supposed to do.

Now, what you're saying is that it's completely unnatural, but if some guy is born with more estrogen than testosterone (I'm simplifying it-there are several chemicals in the body that determine behavioral characteristics, but these are the most well-known), without any outside influences during pregnancy or anything, isn't that natural?

"Homosexual activity occurs under some circumstances in probably all known human cultures and all mammalian species for which it has been studies." - Warren J. Gadpaille, M.D. "Normal Human Sexuality and Sexual Disorders," in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry

"Homosexuality and the sexual acts which are demonstratably part of the phylogenetic heritage of any species cannot be classified as acts contrary to nature, biologically unnatural, abnormal, or perverse." - The Kinsey Report, 1949, p. 24.

Decide that you're done with the topic, swayside?

At 3/5/03 05:31 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Decide that you're done with the topic, swayside?

no. but thanks for your concern. i just took a break for a few days. i'm just checking back right now, but i'll be back in a while.

the way you're making the causes of homosexuality sound, you probably think (and freakapotimus will remember this point) alchoholism is a diesease, or even kleptomania for that matter. blame it on instincs and brain chemicals all you want to, but in the end, you make the dicision. people don't steal because they are kleptomaniacal. they are kleptomaniacal because they steal. people don't drink because they are alchoholics, they are alchoholics because they drink. in the end it's all a choice, a preference, and preferences can be changed. there is always a choice of wether you are gay or not.

I actually got this off a worksheet I was given in my politics lesson.
"Toleration involves people being willing to put up with political behaviour by others of which they disapprove. It is a form of compromise, a way of achieving democratic government by consent. Without it minorities are unlikely to be happy, and individuals are likely to feel downtrodden."

Excellent post.

At 3/13/03 07:09 AM, swayside wrote:

At 3/5/03 05:31 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Decide that you're done with the topic, swayside?

no. but thanks for your concern. i just took a break for a few days. i'm just checking back right now, but i'll be back in a while.

the way you're making the causes of homosexuality sound, you probably think (and freakapotimus will remember this point) alchoholism is a diesease, or even kleptomania for that matter. blame it on instincs and brain chemicals all you want to, but in the end, you make the dicision. people don't steal because they are kleptomaniacal. they are kleptomaniacal because they steal. people don't drink because they are alchoholics, they are alchoholics because they drink. in the end it's all a choice, a preference, and preferences can be changed. there is always a choice of wether you are gay or not.

You argued that homosexuality is unnatural, and thus people shouldn't make that decision. I argued that it was natural, and that homosexuals can't just choose to have sex with the opposite sex. It doesn't appeal to them. At all. Mr. Happy just refuses to play along.

As for kleptomaniacs and alcoholism not being a disease, yes, alcoholics are like that because they drink, etc., but what do you think about the more severe brain disorders/diseases? Stuff that exists even without the advent of a stimulant such as alcohol and stuff to steal? People experiencing these problems often make decisions that aren't socially acceptable, and yet, come completely natural to them.

I'm not saying homosexuality is a naturally occuring brain disorder. What I'm saying is that in many examples of nature, homosexuality occurs, and that alters the way one makes decisions (such as choosing to engage in sexual acts with those of the same sex).

People can't just choose to be gay, or not to be gay. It's not a choice to be aroused by the same sex, just as it's not a choice for you to be aroused by the opposite sex. If somebody plans to live out a healthy sexual lifestyle (and there are armies of doctors who support homosexuality) they can only accept their homosexuality, and follow it up. Sure, plenty of people have been confused about their sexuality, and plenty of people have been married and have had kids, only to "come out" later. Just as homosexuality occurs in several places naturally, so does bisexuality.

I also don't really see how you thought I'd gather alcoholism and kleptomania into the same category as homosexuality from my previous posts, either.

preacher j,

this topic was never an anti-gay topic. i started this topic to say, for example, that if i own a buisiness, and need someone to work for me, i should be able to set whatever criteria i want to for hiring someone. anything that is a choice can potentially be a criterion for such a situation. things that can't be changed like race, gender, age, and things like that should be disregarded.

as for homosexuality, anyone can change their sexual preference. i can, and you can. it is very easy, and our society should not revolve around poeple so weak-minded as to say that they can't control themselves.

While I agree with most of what you say, Swayside, I think it would be harder for you to bend over and take a sausage up the rear than you make it out to be.

At 3/16/03 04:00 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: While I agree with most of what you say, Swayside, I think it would be harder for you to bend over and take a sausage up the rear than you make it out to be.

thanks for the support, and, no, it wouldn't be.

At 3/14/03 11:47 AM, swayside wrote: preacher j,

this topic was never an anti-gay topic. i started this topic to say, for example, that if i own a buisiness, and need someone to work for me, i should be able to set whatever criteria i want to for hiring someone. anything that is a choice can potentially be a criterion for such a situation. things that can't be changed like race, gender, age, and things like that should be disregarded.

as for homosexuality, anyone can change their sexual preference. i can, and you can. it is very easy, and our society should not revolve around poeple so weak-minded as to say that they can't control themselves.

Well, I agree with you in that you should be able to decide who works at your business. It is your business, and I suppose if you want to discriminate, for whatever reason, then you should be able to, for the same reason you can discriminate against whoever you want in your house (like a babysitter, for example). It's a building you own, and as such, should allow you to reserve the right to refuse service (from both ends of the counter).

As for the gayness debate, anything else we can say here will just be a matter of opinion, so let's just bury the damned hatchet and move on.

At 3/17/03 12:50 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

Well, I agree with you in that you should be able to decide who works at your business. It is your business, and I suppose if you want to discriminate, for whatever reason, then you should be able to, for the same reason you can discriminate against whoever you want in your house (like a babysitter, for example). It's a building you own, and as such, should allow you to reserve the right to refuse service (from both ends of the counter).

i still think you're assuming the worst. "discriminat[ing] for whatever reason" is not what i want to happen. discrimination against unchangeable things is wrong no matter how you look at it. things like race, gender, and other natural things. i would never discriminate on these grounds.

As for the gayness debate, anything else we can say here will just be a matter of opinion, so let's just bury the damned hatchet and move on.

to what?

At 3/18/03 10:45 PM, swayside wrote: i still think you're assuming the worst. "discriminat[ing] for whatever reason" is not what i want to happen. discrimination against unchangeable things is wrong no matter how you look at it. things like race, gender, and other natural things. i would never discriminate on these grounds.

You're only going to be delving into matters of opinion on things you can change and things you can't. Sex change operations, non-straight sexual preferences, and Michael Jackson are all things that change what was once thought of as "unchangeable".

As for discrimination, we all know it's mean, but isn't it your right? If you hate somebody because they're black, shouldn't you be able to reserve the right to not want them to work in your little corner store? I'm not discriminatory in any way, but don't you have the right to run a personal business as you see fit, even if it makes you an asshole?

Once again, not something I would do. I'd certainly hire somebody on thier merits, not their (insert discriminatory reason here), but I don't think I should have to hire somebody because they're (blah blah blah here)either, and if somebody wants to be an asshole about their hiring habits, I support thier right to do so, but not the manner in which they do it.

So, as for the homosexuality rant, can you really think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned that won't be dismissed as an opinion at this point? I figured with an incredibly vague topic thread title such as "tol(l)erance" would expand to cover other things aside from debating whether discriminating against somebody because they are gay is wrong, and whether or not homosexual tendencies are natural.

At 3/19/03 03:07 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

If you hate somebody because they're black, shouldn't you be able to reserve the right to not want them to work in your little corner store?

no.

Once again, not something I would do. I'd certainly hire somebody on thier merits,

see? you do discriminate. you wouldn't hire someone whi didn't finish the ninth grade would you? that's discrimination on the grounds of educational level.

swayside, I thought you supported a private establishment being able to discriminate who they hire?

At 3/19/03 07:13 AM, swayside wrote:

Once again, not something I would do. I'd certainly hire somebody on thier merits,

see? you do discriminate. you wouldn't hire someone whi didn't finish the ninth grade would you? that's discrimination on the grounds of educational level.

Well, there are certain degrees of discriminatory severance! Lol. It's obviously less-bad to let someone work for you if they didn't complete certain levels of education because they may not know certain vital things, and school is a good reflection of a person's commitment, responsibility and dedi- you get the point right?

Not hiring someone because they're black IS wrong, and you shouldn't be able to do it, but people will because yeah, they can. There's usually no way you can prove they did it either unless they say so. Of course, there are situations when descrimination due to age/looks/race come into play. That's in "themed" restaurants and stuff. If you've got a place where you want lots of cute server chicks then you obviously can't hire a guy. And if you're really pushing for some oriental theme, you're probably going to want to lean towards the appropriate race of women.

It's just to keep variety. Not everything has to be blended you know? It's not like they hate all other people, it's just that they want to give off a certain theme sometimes. So you can justify it in certain situations =P (Porn could be an example too if the people were looking for a certain theme due to their website theme/name)

At 3/19/03 07:25 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: swayside, I thought you supported a private establishment being able to discriminate who they hire?

i've noticed that alot of pro-all tollerance people assume that. that's not what i said, and i would never say that. at least not completely. unchangeable, inheirant things should never be discriminated against (except in certain cases).

At 3/19/03 07:47 AM, NoNameProphet wrote:

At 3/19/03 07:13 AM, swayside wrote:

Once again, not something I would do. I'd certainly hire somebody on thier merits,

see? you do discriminate. you wouldn't hire someone whi didn't finish the ninth grade would you? that's discrimination on the grounds of educational level.

If you treat this as discrimination, Swayside, what the hell do you do when you want the best person for the job? Close your eyes and point at the phone book?

Well, there are certain degrees of discriminatory severance! Lol. It's obviously less-bad to let someone work for you if they didn't complete certain levels of education because they may not know certain vital things, and school is a good reflection of a person's commitment, responsibility and dedi- you get the point right?

Yup. I agree.

Not hiring someone because they're black IS wrong, and you shouldn't be able to do it, but people will because yeah, they can. There's usually no way you can prove they did it either unless they say so. Of course, there are situations when descrimination due to age/looks/race come into play. That's in "themed" restaurants and stuff. If you've got a place where you want lots of cute server chicks then you obviously can't hire a guy. And if you're really pushing for some oriental theme, you're probably going to want to lean towards the appropriate race of women.

It's just to keep variety. Not everything has to be blended you know? It's not like they hate all other people, it's just that they want to give off a certain theme sometimes. So you can justify it in certain situations =P (Porn could be an example too if the people were looking for a certain theme due to their website theme/name)

Thank you. That's what I was getting at. Yes, I don't agree with people hiring based strictly on race, but it can be done, and currently remains a right.

As for educational discrimination, you're right, sway. I am discriminatory. Forgive me if I want my doctor to have graduated medical school.

At 3/20/03 12:08 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 3/19/03 07:47 AM, NoNameProphet wrote:

At 3/19/03 07:13 AM, swayside wrote:

If you treat this as discrimination, Swayside, what the hell do you do when you want the best person for the job? Close your eyes and point at the phone book?

that's exactly my point. you have to discriminate. there's no way around it unless you hire everyone.

Well, there are certain degrees of discriminatory severance! Lol. It's obviously less-bad to let someone work for you if they didn't complete certain levels of education because they may not know certain vital things, and school is a good reflection of a person's commitment, responsibility and dedi- you get the point right?

it's not "bad" at all to discriminate against educational level.

Yup. I agree.

there you have it again. you discriminate.

Thank you. That's what I was getting at. Yes, I don't agree with people hiring based strictly on race, but it can be done, and currently remains a right.

but only in certain cases.

As for educational discrimination, you're right, sway. I am discriminatory. Forgive me if I want my doctor to have graduated medical school.

which was my point all along.

I support private establishments being able to discriminate on any non-changeable thing.
I'm wavering on the changeable ideas, but I'm not sure.

I support private establishments being able to discriminate on any changeable thing.
I'm wavering on the non-changeable ideas, but I'm not sure.

I got the "non-" in the wrong place in my last post. Apologies.

At 3/21/03 07:25 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: I support private establishments being able to discriminate on any changeable thing.
I'm wavering on the non-changeable ideas, but I'm not sure.

I got the "non-" in the wrong place in my last post. Apologies.

ok. i read your first post and was about to go off at you, but nice save.

At 3/21/03 07:14 AM, swayside wrote: which was my point all along.

No... if this was your point, you'd have said "I think it should be ok to discriminate against people with no education."

Instead, you choose to discriminate against all manner of things that you consider "changeable", including homosexuality.