This is sooo gay

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Look. You say I have no proof. Well, why should I go look for proof when other people (big guy, sacred jellybean) have offered more than enough already? No, "proof" isn't the problem. Your mindset is, because it excludes the possibility of anything other than your opinions having any truth... and then tries to force everyone else to follow your twisted morals...

And the pot calls the kettle black. You're doing exactly what I'm doing, sans proving your point, you're just on the opposite side of the opinion spectrum. Don't get holy on me.

You make more money, so you give a larger percent of your money... you make less, so you give less... it is just the most fair thing to do. Rich people can afford to give more so they should, They shouldn't be allowed to get out of paying their fair share of the taxes just because they are rich... like "flat taxes" or whatever do.

No, it's not the most fair to do. A flat tax means you pay directly based on the money you earn. It's fair to everyone. Punishing someone because they've worked hard enough to become wealthy is as far from fair as you can get. It's almost giving poor people an incentive to not try to become rich.

But that's just one parent... :bang:

And? The genes don't pass on because only one parent carries them? You really don't know shit about genetics.

Sure some liberals are racist... but a far, far higher percentage of conservatives are racist. You really can't deny that...

Sure I can. Who were two of the most famous racists in the civil rights period? Orville Faubus and George Wallace, figures of a Jim Crow south. Both Democrats. Who set up Japanese internment camps in the second world war? A liberal president. Which party advocates racism against white men today in the form of Affirmative Action? Democrats. Which party has a KKK member in the Senate? The democratic party. Who was Trent Lott referring to in the remark that brought him down? Strom Thurmond, a Democrat at the time when he advocated segregation.

Not a word of that makes a shred of sense... given how we've already shown how that is just false several times...

You haven't shown anything, which is what I've been badgering you for. You've just said "Weltall's wrong", but you've repeatedly failed to substantiate how and why. It just 'is'.

But for almost all gay people that is exactly how it is! They can't "stop it"!

If it were genetic, NO ONE could be able to stop it! Yet some do! Those that don't stop it usually don't WANT to stop it.

That is just dumb. I mean, "let them do whatever but if I learn about it let me do any bad thing I want (within some limits) them for being evil people"? That isn't tolerance! That's persecution! I don't see how you can support persecuting anyone... even if it was a choice, that doesn't make it anywhere near OK to let them be persecuted for it... yet you think it should stay legal for them to be persecuted (fired, evicted, etc) just if people find out their sexuality. That is not exactly "tolerant" or "not against people being gay".

Man, oh man, you just keep putting words in my mouth left and right! I never said any of that! This is borderline slander here, pal. I'm NOT in favor of persecution, and I don't think anyone should be allowed to harm anyone for any reason so stupid. But I also don't think you should be protected for your choices. To make an example, drug users are often denied jobs. One could make the argument that it's wrong to discriminate against drug users because they are addicted and cannot stop... but it was their choice to start in the first place (except in the very rare cases of people born addicted because their mother is a drug user, and that addiction not quelled by adulthood). If that person stops using drugs, they can get any job they are qualified for. Yes, it is hard to stop, but not impossible. Now I realize sexuality isn't exactly the same, but the point is, you cannot be protected from making choices, and if someone doesn't want to hire you because you're openly gay, they have that right. If you're not flagrant about it, they'll never know, and it will never be a freaking issue! As it stands now, if you are fired for being gay, you can sue their asses off anyway, and many employers enact their own policies disregarding sexual preference. It's wrong to fire someone for being gay, and only a real asshole would do that, but it's up to that gay individual not to make their sexuality an issue at work, as sexuality should NEVER be an issue at work.

Besides, when you get right down to it, an employer can fire you for whatever they want, and if they want to fire you because they don't like gays, they can get around any law with sickening easy anyway, as outside of race/creed/age/religion, employers can terminate you at will, and when they want to fire you, they will use the slightest screwup to justify it. So would it make you feel better for there to be a law, only to have the extreme few who would break it do so anyway? Making a law for this purpose is a nice gesture, but useless ultimately, as most employers already practice it, or would find ways around it, and it would embolden the gay activists to push for even more preferential treatment, just as minority advocates do today.