The Master Warrior is nothing more than an ignorant fucking piece of shit, who has no education, genetics, science, and is more than likely a religious freak or Priest who has a wife and rapes kids.

Thats how outlandish this thread is- you need a bullet man!

Maple is a bitter old dude, who rapes his own kids i reckon:)

VOTE 1- Cnesorship

Make that censorship even!!

I believe anyone who even gives this old "gentleman's" argument any credence needs a bullet lol.

Women need to stay in the kitchen, should not vote, and bring back segregation whilst you're at it why don't you all?
Really... in this day and age?

@Mapleleaf: You giant troll. Being gay is not a disability or a birth defect.


@Mafialligator: "I find it remarkable how redheads have been able to cope with their disability."

As someone with red/ginger hair, I find it very annoying they won't let me park in disabled parking bays. I can't claim any disability welfare benefits either. Not fair at all!

Has anyone seen the Harry Potter films? I think don't think they're very realistic. A ginger with two friends?!!

Yeah, because being able to cast spells and stuff, that's perfectly accurate.

Oh Jamie, you're always so earnest.

Oh, I knew he was taking the piss, don't worry.

It depends what you mean exactly. Being "gay" is obviously a choice, having homosexual desires probably isn't. However, in the end everyone does have the choice to either commit sodomy or to not.

I think the evidence for homosexuality does point toward it being developmental (rather than genetic) meaning levels of some chemicals in the enviroment (of the womb at this stage of development) cause the brain to develop hard-wired to find the same gender attractive.

This could be considered a 'birth defect' however a disablility it is certainly not. Gay men have the same brain function as most men, except for the regions governing sexual attraction, which functions just as well as that part of any (hetro) woman's brain.

So no disability at all. Though the fact that impregnating a woman and having kids would require ignoring the natrual repulsion that they feel is sligthly limiting (if a homosexual male wants to pro-create) Of course i don't neccesarily think having children is useful, or a neccesary part of being human.

Many people don't pro-create, and do have time to spend supporting their extended famalies. Meanwhile i would argue that adoption by a gay couple should be legal.

NOTE: the chemical balance which results in male or female genitalia to develop is at one point in time, while the chemical balance which determines whether we are attracted to men or women is at another point (brain development) - this goes some way to explaining why the percentage of gay men is different from the percentage of gay women - two seperate processes which govern the development occuring at different times - neither is developmentally impaired, nor 'unnatural' it is a consequence of the randomness of evolution - being gay is not a survival disadvantage thus it is 'natural' for it to occur.

This theory doesn't go anywhere toward explaining bi-sexual people, so my assumption is that there are shades of grey which the theory is too simple to address.

'However, in the end everyone does have the choice to either commit sodomy or to not.' - everyone has the choice to commit rape or not, that doesn't mean the two are equivalent.

I'm not exactly sure what you are accusing me of saying, orathaic. Can you clarify how I said that sodomy and rape are always the same thing?

you didn't.

i'm just pointing out that while both are choices some are considered immorale because they violate other people.

The term sodomy has been used to define an illegal activity and a sin for many centuries, and at least for me has conotations of something bad and wrong. Which is why i see what you are saying as parrallel to rape.

@ Duckelf: "Being "gay" is obviously a choice, having homosexual desires probably isn't."

I don't agree, surely if you have homosexual desires, then you are either gay or bisexual?

Otherwise, someone who has only heterosexual desires, but never has sex, is not straight.

Jamiet99uk, I didn't mean to use the term "gay" to refer to those who actually commit homosexual acts, but more to those who participate in creating the "gay identity" i.e. those who join "gay rights" groups, who consider themselves part of the "gay community" etc. It is more of a political/social identity more than anything else.

yeah, i hate the fact that the 'gay community' is somehow a movement which people have to join, somehting seperate from 'straight society'

I dislike the fact the gay bars exist, simply because of what it says about the intolerance of our society. I might claim that gay people should be fighting to make the norm in society that affection for your partner in public or in a bar - no matter their gender - be perfectly acceptable. Instead they choose to avoid conflict by promoting a seperate community which exists in parrallel to ours.

Though thinking about it, i suppose our society has it's own places for hetro scoring and bringing partners we've just met home to screw. It is fairly normal that this one activity be something where homo- and hetro- locations exist seperately to facilitate mating rituals of each grouping.

Still i have found myself almost refused entry to a gay bar because the bouncer didn't recognise me and he was protective of his clientelle - gay bars not letting unknowing straight folk inside to protect their patrons seems perfectly acceptable.

However if aa gay couple were refused entry to a straight bar for the same reason it would feel hugely insulting, a violation of their civil/human rights.

Though since each bar has the right to refuse entry to anyone it's not actually a violation at all.

Still, Duckelf, do you have a problem with 'gay rights' or the 'gay community/identity'?

It is true some people choose to live by the social norms set down by the Catholic church - a 'catholic identity' - just as some have an 'Islamic identity' - the 'gay identity' is one with very little in the way of rules except that sodomy isn't sinful.

All social rules are made up for convienance or control. The power to force women to work at home or the power to enforce your version of 'God's word'

I'm glad my society has moved on from a time when any individual religious group hs the power to influence law and 'societal norms'

Of course I do.

why?

You see it as a sin? fine don't indulge yourself.

You see it as wrong to promote indulging in sin as a lifestyle?

well tough, i may see it as wrong to mis-educate children about the creation of the world, but you don't see me trying to ban parents from teaching their children their beliefs.

I live in a society where we choose to respect other people's beliefs, whether that means letting them have rampant gay sex in the privacy of their homes OR symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of their dead prophet-king...

@ Jamiet -- Sorry. I guess I didn't realize that when I posted that. I'll continue on my own thread.

***************

I don't think Prop 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Amendments don't automatically apply to everyone. Should we give mental hospital patients access to firearms under the 2nd Amendment. Absolutely not. Are anti-slander laws infringing on the 1st Amendment. Absolutely not. Is Prop 8 a violation of the 14th Amendment. If it is, than I'm going to the county courthouse and demanding a right to carry my M14 in public, under the 2nd Amendment.

@ orathaic --

Having sex with someone of your own gender is a sin, under Romans Chapter 1 (et. al), in every translation of the Bible. No excuses. No exceptions. However, it is not an unforgivable sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

If the left wants to rigidly interpret the Constitution, I'd be more than happy to oblidge. Of course, a rigid interpretation of the Constitution would mean the disbandment of nearly every government agency/program besides the military, and it would mean that ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. It also means the cancellation of anti-slander laws and Obamacare. If the left wants to play hardball, than so be it. The right plays hardball every day.

So, you put gays and the mentally ill on the same terms...

Read something before posting nonsense:
http://www.economist.com/node/16743792

P.S. If you think you'll change anyone's mind or improve how the 'right' is perceived by being a stupid ignorant prick...good, keep it on. The more vocal morons like you are the more easy for normal people to orientate.

So speaks The_Master_Diplofool...

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Reread the 2nd Amendment concerning your rights.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nothing abou that says you have the right to bear them in public. Banning publicly carrying and displaying weapons is not unconstitutional.

Let's then review the 14th Amendment, shall we? All that concerns us here is Section1 as Section 2 and 3 are about representation and voting.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to this, this specific amendment applies to all citizens and clearly defines who is a citizen. so yes, it does apply to everyone, gay and lesbian citizens included, you homophobic fuck.

either the older people here are lying about their age, or I will loose alot of respect for my elders.

Want to be a bit more specific, Sic? To which "older" people do you refer?

well mapleleaf is why I posted it but there are a few others on my mind too. It's just so weird that you can't look up to your elders anymore

Nice article, Ivo. Short, swett, and straight to the point. There is no arguing with the judges logic and no reason to discriminate against someone just because they don't conform to the "norm". A loving relationship between two people dedicated to each other should be recognized identically whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

OK, I'll ask outright. Am I one of the "others" I tried being subtle hioping you'd say "TMW" or someone else but add in a "but not you Draug. Your the coolest of the cool" or at least something that confirmed I wasn't the embarassment.