You guys have done such a good job of demolishing this ludicrous view that I don't really have anything to add. Oh well.

Well, I would argue those are more genetic deviations (including the reduced hormone levels) than actual defects. I lack hair on my chest (not more than a couple dozen at age 44) due to genetic factors but it's not a birth defect. However, my colorbindness, being as it puts me at a disadvantage and is a disability, would qualify as a birth defect I guess.

@ orthaic: "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."

On the one hand, I agree with your thinking, but really, can you blame gay people from avoiding that conflict? Society is gradually becoming more accepting of homosexuality. If they actively sought a confrontation on the issue, it could lead to some pretty ugly times for them.


@ Draugnar: "A loving relationship between two people dedicated to each other should be recognized identically whether it be heterosexual or homosexual."

I could not agree more.

Draugnar +1

Gay bars are okay. Even if homosexuality had full acceptance gays would still want places they could go to where they would know they could hang out with each other, or flirt.

I'm not sure how it works in other parts of the world, but gay bars/pubs in my neck of the woods aren't gay only by any means. I've been dragged into a fair few of them by gay friends on various nights out, and had a bloody good time. The concept of gay only bars is both alien and alarming to me, and I pity the parts of the world that require such establishments.

@ Draugnar

I hate to say it, sir, but your lack of chest hair is a defect of the highest order. It is both unnatural and against the law of God to live as a furless wonder, and I urge you to buy a chest wig at once!

Uhhh, yeah I dunno where you guys are all thinking of, but straight guys are more than welcome at gay bars, as long as you don't mind the possibility of politely declining offers now and then. And frankly at least as far as I'm concerned, they're more a matter of convenience than safety...if, hypothetically, I'm looking to meet someone and I go to a regular bar, the odds that any one guy I decide to talk to will be gay are, by even the most liberal estimates 1/10. It's already tricky enough meeting someone who is also looking for the same thing, and who you'd hit it off with, without further reducing your odds of success by a factor of at least 10. Seriously if not for gay bars, we'd never get laid. Or we'd all have to date our hairdressers, interior decorators and guys we met at the theatre. (Did I miss any stereotypes there?)

Although to be honest I do totally realize they were once a matter of safety and I may have just been living so long inside a giant safe-space bubble that I've totally lost touch with reality, I dunno.

@Octavius +1 - You made me snort cola out my nose!

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

Do you know how to read, Draugnar? Honestly. Do you? Or are you dictating this whole thing to your boyfriend? Laws banning the public carry of firearms are extremely unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say where the Second Amendment applies, and how far it goes. Likewise, The Constitution does not say where the Fourteenth Amendment applies, or how far it goes. See the double standard yet?

Both amendments are good principles, but vaguely worded. Therefore, both are interpreted in a manner that both makes sense for the current functioning of society while continuing to stay true to the principle.

Why is this a double standard?

Since TMW is an ignorant fool, I'm just going to pull a trick from the Right.

So you don't think that fundamental rights apply to all citizens. That is nice.

So do you hate America in particular, or just freedom in general?


On a more serious note, I recall something I read from a rabbi... paraphrased a bit. "Treat minorities like you would want to be treated if you were in a minority"

Basically, the golden rule. Treat others like you would want to be treated.

@ FS -- The Second Amendment is not vaguely worded: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So why is it against the law for me (a responsible adult, and an above-average marksman) to sling my M1A? (Springfield Armory semi-automatic M14)

@TMW - Heh "a responsible adult, and an above-average marksman" Yeah, and you're probably an above-average aeronautics professor too.

I think when people say there isn't a double standard in that interpreting the 14th amendment as applying to everyone, and not interpreting the second amendment as extending to every situation what they mean is that the constitution, all of it, is being interpreted in the context of prevailing social norms, and in that respect, both of these amendments are, unlike you, equally affected by...well reality. To make my point I need to appeal to the exact wording in the US constitution; "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." The way I see it, there are two reasons why a well regulated Militia would be necessary to the security of a free State.
1) To protect your country from invasion. When the constitution was written this was a concern. But the US now has one of the world's largest standing armies, most technologically advanced, and most highly funded standing armies in the world, and massive reserve forces as well. If the US invades, unless you enlist, you're not gonna get to use that gun.
2) And this seems the most important one, so that the people can rise up and overthrow an overly tyrannical government, and so that such an overly tyrannical government could not impose it's will on the people by force, because they would also be armed and be able to fight back. But if you actually think this is ever going to happen, you're completely out of your mind. Essentially what you're talking about here is overthrowing the government and replacing it with a paramilitary junta. Even if that weren't completely nuts, it's still not any kind of a solution.
Essentially what my point is, is that if you don't see you, or anyone else ever using a firearm for either reason then you have to admit that social conventions have changed to such a degree that a literal interpretation of the second amendment no longer makes sense. Unless you think the redcoats might land at any second, or the government will confine everyone to forced labour camps at a moment's notice, there really is no reason why you should need to carry a concealed weapon in public, and you doing so would have absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a well regulated militia to protect a free State. Furthermore, the only well regulated militias that exist nowadays are the police force and the army, and the national guard, and it is not necessary for members of these organizations to supply their own firearms, a circumstance that the authors of the second amendment (who, as we know, lived before the industrial revolution) could not have foreseen.
You, carrying a concealed semi-automatic has nothing to do with any of this, you just think you just have a hard-on for guns. And as I recall the amendment does not say "Concealed semi-automatic assault rifles being awesome, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The 14th amendment on the other hand (I'll paraphrase this one) is clear that it applies to all citizens, (and like it or not, the prevailing notion is towards recognizing gays as citizens seeing as there is no legal basis for concluding otherwise) and states that they should be given all the same legal protections as everyone else (and despite nonsensical protestations that marriage is a religious deal, simply because sometimes priests perform them, marriage is quite emphatically a textbook example of a legal protection). Case closed, end of story.

Err sorry, that should read "I just think you have a hard-on for guns."

hey pal, you can't dictate text unless you can read it. And saying "to your BOYFRIEND" like it's some kind of insult when the overwhelming majority of folks here already made their anti-homophobic stances clear?

you are so fourteen

your boyfriends's fourteen

@ Dr._The_Master_Warrior_PhD:

"The Second Amendment is not vaguely worded: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

I say that's pretty vague. For a start, it does not define what it means by "arms".

TMW - dude, an honest question - what exactly is your goal here?
1. If you're trying to preach/convert us, or just sell your world view - you have to see you're not doing a good job. You're making a mockery out of any idea you try to represent. Even when you say something that has some merit, you present it in an embarrasibg manner for people who may support it.
2. Is it just a desire to argue and win? Then you have to try and pick issues that you can reasonably defend - and you always go for the provocative. You're a junior to a lot of people here - and these are generally people who have good education and can express themselves well. If you pick a lost cause to argue against more a larger knowledgeable audience you'll always lose. And I can understand that frustration can lead to 'blindness' and an unhealthy desire to open up a new argument, the one you will win, and which show us how deluded we are... but it doesn't work this way. Take a step back, you don't need to always open with the conclusion - just read the first ten posts, think about it - maybe check other sources - and then shoot (and, no, you in particular should not be allowed to carry any weapons)
3. Trolling?
4. All of the above?

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. But I'm done with trying to convince TMW of anything. It's obvious "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't clarify the circumstances (i.e. appropriateness of the situation, time, place). Where as the 14th amendment clearly states what makes a person a citizen. But then, after he already stated he would pull a gun on and clock any gay man who made a pass at him, I somehow think rational thought processes don't exist in his head. therefore, I won't argue with the jackbooting jackass anymore.

@ Mafialligator -- First, why are you trying to argue about firearms when you lack elementary knowledge of them? My M1A weighs 12 pounds and is 44 inches long. There's some logistics problems involved with trying to conceal a semi-automatic battle rifle (The term "assault rifle" doesn't apply to the M14 family. The M14/M1A chambers 7.61 x 51 mm NATO (.308 Winchester). That's a full-powered rifle round. Not an intermediate carbine rifle round like what is used in assault rifles) Second, the Second Amendment doesn't have to be clear. It clearly is a blanket statement that gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms (arms being firearms, knives, daggars, swords, and any other weapon). Third, the statement "there really is no reason why you should need to carry a concealed weapon in public" is laughably untrue. The police are not omnipresent, nor should they be. If some guy pulls a knife on me and asks me for my wallet, do I let him have it, trusting the police to investigate later and get it back? No. That's economically unsound and risky. I pull my P99 and tell him to get the fuck away from me. If I had been slinging my M1A, he wouldn't have even considered mugging me. The nice thing about a society with a high firearm ownership rate is that people think twice before commiting a crime. Everybody is more polite to everyone else when you don't know what the other person has in his jacket/her purse. Fourth, your implication that the Second Amendment only applies to the "militia" (National Guard) is also laughable. What is the point of an unarmed militia? That's as idiotic as communism.

Really? I live in Australia, where gun ownership is quite low. People are still generally courteous, and the crime rate isn't very high (it has actually dropped over the years). And you give an example of a guy pulling a knife on you, he could easily use a gun. Instead of people being polite, they are more likely to be reserved, and keep to themselves.
I'm not an expert on law (let alone American Constitutional law), but the wording does seem very vague to me. There is no definition of arms, or law abiding. I don't think the Founding Fathers would want people walking around with AK-47s or AR-15s or MP5s, etc. Using a gun in the late 18th century was harder than now.
Having a gun saturated society is as idiotic as American exceptionalism.

He's not even quoting the whole amendment.

"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."

Point 1. Well regulated militia. Regardless of how good or bad you are at handling your firearm, you personally are not a well regulated militia.

Point 2. When the amendment was written, single shot long arms were the pinnacle of man-portable weapons. You can heft a M249 if you're burly, and that's a hell of a lot more firepower than any private citizen has any possible use for.

Point 3: The ability of the state and federal government to pass regulations on firearm ownership has never been disputed by the Courts, only the particular application of regulations.

Point 4: If you're going to quote something, include the whole quote, because if you don't, some clever law student like myself will come along and show how much of a hack you are.

Point 5: Before you even mention it, I'll address what I bet you're going to counter with. Yes, the 14th amendment was not written with the current immigrant issue in mind. However, back then, immigration was effectively unregulated (with some racist regulations against Chinese people, which are held today to be fairly embarrassing).

Point 6: In the modern world, if some crazy leader managed to actually arrange to get the Army to move against the people in a coup or something, what the fuck are you going to do against a completely modern army with an M-14? I know you seem to have fantasies about playing out the movie Red Dawn, but really?

But the 14th amendment does cover the current immigration issue. IT clearly states that you must be a born or naturalized person to be a US citizen. Illegals are neither.

Lol, is Tomorrow, When The War Began (Australian version of Red Dawn) coming out elsewhere?

I love how this thread was started to discuss homosexuality and degenerated into name calling by the children and then into a debate of the right to bear arms.
The randomness of the threads on this website kills me.

@ TMW, you're totally right. Precisely what an M1A looks like, and weighs was central to my point. You've totally dismantled my argument.

I'm not saying the second amendment only applies to militia. What I'm saying is that it is no longer necessary for members of military and paramilitary organizations to provide their own firearms.
When the second amendment was written did the US even have a standing army? I'm pretty sure it didn't. But now it does! And that army has more than enough money to buy firearms for its soldiers.
And frankly, a ban on a hugeass semi-automatic does not infringe your right to keep and bear arms. For that to be the case the second amendment would have to read "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms OF ANY DESCRIPTION shall not be infringed." the right to bear arms, doesn't mean, absolutely any weapon imaginable.

"Third, the statement "there really is no reason why you should need to carry a concealed weapon in public" is laughably untrue. The police are not omnipresent, nor should they be. If some guy pulls a knife on me and asks me for my wallet, do I let him have it, trusting the police to investigate later and get it back? No. That's economically unsound and risky. I pull my P99 and tell him to get the fuck away from me. If I had been slinging my M1A, he wouldn't have even considered mugging me. The nice thing about a society with a high firearm ownership rate is that people think twice before commiting a crime. Everybody is more polite to everyone else when you don't know what the other person has in his jacket/her purse." Yeah, or everyone goes around like an arrogant invincible asshole because they know exactly what they have in their jacket/purse. Or better yet, everyone is terrified that they might be shot at any moment. Basically you're talking about creating some lawless wasteland where justice means being quicker on the draw...
And dude, it's not politeness if you're only doing it because the alternative is getting shot.

@ Dr._The_Master_Warrior_PhD:

"the Second Amendment doesn't have to be clear. It clearly is a blanket statement that gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms (arms being firearms, knives, daggars, swords, and any other weapon)."

'Any other weapon'? Seriously? ANY other weapon? I've called you on this before, but clearly I've got to do it again. You are actually claiming that the Second Amendment gives you the legal right to own, and go around in public (bear) with, ANY weapon? Grenades? Nailbombs? Landmines? Mortars? Tanks? Nuclear Missiles? Seriously?


"The nice thing about a society with a high firearm ownership rate is that people think twice before commiting a crime."

Then why is America's crime rate so high? In the UK gun ownership is largely banned, and I see no evidence that crime rates are higher as a result. Can you provide any such evidence to support your claim?

@Mafia: If you ban guns, the murderers and muggers and thieves will still get them on the black market. But the victims of these people will not have them. If you allow concealed carry, the would be victims will have guns, so they probably won't actually become victims.

The trouble with arming the good guys in society in order for them to fight off the bad guys is quite simple. A murderer or drug addict who has armed himself with a gun will have little trouble with the concept of killing someone (in the case of the murderer because he has done it before, and in case of the drug addict because he's unlikely to be thinking straight, and in the case of both because criminals are less likely to have a strong sense of morality). Your average civilian, however, will suffer the disadvantages of being taken by surprise, lack of experience, and an instinctive reluctance to actually kill another human being. In short the good guy will almost always lose such fights, and instead of merely being robbed will raise the stakes enough to get himself killed.

To put it bluntly, carrying a firearm for defense against random acts of crime is a really stupid thing to do for anyone who isn't ex-military or a former police officer.

@Oct +1