[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
basic human function as sex.
[/quote]
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
Just you wait until they can genetically engineer men to produce butt babies. Then you’ll eat your words and I’ll shake my fist in triumph!
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
basic human function as sex.
[/quote]
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
Just you wait until they can genetically engineer men to produce butt babies. Then you’ll eat your words and I’ll shake my fist in triumph![/quote]
I gave birth to a butt baby a few times in my life, usually was filled with corn and too much fiber.
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
So how come women can have sex then???
[/quote]
because if it wasn’t for the functionally rertarded, guys would never get laid?[/quote]
Ba-zing. Is there some measure of irony in the fact you misspelled retarded?[/quote]
Ah shit.
I think the word you are looking for is “vodka”.
This rubbed me the wrong way. Dude isn’t procreating, as he’s gay. This sets a horrible precedent, legally.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.
What a fucking disgrace, I am ashamed to be British.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So everyone who takes it up the ass is a genius?[/quote]
I’m not sure that’s what is being implied. On an unrelated note, I always wanted to compliment you on how intelligent your posts are. [/quote]
Thanks man!!!
T-Nation is my personal playground.[/quote]
I see what he did there.
[quote]ethanwest wrote:
I’m using this as a reason why I can’t have kids in case anyone ever asks.[/quote]
Homosexuality?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels!
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense, people form their beliefs on the basis of the most outrageous bullshit and somehow religious bullshit cannot be among this drivel?
There is a huge difference between coming from a religious background and perspective and trying to establish a state religion.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
Because the state is all-knowing, all-mighty and always benevolent, even if it may not appear that way to us unenlightened peons.
When I first read that some people have made their state their God I thought it was bullshit, but I have to admit that people claiming that do have a point.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense, people form their beliefs on the basis of the most outrageous bullshit and somehow religious bullshit cannot be among this drivel?
There is a huge difference between coming from a religious background and perspective and trying to establish a state religion.
[/quote]
Don’t shoot yourself in your other foot, too.
I’m not familiar enough with the British court system, but doesn’t the House of Lords serve a similar role as the U.S. Supreme Court? There’s got to be some mechanism to review the constitutionality of crazy new legislation like this.
Who gets to decide the IQ cut-off point of being smart enough to be allowed to have sex? How is that IQ tested? And how do they verify if someone barred from sex violates the ruling? Are privacy rights automatically suspended for anyone the government decides is mentally challenged? Are these British MPs aware that in the old Soviet Union, the labels of “insane” or “retarded” were freely applied to political dissidents? Are they willing to go there in Britain?
I can’t believe the British public is going along with something so repressive, crazy, and right out of Orwell’s 1984. I’m surprised they’re not rioting in the streets like Egypt.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
What a fucking disgrace, I am ashamed to be British.[/quote]
This is what it took for you to be ashamed?
Just messing with you.
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense, people form their beliefs on the basis of the most outrageous bullshit and somehow religious bullshit cannot be among this drivel?
There is a huge difference between coming from a religious background and perspective and trying to establish a state religion.
[/quote]
Don’t shoot yourself in your other foot, too.
[/quote]
Yeah, I am sure that your basic believes are sooooo much better than those who believe in one or several Gods.
And if you happen to believe in one or several of them I am also sure that you have done the soul searching and possess the mental discipline to completely divorce yourself from your moral framework when it comes to public policy.
Well, good for you, meanwhile in the real world people hardly need an invisible space daddy to believe in complete and utter bullshit and to exclude the few semi well thought out moral frameworks is doing noone any favors.
Finally, Ganesh for the win, one word:
Tusks.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense, people form their beliefs on the basis of the most outrageous bullshit and somehow religious bullshit cannot be among this drivel?
There is a huge difference between coming from a religious background and perspective and trying to establish a state religion.
[/quote]
Don’t shoot yourself in your other foot, too.
[/quote]
Yeah, I am sure that your basic believes are sooooo much better than those who believe in one or several Gods.
And if you happen to believe in one or several of them I am also sure that you have done the soul searching and possess the mental discipline to completely divorce yourself from your moral framework when it comes to public policy.
Well, good for you, meanwhile in the real world people hardly need an invisible space daddy to believe in complete and utter bullshit and to exclude the few semi well thought out moral frameworks is doing noone any favors.
Finally, Ganesh for the win, one word:
Tusks.
[/quote]
Don’t get so agitated.
And don’t put words in my mouth.
I’d rather you don’t detract from the thread topic - if you want to discuss thi PM me. If not, can your ego, please.
[quote]BobParr wrote:
I’m not familiar enough with the British court system, but doesn’t the House of Lords serve a similar role as the U.S. Supreme Court? There’s got to be some mechanism to review the constitutionality of crazy new legislation like this.
Who gets to decide the IQ cut-off point of being smart enough to be allowed to have sex? How is that IQ tested? And how do they verify if someone barred from sex violates the ruling? Are privacy rights automatically suspended for anyone the government decides is mentally challenged? Are these British MPs aware that in the old Soviet Union, the labels of “insane” or “retarded” were freely applied to political dissidents? Are they willing to go there in Britain?
I can’t believe the British public is going along with something so repressive, crazy, and right out of Orwell’s 1984. I’m surprised they’re not rioting in the streets like Egypt.[/quote]
The reason why there isn’t a public backlash is that they are doing everything they can to make the guy out to be a pedo, so taking away his rights is seen as being in the public interest. They will have the backing of ‘responsible citizens’ because they are being led to believe that there is a kiddie fiddler in their midst.
Classic political misdirection, with the added bonus that voters will thank them when election time rolls around for effectively castrating the guy thru legislation. If there was any truth to the accusations, they would’ve jumped on that way before they took this route.
A couple who fled the UK to ensure their unborn child would not be taken away by social services have had their two-week-old son removed by Spanish authorities.
The pair, who gave themselves the pseudonyms Jim and Carissa Smith to protect their identities, moved to Spain after Carissa fell pregnant to prevent their unborn child being seized by social workers.
Their first child, a daughter who is now 18-months-old, was removed from their care at 11 weeks and put up for adoption because they were declared unfit parents.
Shit is not funny anymore.