ATTN: Cal

[calfoxwc]

I said nothing about oral sex. You are confusing the issue. Go back and read what we were talking about.

 

and, not knowing what does happen, but if it is known, yes, it should be illegal.

 

Are you trying to find out what is wrong with your behavior or what?

 

I think anybody humping any martian should be illegal.

 

But, right on cue, go ahead and modify the subject to desperately try for solid ground.

 

Right now, you are treading water in quicksand.

 

The subject is gay marriage, and my rejecting the gay lifestyle.

 

TRY to stay on topic. don't go Heck's way again....

[Mr. T]

Today we reject all moral absolutes,

 

in favor of our own ideas of right and wrong

 

because we're convinced our ideas of righteousness

 

are far superior to God's ancient laws laid out in the bible.

 

~

 

We now unashamedly reject God's moral authority

 

and in so doing have made ourselves God.

 

- unknown

 

I dont know who wrote this, but they are right on the money.

[VaporTrail]

I said nothing about oral sex. You are confusing the issue. Go back and read what we were talking about.

 

and, not knowing what does happen, but if it is known, yes, it should be illegal.

 

Are you trying to find out what is wrong with your behavior or what?

 

I think anybody humping any martian should be illegal.

 

But, right on cue, go ahead and modify the subject to desperately try for solid ground.

 

Right now, you are treading water in quicksand.

 

The subject is gay marriage, and my rejecting the gay lifestyle.

 

TRY to stay on topic. don't go Heck's way again....

 

Cal, you only said

 

yes, I believe it is perverse.

 

Not referring to what "it" is. I assumed that it was the point I brought up about oral sex in the previous post. I'm just trying to make clear what your point of view is. I brought up oral sex because you claim that homosexuality is unnatural. I am arguing that unless you believe all types of sodomy, including straight oral sex, should be illegal, then your viewpoint is inconsistent. You're still not being very clear

 

and, not knowing what does happen, but if it is known, yes, it should be illegal.

 

Can you clarify what you mean by "it," please? I don't know if you're referring to oral sex, or exclusively homosexual acts, or both.

 

I have a huge problem with people that think that homosexuality is immoral and refer to it as unnatural, yet have no problem with oral sex. I'm trying to figure out if you're in that group. If you aren't in that group, and I think that what you're trying to say is that all sodomy is immoral and should be illegal, then you don't have a fallacious argument, only one I disagree with.

 

And T, nice quote and all, but I've got a better one.

 

"In the beginning, man created god."

[calfoxwc]

gay lifestyle/behavior.

 

I don't know why this is such a gigantic issue for libs... unless....

 

they don't know how to stop taking anti status quo stances to buoy

 

up their faltering elitist feelings.

 

The subject has been the phoney gay "marriage" and subsequently, the lifestyle/behavior.

 

You lost the argument several times already.

 

Changing the subject to grotesque detail doesn't win you anything here, either.

 

It's been tried before by MousenadZ.

[calfoxwc]

and T, excellent post - that quote refers to the ultimate liberal quest for elitism - God-like status.

 

I think it's a personality disorder, best case scenario. @@

[VaporTrail]

Cal, I don't know why gays being allowed to marry is such a huge issue for you. If they're allowed to marry it will not affect you in any way. It's a big deal to me because people like you don't want them to have the same rights as straight people. All the while, you've still managed to dodge my question about whether or not you think there should be laws against straight oral sex. If you're so confident that I've lost the argument, then you shouldn't have a problem answering my question.

 

And as for your guys' little religious circle jerk, why the hell would I strive to be more like your god? I don't want to be a bigoted, genocidal, irrational maniac that is somehow benevolent and all-knowing even though according to the myths you believe, he murdered thousands if not millions of innocent people. If he's so great, then explain why children starve to death in Africa? Your religion doesn't allow for reincarnation, so what did they do to deserve that?

[calfoxwc]

Your question had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Oral sex?

 

Man Woman REAL MARRIAGE? Sure, sexual relationships involving oral sex is fine by me.

 

But that was never the question. Answering your diversion just gives you more leeway to change the

 

subject, since you got yersef all stuck in deep mud.

 

The answer to your question about God and what you deem Him as, and your question about

 

starving children etc, is partly legit, and the answer is complex and elaborate, and I am not

 

the guy to explain it all.

 

It has to do with the angelic conflict, the battle between satan and God, and the free will of man.

 

and probably other issues about God.

 

Okie dokie?

 

I just don't believe in the everywhere you look liberalland upsetting and attempting to destroy everything

 

that is status quo, decent, and genuine about our lives, for the elitist progressives' sake of power to become

 

"owners" in charge of reality.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, and I have been typing with both hands now, after I undo my shoulder/arm sling.

 

But it makes my shoulder ache, and then I wimp out after a while. @@

[VaporTrail]

And I see you as the person that blindly follows religious teachings just because they are religious.

 

Also, your stances on these things are inconsistent. You claim that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. But, by your definition, oral sex is unnatural too because it does not and never will lead to the creation of new life. Therefore by saying straight oral sex is okay but anything gay isn't, you are holding gays to a different, UNEQUAL standard. That is my problem with your stance on homosexuality. I think, as far as the law goes, all people should be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. You don't.

[calfoxwc]

No, your argument is with yourself and your intentional false twisting of my words and meaning.

 

I never said oral sex nothing in the first place.

 

and sex with a MAN and a WOMAN is natual, in the order of things, often lending itself to intercourse

 

for pleasure AND having children IS perfectly natural.

 

So, ADAM and EVE.

 

Here, let me simplify nature for you.

 

In the natural law of physics, there is magnetism.

 

Now, you take two magnets. N - N and S - S poles of the magnets REPEL. Every time.

 

Now, N - S and S - N poles ATTRACT.

 

You can argue that NN and SS is all normally attracting, because all poles should be treated equally, all you want. LOL

 

But they don't. It is a universal law of physics.

 

With human beings, we are not molecularly consistent as magnets. But it is also a universal law that men and women are

attracted to each other.

 

Anything other than that, is a biological anomaly, a deviation of the norm. Some people were born with deformities.

 

Do you call that perfectly normal and generally correct, too?

 

You are being ridiculous. Kissing doesn't create children... do you think I think kissing is abnormal?

 

Geez, stop already, you are proving my points faster than I can stop laughing at it happening.

[VaporTrail]

But they don't. It is a universal law of physics.

 

Except people aren't magnets, you ass, and one in ten of every people is a "magnet" that points the wrong direction. There are NO laws that exist in the realm of soft sciences; we simply don't know enough about human physiology or psychology to say that ANYTHING is a law.

 

You haven't proven anything except that you want to hold a double standard between gay couples and straight couples. Keep declaring yourself the winner and ignore every legitimate point I make that you don't know how to argue.

 

But it is also a universal law that men and women are

attracted to each other.

 

Apparently there's another "universal law" that says 1 out of every 10 people is attracted to the same sex, seeing as this is how it is in real life. You just don't want to accept that, and choose to still discriminate against them.

 

Marriage between a man and a woman is a cultural norm, not a universally natural law. If it were the law, as you claim, there would be no homosexuality.

[calfoxwc]

LOL.

 

YOU DID IT AGAIN !

 

But this time, you resorted to the old liberal hateful fallback -

 

name calling because you can't make your liberal emotional rationalizations stick.

 

AND, you call me an "ass" because you say I'm saying that people are magnets? LOL

 

You keep proving my appraisals of liberals' emotionalist methods to be right on the money.

 

Keep on keeping on !

 

Not only did I NOT say that, I DID say "With human beings, we are not molecularly consistent as magnets."

 

Obviously inferring that I know that the two rules I speak of are not the same, and we are not magnets.

 

But I hold it to be true, that universal laws don't have to be absolute when it comes to the genetic

 

makeup of human beings. But generally speaking, it is still considered a universal law. Throughout history,

 

since the beginning of the age of man, it has been a natural MAN WOMAN get together that has

 

been the norm.

 

You didn't answer my point about deformities. One in ten baloney - if a minority of folks are born

 

with one arm, would you consider they were the norm? That it is perfectly normal to be born with only one arm, the same as being born with two arms?

 

Or, would you consider it just as perfect with one arm as with two?

 

Why then, do you consider that a minority of folks that are born? with a genetic ? anomaly of gayness... to be

 

the norm? When "born with" isn't even established as undisputable fact?

 

I would rather figure it is a possibly partly biological error, more likely a set of damaging circumstances in a serious

 

lack of emotional human develpment - the human self-actualization process was truncated and warped, for whatever reason(s).

 

You libs make no sense to me. Besides, I have been commenting from the beginning about the BEHAVIOR of

 

gay marriage.

 

I can't believe I can be so right, when I've explained it, and you can't stop doing what I've explained.

 

And no, you aren't a magnet. But say, if you can go fiind a magnet that has the like poles

 

attracting each other, instead of repelling, you just let me know, and I will apologize.

 

Maybe a good physics class featuring the universal physics law of magnetism might be an elective

 

there?

 

Have a nice day, angry, hateful name-caller.

[VaporTrail]

Not only did I NOT say that, I DID say "With human beings, we are not molecularly consistent as magnets."

 

Obviously inferring that I know that the two rules I speak of are not the same, and we are not magnets.

 

I called you an ass because you're making a complete mockery of the scientific method. Only an ass would even try to argue this angle.

 

But I hold it to be true, that universal laws don't have to be absolute when it comes to the genetic

 

makeup of human beings. But generally speaking, it is still considered a universal law.

 

No, it isn't. A law, in the academic sense of the word, implies that there is no exception. There are relatively few laws compared to theories. Your use of the word "law" is what's bugging me. There are exceptions to your supposed "law." Therefore, it needs a new explanation.

 

You didn't answer my point about deformities. One in ten baloney - if a minority of folks are born

 

with one arm, would you consider they were the norm?

 

No, absolutely not. But the fact remains that one in ten people is born gay. Your "law" ignores that fact.

 

I can't believe I can be so right, when I've explained it, and you can't stop doing what I've explained.

 

Let me translate this: I have no idea how to counter your argument, and I feel that I am losing... I had better just declare victory.

 

And no, you aren't a magnet. But say, if you can go fiind a magnet that has the like poles

 

attracting each other, instead of repelling, you just let me know, and I will apologize.

 

Can't say that I can find a magnet like that, but I know quite a few guys that are attracted to guys and girls that are attracted to girls. There's your magnet.

 

Maybe a good physics class featuring the universal physics law of magnetism might be an elective

 

there?

 

Sorry bro, took that class already. Don't use scientific examples where they aren't applicable, thanks.

[calfoxwc]

I called you an ass because you're making a complete mockery of the scientific method. Only an ass would even try to argue this angle.**************************************

Maybe so, but I think it's freakin FUNNY, and I'll say that that's how I see it anyways.

 

Scientific method? On arguing gay marriage? You gotta be kidding....

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

No, it isn't. A law, in the academic sense of the word, implies that there is no exception. There are relatively few laws compared to theories. Your use of the word "law" is what's bugging me. There are exceptions to your supposed "law." Therefore, it needs a new explanation.**************************************

Natural law needs no absolute to be considered a law. In principle, I used the magnet thing to

just get you to see the logic in what I'm trying to explain.

 

It's an example. Like a stick figure drawing, to show a little kid how to climb a tree.

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

No, absolutely not. But the fact remains that one in ten people is born gay. Your "law" ignores that fact.

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

Actually, it isn't fact... it's theory. Scientists have proven some biological anomalies in the gay occurences,

and the one in ten thing is silly, it's just a conjecture of the ratio of gays to straights. I don't buy it.

sounds terribly gay website originated to me.

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

Can't say that I can find a magnet like that, but I know quite a few guys that are attracted to guys and girls that are attracted to girls. There's your magnet.

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

I don't. I have known a few, but they never knew I knew. They wouldn't have let me know anyways, but

they never saw me treat them differently than anyone else.

but the SUBJECT was gay marriage.

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

Sorry bro, took that class already. Don't use scientific examples where they aren't applicable, thanks.

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

I'll use whatever scientific analogies I want to, thanks so much, liberal dictator.

 

See how quickly socialism can result in oppression?

[VaporTrail]

It's an example. Like a stick figure drawing, to show a little kid how to climb a tree.

 

Except for your case, it's more like a baboon throwing its shit all over the Mona Lisa.

 

Actually, it isn't fact... it's theory.

 

Then stop using the term "law." You're using it incorrectly.

 

Scientists have proven some biological anomalies in the gay occurences,

and the one in ten thing is silly, it's just a conjecture of the ratio of gays to straights. I don't buy it.

sounds terribly gay website originated to me.

 

Okay, after a bit more research, the 10% may or may not be true. Wikipedia says that statistical studies have shown that the number ranges from 2-13% Even if the actual case is only 2%, then that means there are 120 million gay people on the planet, 6 million in the US. I go to a pretty damn conservative school, yet I know some people that are openly gay. You need to take these people into account no matter how small of a minority they are.

 

I'll use whatever scientific analogies I want to, thanks so much, liberal dictator.

 

And every time it's a horrible analogy, I'll point it out. LOL, and I'm the dictator? I'm not the one that's advocating the denial of equal rights! But keep trying!

[calfoxwc]

Except for your case, it's more like a baboon throwing its shit all over the Mona Lisa.

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

Okay, now that's funny. Much better than calling somebody an "ass" Heckism. Congrats !

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

Then stop using the term "law." You're using it incorrectly.

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

No, I am not, and will not. Natural law is set by nature, not scientificly concrete, but a law regardless.

 

I am actually using quite correctly, in the context expressed here:

 

Natural law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

 

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

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

Okay, after a bit more research, the 10% may or may not be true. Wikipedia says that statistical studies have shown that the number ranges from 2-13% Even if the actual case is only 2%, then that means there are 120 million gay people on the planet, 6 million in the US. I go to a pretty damn conservative school, yet I know some people that are openly gay. You need to take these people into account no matter how small of a minority they are.

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

I have already stated that they are a minority, and have rights to not be discriminated against. Of course

we take them into account. But even two percent is just a vague guessimate based on the bogus notion

that the gay population is spread throughout the world in perfect fashion.

In my determination, it is more a learned anomaly as much possible biological anomaly.

Which leads me to discount the auto-calculation of this nation OR world-wide.

But redefining the NATURAL LAW of MARRIAGE? That's bogus. We don't do that for any other minority.

I do not believe that the minority has a right to oppress the majority, especially contrary to NATURAL LAW. See?

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

And every time it's a horrible analogy, I'll point it out. LOL, and I'm the dictator? I'm not the one that's advocating the denial of equal rights! But keep trying!

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

LOL, and everytime you think linearly, I'll point it out. Fair enough?

And I refuse to give any credence to "gay marriage". It's against NATURAL LAW.

 

 

 

 

[VaporTrail]

Okay, here's what you did. You used the term natural law as it is used in a philosophical realm. Then, you compared it to a scientific law. They are NOT the same. I'm going to be extremely anal about this. Hard science is my life; soft science is also valid, but hardly any of it is integrated with hard sciences and experimental data to back it up. Neuroscience is still in its infancy, but that is where we're going to be looking in the next 100 years for real answers to these types of questions.

 

Your use of the term "natural law" was valid. Your analogy to a magnet was baseless. You could argue about the philosophy of a natural law all you like, but in the end it all comes down to one thing. You advocate giving less rights to gay people than given to straight people.

 

I have already stated that they are a minority, and have rights to not be discriminated against. Of course

we take them into account. But even two percent is just a vague guessimate based on the bogus notion

that the gay population is spread throughout the world in perfect fashion.

 

Obviously it's not uniform, but that's a concession you make because it's impossible to sample all 6 billion people. However, the results do come from varied demographics in all corners of the world. There will be a number of gay people in every culture that you look at. You can't completely discount the research based on the fact that we haven't asked everyone yet. We've been asking these questions and trying to get estimates for years, they all land in a range between 2 and 13 percent. Based on my background, I'd say that the actual distribution of the number of gays, of all those studies would end up looking like a bell curve with an average around 7%. If that's the case, and I am hypothesizing that it is, then there are more gays on this planet than there are Jews.

 

Which leads me to discount the auto-calculation of this nation OR world-wide.

 

Okay, now back this up with some evidence, thanks.

 

But redefining the NATURAL LAW of MARRIAGE? That's bogus. We don't do that for any other minority.

I do not believe that the minority has a right to oppress the majority, especially contrary to NATURAL LAW. See?

 

It's not oppressing anyone. Your NATURAL LAW is a PHILOSOPHICAL and CULTURAL ARTIFACT, not a universal truth.

[calfoxwc]

I used the natural law argument accurately, and

 

had fun using scientific law to make my point.

 

As to the number of Jews? I don't remember millions and millions of gays

 

being murdered and gassed in WWII.

 

Maybe I missed that in my studies...? What is your point of that?

 

Let me try that:

 

"There are more wild boars in the United States than there are Democrats in our national government"

 

Yay ! that's fun, alright.

 

And the wild boars spread the bs just as much as the Dems.

 

Cool !

 

There are more household pets than gays in the U.S. then...

 

say, that means that household pets should be able to get married for inheritance purposes !!

 

Egad. I makes my mind warp to try to "think" like a liberal.... @@

[calfoxwc]

The existence of God is a universal truth. to those that believe.

 

Meanwhile, 62 percent of Americans are strongly against the mosque being

 

built at Ground Zero.

 

that must mean we're right, then< ??? We got the numbers, we win?

 

That's how you figure it?

[VaporTrail]

As to the number of Jews? I don't remember millions and millions of gays

 

being murdered and gassed in WWII.

 

Why are you always so quick to bring the Nazis into the equation. I just brought it up because it's a small group that has political power. I think gays are just as entitled to push their political agenda.

 

There are more household pets than gays in the U.S. then...

 

say, that means that household pets should be able to get married for inheritance purposes !!

 

Excellent, now you're comparing gays to animals. You're comparing the right of a fellow, sentient human being to that of an animal. I know you're being a smart ass, but it's that type of attitude that enables hate against them.

 

Egad. I makes my mind warp to try to "think" like a liberal.

 

Yeah, viewing things as objectively as possible is pretty tough. I guess if you've never tried looking beyond only what people have told you, you wouldn't know.

 

The existence of God is a universal truth. to those that believe.

 

Then, by definition, it's not universal. Seriously, you need to understand the meaning of the words you use before you just spout them off.

 

Meanwhile, 62 percent of Americans are strongly against the mosque being

 

built at Ground Zero.

 

Guess what, I'd rather not have it there either, but it's unconstitutional to try and stop it from being built. I think, for the laws to give any Americans more right than other Americans is wrong. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, and that they're endowed with certain unalienable rights. I would argue that the right to marry ought to be included in that. It is, after all, part of a gay person's pursuit of happiness. And seeing as giving them the right to marry wouldn't step on anyone else's rights, they should be allowed to have it. I'd be very surprised if the Constitution doesn't get amended to allow it in the next couple of decades if not this one.

[calfoxwc]

Why are you always so quick to bring the Nazis into the equation. I just brought it up because it's a small group that has political power. I think gays are just as entitled to push their political agenda.

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

Why were you so quick to bring up the Jews? That brought up the persecution of Jews to me. It's your fault. @@

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

Excellent, now you're comparing gays to animals. You're comparing the right of a fellow, sentient human being to that of an animal. I know you're being a smart ass, but it's that type of attitude that enables hate against them.

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

Baloney. I mocked your silly reasoning. I made no comparision of gays to animals, although both ARE mammals.

 

And mocking your silly arguments has nothing to do with enabling hate against anybody. That's another liberal ploy AGAIN,

 

re-inventing what someone says so you can refute it and put them on the defensive. Not workin here.

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

Yeah, viewing things as objectively as possible is pretty tough. I guess if you've never tried looking beyond only what people have told you, you wouldn't know.

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

Objectively? You mean like saying the Bible is trash? More blather from a liberal. You keep proving me right again.

Stop it. I don't have time to write a fourth book, I haven't finished my adventure novel yet, then there's the farming

book, and....

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

Then, by definition, it's not universal. Seriously, you need to understand the meaning of the words you use before you just spout them off.

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

It's a natural truth. That makes it universal to people all over the world who believe. I qualified it,

and I like it. You don't like it because you can't help but think linearly. BTW, did you admit a bit ago that you were being anal?

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

Guess what, I'd rather not have it there either, but it's unconstitutional to try and stop it from being built. I think, for the laws to give any Americans more right than other Americans is wrong. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, and that they're endowed with certain unalienable rights. I would argue that the right to marry ought to be included in that. It is, after all, part of a gay person's pursuit of happiness. And seeing as giving them the right to marry wouldn't step on anyone else's rights, they should be allowed to have it. I'd be very surprised if the Constitution doesn't get amended to allow it in the next couple of decades if not this one.

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

A. Hate speech acted out is unconstitional, so is terrorist activity. Terrorists from overseas who are not citizens have no rights.

You argue the gay marriage thing, but that is so silly I sneeze in your direction while I am laughing.

I'm sure that some thing sex with kangaroos should be illegal, after all, it's part of their pursuit of happiness, and it won't step

on anyone else's rights, so they should have it.

See? You linear, emotionally based reasoning doesn't hold up at all.

Besides, the warped, phoney "gay marriage" thing will violate the rights of millions of Americans to

be able to raise their children away from perverse behavior.

Like I said, public nudity. But you don't LIKE that. But gay marriage? You LIKE that.

"Like" is the emotion that is the LINEAR basis upon which you decide things.

 

I can only figure you college kids learn to emote "logic" in college. But that isn't logic. Because the logic changes

as soon as the emotions change.

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Now, HERE is what I am saying Vapor, about you libs EMOTING with phoney "logic".

 

Brad Pitt has spoken out against the death penalty. Very much against it. It's wrong.

 

But, he's angry about the gulf crisis, so NOW he's willing to consider it to be okay.

 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? This is basically what you libs do. THAT is why I say you don't have

 

principles. If Pitt had PRINCIPLES, he would be against the death penalty regardless.

 

But liberals pick and choose, like I said, based on their emotions. When their emotions change,

 

so do their stances. Which means, that their stances were LINEARLY BASED on EMOTION,

 

and NOT PRINCIPLES. Principles do not change with poltical expediency.

 

NOTE: I said all this BEFORE Pitt did it.

 

I AM that good. maybe I should be a co-host sometime on Rush or Hannity or Beck show. @@

 

And yes, I do amaze myself at times with being very, very astutely right in my appraisals.

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

 

Brad Pitt is 'willing to look at the death penalty' in bizarre rant against BP

By David Gardner

Last updated at 9:46 AM on 23rd August 2010

Comments (110) Add to My Stories Brad Pitt has waded into the Gulf oil spill controversy with an extraordinary veiled attack on BP.

 

The Hollywood actor said he would consider the death penalty for those to blame for the ruptured well that gushed millions of gallons of oil into the ocean.

 

He was speaking in a documentary due to be screened in the US tomorrow tonight.

 

Brad Pitt has said he would consider the death penalty for those to blame for the Gulf oil spill crisis

Asked about the people responsible for the crisis, the ‘Inglourious Basterds’ star said: ‘I was never for the death penalty before – I am willing to look at it again.’

 

Mr Pitt, 46, has spearheaded the ‘Make it Right’ project to build 150 affordable and sustainable homes in one of the areas of New Orleans that was worst hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

 

His efforts in the region are featured in the new film by director Spike Lee marking the fifth anniversary of the hurricane devastation.

 

The documentary, called ‘If God is Willing and Da Creek Don’t Rise’, was supposed to end on a positive note with the New Orleans American Football team winning the Super Bowl.

 

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion happened in April, killing eleven workers and triggering the worst environmental disaster in US history

But when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion happened in April, killing eleven workers and triggering the worst environmental disaster in US history, Mr Lee extended the film to include that story.

 

‘This would have been a much more upbeat documentary for sure,’ he said yesterday. After the oil spill, the filmmaker said he had to ‘rethink and reconfigure.’

But despite the setbacks suffered in the region, Mr Lee said residents would bounce back.

 

‘Their wills are not going to be broken. They are going to keep moving on,’ he added.

 

Mr Pitt’s incendiary remarks were revealed as his partner Angelina Jolie was making a goodwill visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia.

 

Mr Pitt has spearheaded the 'Make it Right' project to build 150 affordable and sustainable homes in one of the areas of New Orleans that was worst hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005

She spoke to government officials about possible education programmes to help resettle refugees still homeless following the country’s civil war.

 

The superstar couple, who have six children, own a home in New Orleans.

 

An estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico during the 87-day spill. According to US Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the operation to permanently seal the leak will not be completed until early next month.

 

Although the flow of oil was stopped on July 15, BP had originally hoped to complete the ‘bottom kill’ to pump cement into the well this month.

 

 

 

 

[smalls1129]

Side note to this exchange. Vapor, youwere asking me a couple of months back for some reading on the philosophical God, I don't remember if I recommended anything or not, but Locke is a very good place to start. You conversation about natural law is what brought it to my mind. It has been almost ten years but I think this is the one An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

 

By the by, I still maintain that homosexuality only becomes prevalent in a society is when the future existence of humans is no longer in doubt. So you were probably correct in your bell curve assessment and I would wager there would be a direct correlation in surrounding population on the curve.

[VaporTrail]

And mocking your silly arguments has nothing to do with enabling hate against anybody.

 

Yes it does. Mocking the validity of gay rights in any way can be just as damaging as calling someone a faggot. It just breeds the concept that what they're doing is morally wrong.

 

Objectively? You mean like saying the Bible is trash? More blather from a liberal. You keep proving me right again.

 

Cal, the Bible IS trash. As far as cohesiveness goes, it contradicts itself thousands of times. The content is ridiculous; the first half is about a vile, egomaniacal prick that smites anything and anyone that doesn't praise him. It gives a list of ridiculous laws. It gives ridiculous accounts of how the world was created, how Noah built a boat that held every animal, how Moses lived to be 500, and how you should be smote if you practice pulling out, and how Jonah lived inside of a whale. The second part cancels out much of the first part, and instead of a badass fire-breathing Yahweh, he's replaced by a carpenter. This carpenter brings people back to life, exorcises demons from pigs and people, turns water into wine, walks on water, and came back from the dead. Also, he was crucified to save us. That doesn't make a lick of sense. If you think it does, then you aren't looking at it objectively. Also, his mother was inseminated by the holy spirit. Anyone that thinks we should base our lives off of this book is delusional.

 

It's a natural truth. That makes it universal to people all over the world who believe. I qualified it,

and I like it. You don't like it because you can't help but think linearly.

 

lol, you're doing it again. whatever, I can do the same. The sanctity of gayness is a universal truth to those people all over the world who believe.

 

BTW, did you admit a bit ago that you were being anal?

 

XD

Maybe. I sure do like my sciences. Unfortunately my ex was never willing to try it.

 

Besides, the warped, phoney "gay marriage" thing will violate the rights of millions of Americans to

be able to raise their children away from perverse behavior.

 

You don't have a right to be shielded from homosexuality, which is just as natural an act as sex between a male and a female. If you pass a law that says it's immoral, then you have to include all types of sex, seeing as they're just as natural, even though it doesn't lead to procreation.

 

Like I said, public nudity. But you don't LIKE that. But gay marriage? You LIKE that.

 

When did I ever say I had a problem with public nudity. I think the only people that would have a problem with it are the conservative types that would be outraged and people with small penises.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. The only thing I've said along those lines is that I still never want to see anyone jerking off. I don't want to see people having sex in public, either, whether they're gay, straight, whatever. That's where I draw the line, and I admit it's an inconsistency in my argument, but I don't think it negates anything I say.

 

I don't see how Brad Pitt's inconsistent view on the death penalty applies to me. It's a reach if you're comparing it to what I just wrote. The only time I didn't agree with homosexuality was before high school, while I was being told that homosexual acts are wrong by my church. One of my best friends is gay. Seeing him struggle with his family and his life got me thinking about it. I tried to argue what the church said, but it simply came down to it being "wrong because the Bible says so, and it's wrong," there's nothing logical about it.

 

Side note to this exchange. Vapor, youwere asking me a couple of months back for some reading on the philosophical God, I don't remember if I recommended anything or not, but Locke is a very good place to start. You conversation about natural law is what brought it to my mind. It has been almost ten years but I think this is the one An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

 

Ugh. Damn you. I'd love to read it, but my classes start tomorrow.

 

By the by, I still maintain that homosexuality only becomes prevalent in a society is when the future existence of humans is no longer in doubt. So you were probably correct in your bell curve assessment and I would wager there would be a direct correlation in surrounding population on the curve.

 

Yeah, I would agree with you about it being prevalent, but I'm sure it's happened when humanity's future was in doubt. I do believe there was a major flood that wiped out many civilizations far before we have any recorded history. Catastrophic flood stories occur in nearly every religion. From Norse mythology to Aztec mythology to Christian mythology, plus many more. I think there is some truth in stories that were orally handed down for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and when many of them have similar themes, maybe they're referring to the same thing. There is some evidence that the population of people dwindled down to a few thousand individuals across the world.

 

If this was the case, and there really were only a few enclaves spread few and far between, do you really think that homosexuality didn't happen, then? I mean, there are a bunch of people in prison that don't consider themselves gay, but doesn't prison rape happen pretty regularly? Obviously, I don't think that gay culture was around then, but I think it's probably existed in some capacity basically as long as animals have been around. If animals do it too, then why wouldn't we when we were barely more sophisticated?

 

Cal, I'm gonna go ahead and give you the last word. I'll be scarce starting tomorrow.

[calfoxwc]

Yes it does. Mocking the validity of gay rights in any way can be just as damaging as calling someone a faggot. It just breeds the concept that what they're doing is morally wrong.

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

No, I mocked your silly emotionalism that you call "logic". And gay rights to marry? don't exist morally, nor legally for the most part.

That is every bit as false a charge as calling me a "racist" over the issue.

 

It's the typical liberal cya when the liberal has made an a of themselves thinking only linearly.

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

Cal, the Bible IS trash.

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

Wait, go ahead and call me close minded and judgemental, PLEASE##

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

You don't have a right to be shielded from homosexuality, which is just as natural an act as sex between a male and a female. If you pass a law that says it's immoral, then you have to include all types of sex, seeing as they're just as natural, even though it doesn't lead to procreation.

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You live in a utopian, lib professor administered college world, grasshopper.

Get at least ten years on you after college and we can talk about life and right and wrong and GOD

with you having at least a LITTLE bit of experience.

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

I don't see how Brad Pitt's inconsistent view on the death penalty applies to me. It's a reach if you're comparing it to what I just wrote. The only time I didn't agree with homosexuality was before high school, while I was being told that homosexual acts are wrong by my church. One of my best friends is gay. Seeing him struggle with his family and his life got me thinking about it. I tried to argue what the church said, but it simply came down to it being "wrong because the Bible says so, and it's wrong," there's nothing logical about it.

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

I won't quibble with you about it anymore... I know what I believe, and your empathy for your friend's struggles is

respectable, but no, not normal, not at all. Not moral, not anything good. And church is never the only criteria

for what I believe. I appraise issues COMPREHENSIVELY. IOW's, there are several different aspects to my beliefs, if not many.

You take all the facts, and deduce what is right.

 

Your belief based on your friend.... and your conclusion, is simply linear. There are no mitigating factors you consider,

no several supporting factors you consider in making a deduction. so, your decision on the issue, is based on your

emotional experience on the issue.

 

Linear, and precisely just that.

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

Cal, I'm gonna go ahead and give you the last word. I'll be scarce starting tomorrow.

 

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

 

Thank goodness, because you know I'm right, GGG, and I'm repeating myself anyways.

 

I can type with both hands and loving it.

But I'm getting busier again, too.