The Ultimate Warrior gives the best argument against homosexuality that I've heard.

EGarrett · 21st April 2006, 11:33 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVEc...search=warrior

I actually have the full speech, which a friend gave to me, but fortunately the most relevant part is online.

The Ultimate Warrior is a former WWF Champion, who now goes around giving speeches at college campuses. As you might guess, he's an extreme conservative.

Here's a brief section of his speech where he's attacking liberalism, and actually gives a real logical reason why homosexuality shouldn't be enforced.

Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR."

Anyway, I'd be more than happy to type up some transcript of the bits of the speech leading up to this bit, as well as what happens afterward. I never want to take anyone's words out of context.

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:02 PM

I don't get. What's his logical argument?

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st April 2006, 12:06 PM

Didn't the (insert college name here) Republican's have to issue an apology last year to the people who came to his "lecture"? He even embaressed them.

I'll watch the video later, but from what I have seen of him in the past, he's something of a cement head.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 12:11 PM

I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced.

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

zakur · 21st April 2006, 12:17 PM

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...oid=oid:107862

Yeah, sounds like the paradigm of "logic and reason."

EGarrett · 21st April 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I don't get. What's his logical argument?

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

Quote:

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:18 PM

I watched the video and all I got out of it was him responding to a heckler and "queering doesn't make the world work".

I dont' see the argument, only the premise.

TragicMonkey · 21st April 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I dont' see the argument, only the premise.

That constitutes argument in politics.

jj · 21st April 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

Are we short of children in this world?

Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost.

But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality.

It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Are we short of children in this world?

Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost.

But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality.

It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics.

Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me!

zakur · 21st April 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Medb

Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me!

And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers.

OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.

One man's snottiness is another man's slight overproduction of mucus to compensate for the first man's stuffiness.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by zakur

And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers.

OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry.

And I wonder if the Warrior has ever used a condom? For his argument's sake, I hope not!

For the rest of humanity's sake, I hope so.

Scot C. Trypal · 21st April 2006, 12:36 PM

Medb

Quote:

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Well then, you must be a Nazi. Everyone knows Hitler didn’t enforce homosexuality.

…

Odd clip that one. Queers aren’t as legitimate as heterosexuals? As legitimate a what?

What is his full argument?

Gay’s don’t make babies? That will be news to all the kids I know made by gay couples.

Is the rest of it something like, “Nature requires that each individual reproduces and those that don’t aren’t “legitimate””? Maybe he should ask the celibate priest, or the bees of “the birds and the bees”, or the gay penguins that adopt an orphan.

I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh.

Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

Grammatron · 21st April 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

So if a marriage doesn't create children it should be annulled?

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

I've heard this argument before. It falls through pretty quickly, as has been pointed out.

Molinaro · 21st April 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.

So what you are saying is that people who get married should be forced to have children? Are you also saying that anyone with a vasectomy or tubes tied should not be allowed to marry?

Are you also saying that people should not be allowed to remain single and childless?

Seems that the logical reasoning lacks a great deal of logic.

ImaginalDisc · 21st April 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Medb

I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced.

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by zakur

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...oid=oid:107862

Quote:

Warrior goes on to provide specific examples that, he thinks, illustrate his point. He laments that that "the bum is as legitimate as the businessman ... , that queers are as legitimate as heterosexuals..., that Kwanzaa is just as legitimate as Santa Claus and Christmas."

Some may find it easiest to summarize Warrior's opinion with an analogy: the bum is to the businessman as Kwanzaa is to Santa Claus.

heh. "the retired professional wrestler is as legitimate as the actual thinker." Absurd, I tell you!

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.

Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal.

jj · 21st April 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Scot C. Trypal

...
I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh.

Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

Like I said, this devolves into eugenics in a flash.

But I doubt that it's POSSIBLE to bring "shame" to professional "wrestling".

ImaginalDisc · 21st April 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal.

Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out.

Quote:

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.

Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it.

Crossbow · 21st April 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

...

So what if Homosexual Marriage does not produce children?

Having children is not a marriage requirement. And besides, even if children were really the issue, then they could be brought into the marriage via adoption, surrogates, previous relationships, and so on.

Also, there are quite a few Hetrosexual Marriages that do not result in children due to financial reasons, health reasons, or simply that the couple does not want children. The lack of children does not invalidate the one type of marriage, so I fail to see why a lack of children should invalidate the other type of marriage.

ImaginalDisc · 21st April 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Medb

Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it.

Oh? Did I misunderstand the following?

Quote:

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

How is this not suggesting that "If Mr. Warrior's opponents" are attempting to legalize *forced* homosexual sex?

Upchurch · 21st April 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out.

I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.

ImaginalDisc · 21st April 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.

Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions.

Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

Ladewig · 21st April 2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR."

From your other replies, I assume you are not being ironic in your initial post. You ask who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR"? I would. I see no reason why legally changing one's name to Warrior would be evidence of one's committment to logic and reason. Therefore I would expect less from Warrior. Furthermore it does seem to be a good thing that I didn't really expect logic and reason from someone with that name because he does not supply a surfeit of either.

If this thread was meant as a goof, then I apologize for taking it seriously.

Medb · 21st April 2006, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions.

No problem. The Warrior has made lesser men's brains explode through his "logic."

Quote:

Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

Yes: Medb. Apparently.

Hagrok · 21st April 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.

I find it helpful to assume most people here are being sarcastic when they reply with something outragous.

Obviously this doesn't work for certain posters...

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st April 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Scot C. Trypal

Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

And that is pretty hard to do!

HarryKeogh · 21st April 2006, 02:13 PM

I'm waiting to see what Bam Bam Bigelow and Chief Strongbow have to say on the subject.

corplinx · 21st April 2006, 02:19 PM

I'm waiting for the counter-speech by Hulk Hogan.

Nancarrow · 21st April 2006, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

One of the many signs of our impending armageddon is that satire is no longer distinguishable from reality.

(The upcoming young-Kirk-and-Spock-Trek-Movie is one of the other signs in case you were wondering... it's all there in Revelations, I tell you!)

Cleon · 21st April 2006, 02:35 PM

An argument against homosexuality is like an argument against Tuesday. You can fight like hell, you can rain fire and brimstone, you can consult every classic philosophical scholar on logic, but still, there it is...Tuesday.

The argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't generate children is, to be blunt, stupid. We don't form human relationships based on how well we can crank out yet another screaming bag of flesh. We never have, and never will.

Snide · 21st April 2006, 02:41 PM

The smarks in the business used to always say UW was a former male prostitute.

I'm just sayin'....

Renfield · 21st April 2006, 02:54 PM

Its a very old, and very stupid argument. Still commonly held onto by raging homophobes (and likely closet homos) everywhere.

I guess you could give hm a little credit for attempting logic, even if he did fail miserably.

Actually no. You can't.

Ladewig · 21st April 2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

We don't form human relationships based on how well we can crank out yet another screaming bag of flesh. We never have, and never will.

I think there are a few people who do [cough]Tom and Katie[/cough].

ImaginalDisc · 21st April 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I think there are a few people who do [cough]Tom and Katie[/cough].

I think that has to do more with how well it preserves the thing illusion that he's not currently locked in a closet.

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st April 2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by HarryKeogh

I'm waiting to see what Bam Bam Bigelow and Chief Strongbow have to say on the subject.

I think Chief Jay will slap him with a tomahawk chop. Assuming he disagrees that is.

21st April 2006, 11:33 AM	#1
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	The Ultimate Warrior gives the best argument against homosexuality that I've heard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVEc...search=warrior I actually have the full speech, which a friend gave to me, but fortunately the most relevant part is online. The Ultimate Warrior is a former WWF Champion, who now goes around giving speeches at college campuses. As you might guess, he's an extreme conservative. Here's a brief section of his speech where he's attacking liberalism, and actually gives a real logical reason why homosexuality shouldn't be enforced. Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR." Anyway, I'd be more than happy to type up some transcript of the bits of the speech leading up to this bit, as well as what happens afterward. I never want to take anyone's words out of context.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

21st April 2006, 12:06 PM	#3
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Didn't the (insert college name here) Republican's have to issue an apology last year to the people who came to his "lecture"? He even embaressed them. I'll watch the video later, but from what I have seen of him in the past, he's something of a cement head.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

21st April 2006, 12:11 PM	#4
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced. Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically. If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 12:17 PM	#5
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...oid=oid:107862 Yeah, sounds like the paradigm of "logic and reason."
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge Last edited by zakur; 21st April 2006 at 12:20 PM.

21st April 2006, 12:18 PM	#6
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Originally Posted by Upchurch I don't get. What's his logical argument? His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children. I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy. Quote: If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not. I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

21st April 2006, 12:02 PM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	I don't get. What's his logical argument?

21st April 2006, 12:23 PM	#8
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	Originally Posted by Upchurch I dont' see the argument, only the premise. That constitutes argument in politics.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

21st April 2006, 12:23 PM	#9
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by EGarrett His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children. Are we short of children in this world? Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost. But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality. It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

21st April 2006, 12:26 PM	#10
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by jj Are we short of children in this world? Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost. But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality. It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics. Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me!
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 12:29 PM	#11
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	Originally Posted by Medb Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me! And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers. OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

21st April 2006, 12:29 PM	#12
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by EGarrett I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty. One man's snottiness is another man's slight overproduction of mucus to compensate for the first man's stuffiness.
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 12:30 PM	#13
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by zakur And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers. OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry. And I wonder if the Warrior has ever used a condom? For his argument's sake, I hope not! For the rest of humanity's sake, I hope so.
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 12:36 PM	#14
Scot C. Trypal Muse Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 708	Medb Quote: If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not. Well then, you must be a Nazi. Everyone knows Hitler didn’t enforce homosexuality. … Odd clip that one. Queers aren’t as legitimate as heterosexuals? As legitimate a what? What is his full argument? Gay’s don’t make babies? That will be news to all the kids I know made by gay couples. Is the rest of it something like, “Nature requires that each individual reproduces and those that don’t aren’t “legitimate””? Maybe he should ask the celibate priest, or the bees of “the birds and the bees”, or the gay penguins that adopt an orphan. I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh. Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.
Scot C. Trypal Muse Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 708

21st April 2006, 12:37 PM	#15
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Originally Posted by EGarrett His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children. So if a marriage doesn't create children it should be annulled?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

21st April 2006, 12:39 PM	#17
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by EGarrett His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children. I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy. I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty. So what you are saying is that people who get married should be forced to have children? Are you also saying that anyone with a vasectomy or tubes tied should not be allowed to marry? Are you also saying that people should not be allowed to remain single and childless? Seems that the logical reasoning lacks a great deal of logic.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

21st April 2006, 12:40 PM	#18
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Medb I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced. Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically. If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not. Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

21st April 2006, 12:40 PM	#19
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by zakur http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...oid=oid:107862 Quote: Warrior goes on to provide specific examples that, he thinks, illustrate his point. He laments that that "the bum is as legitimate as the businessman ... , that queers are as legitimate as heterosexuals..., that Kwanzaa is just as legitimate as Santa Claus and Christmas." Some may find it easiest to summarize Warrior's opinion with an analogy: the bum is to the businessman as Kwanzaa is to Santa Claus. heh. "the retired professional wrestler is as legitimate as the actual thinker." Absurd, I tell you!

21st April 2006, 12:42 PM	#20
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay. Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal.

21st April 2006, 12:47 PM	#21
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	Originally Posted by Scot C. Trypal ... I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh. Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling. Like I said, this devolves into eugenics in a flash. But I doubt that it's POSSIBLE to bring "shame" to professional "wrestling".
	__________________ The Power to Quit

21st April 2006, 12:47 PM	#22
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Upchurch Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal. Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out. Quote: If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

21st April 2006, 12:49 PM	#23
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay. Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it.
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 12:53 PM	#24
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by EGarrett His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children. ... So what if Homosexual Marriage does not produce children? Having children is not a marriage requirement. And besides, even if children were really the issue, then they could be brought into the marriage via adoption, surrogates, previous relationships, and so on. Also, there are quite a few Hetrosexual Marriages that do not result in children due to financial reasons, health reasons, or simply that the couple does not want children. The lack of children does not invalidate the one type of marriage, so I fail to see why a lack of children should invalidate the other type of marriage.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

21st April 2006, 12:54 PM	#25
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Medb Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it. Oh? Did I misunderstand the following? Quote: Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically. If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not. How is this not suggesting that "If Mr. Warrior's opponents" are attempting to legalize forced homosexual sex?
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

21st April 2006, 12:54 PM	#26
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out. I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.

21st April 2006, 01:00 PM	#27
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Upchurch I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps. Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions. Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

21st April 2006, 01:06 PM	#28
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Originally Posted by EGarrett Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR." From your other replies, I assume you are not being ironic in your initial post. You ask who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR"? I would. I see no reason why legally changing one's name to Warrior would be evidence of one's committment to logic and reason. Therefore I would expect less from Warrior. Furthermore it does seem to be a good thing that I didn't really expect logic and reason from someone with that name because he does not supply a surfeit of either. If this thread was meant as a goof, then I apologize for taking it seriously.
	Last edited by Ladewig; 21st April 2006 at 01:09 PM.

21st April 2006, 01:15 PM	#29
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions. No problem. The Warrior has made lesser men's brains explode through his "logic." Quote: Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be. Yes: Medb. Apparently.
Medb Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 113

21st April 2006, 01:20 PM	#30
Hagrok Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ABQ, NM, USA Posts: 904	Originally Posted by Upchurch I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps. I find it helpful to assume most people here are being sarcastic when they reply with something outragous. Obviously this doesn't work for certain posters...
	__________________ Indecision may or may not be my problem...

21st April 2006, 02:06 PM	#31
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Originally Posted by Scot C. Trypal Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling. And that is pretty hard to do!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

21st April 2006, 02:13 PM	#32
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	I'm waiting to see what Bam Bam Bigelow and Chief Strongbow have to say on the subject.

21st April 2006, 02:19 PM	#33
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	I'm waiting for the counter-speech by Hulk Hogan.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

21st April 2006, 02:20 PM	#34
Nancarrow Chelonian Overlord Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 468	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be. One of the many signs of our impending armageddon is that satire is no longer distinguishable from reality. (The upcoming young-Kirk-and-Spock-Trek-Movie is one of the other signs in case you were wondering... it's all there in Revelations, I tell you!)
	__________________ A mosquito was heard to complain That a chemist had poisoned his brain The cause of his sorrow Was paradichloro Diphenyltrichloroethane.

21st April 2006, 02:35 PM	#35
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,536	An argument against homosexuality is like an argument against Tuesday. You can fight like hell, you can rain fire and brimstone, you can consult every classic philosophical scholar on logic, but still, there it is...Tuesday. The argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't generate children is, to be blunt, stupid. We don't form human relationships based on how well we can crank out yet another screaming bag of flesh. We never have, and never will.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

21st April 2006, 02:41 PM	#36
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	The smarks in the business used to always say UW was a former male prostitute. I'm just sayin'....

21st April 2006, 02:54 PM	#37
Renfield Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,055	Its a very old, and very stupid argument. Still commonly held onto by raging homophobes (and likely closet homos) everywhere. I guess you could give hm a little credit for attempting logic, even if he did fail miserably. Actually no. You can't.
	__________________ If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank. -Woody Allen (1935 - http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/