Armchair Critic,
In a nutshell, the greedy are ensuring they get their way ! The rest is just too insipid to care because they're just as greedy, albeit not successful enough at it !

AC, well thought, good posting.
You have it down pat.
I find it frustrating that people are just not interested in these destructive and oppressive diseases such as PC, and for some reason actually embrace them, as if to want to be a part of some new cult.
It is so hard and frustrating, and incomprehensible to me, as I try to explain and find resistance, by people, to understand and believe what I say, and treat it as fantasy or untrue.
These things I say are not of my creation, but merely repeating what I have read or discovered elsewhere in the past.
Having found irrefutable proof of there being a sick agenda/conspiracy by an elite Jewish group, we know who I mean, and made others aware of their agenda of ruling the world, I could not believe the push-back.
As far fetched as it is, these facts I speak of are true and their end goal is, as you say, world dominance.
Just as these judges are following a preconceived ideology or plan, they are merely a part of a bigger picture.
To me, this idea of world dominance, one world order, an international govt, is a frightening one.
I akin it to a war without guns or aggression.
Why we allow the mentally ill and deranged rise to positions of power and wealth is beyond me.
I don't mind people becoming wealthy, but it seems they allow that wealth to go to their heads by presuming a position of power, which they rightly can if they are wealthy enough, they can buy their way to anywhere.
The absolute absurdity of these sick individuals is that there are other forces, countries and creeds that either have similar ambitions, and are not willing to compromise, or it is just impossible to convince/force all nations to heel to their whimsical, egregious and unjustifiable demands.
If only people would get off their collective arses, put down the beer, turn off the bloody sports, and stop talking sh!t, and instead start looking and listening to what is going on around them.

Anyone familiar with biology should note that the "binary sex" concept is flawed.
Development, in humans or other animals, is a complex process involving the interaction of genetics with environment.
Let us put aside the human aspect for the moment, and look at something less emotional, such as sex in dung beetles. In dung beetles there are TWO forms of male. One "sperm producer" [that is how I am defining male] is a small, hornless, gracile form. The other type of male is large, with prominant horn-like growths. The female [egg-producer] is small and gracile, so the gracile males and the females superficially resemble each other.
In yet other species, we can have males plus hermaphrodites, and female plus hermaphrodite combinations.
It should be clear from all this is that binary sex is just a generalisation, not an invariable and inflexible law.

Humans are no more immune from variation than other animals. And whatever the physical equipment an individual has, their individual behaviours may vary. So you can have males that think more like females, and vice versa. This is because development of the sex organs and brain may not always be in "sync". I say this without prejudice or judgement.
So gender orientation is a real thing. The problem is mainly political. Some people feel discomfort or disgust at those who are different.
But we are all people, and thus deserving of rights and respect. If you don't like gay or trans people, then fine- no one is asking anyone to be gay or trans. I am hetero, but I did choose to be that way, I just am. Nobody chooses their sex or gender. It just happens.
So people should just NOT be bigots. Value the person as the person. Why should a hetero person like myself defend gay or trans folks? Enlightened self-defence I call it. Because once bigotry and fascism starts, it is hard to stop, and no one is safe.
What adults do with their genitalia is their business, and no one else's, so long as free and informed consent is practised by all parties

Rob, you make some valid points, yes here it comes.
BUT, I am not prepared to accept what is by all accounts un-acceptable, to people like myself.
I elaborate by way of responding to your comment about everyone should be deserving of rights or respect and you mention, and so on.
You purposely avoid the central tenet of the issue or problem, and that is;
They have dared to force and threaten their way to a position and stature they are not entitled to.
This is so because of the extremes they went to achieve their goal, which was the permission to dare to become a part of a sacred institution which is a matter of nature, God, and society as a whole.
In other words they forced themselves into something they clearly do not belong to nor ever wanted nor would never have been accepted if not for the weak and those with no convictions or direction.
The offensive part also is that the act of physical engagement in a public place is also demonstrably disgusting, and before anyone says something stupid like, "look away", you can imagine what I say to them.
You say it's none of my business what they do.
Well it is, if it is in public.
And here is the best bit, because it is in public I am privy to seeing this disgusting display.
So I am disgusted by seeing this, here is my question;
In finding this act of public passion offensive and affects me emotionally to the point I am sickened, literally, who has more right they for carrying on unnaturally or me for reacting naturally to their display?
Your attitude suggests that if a dog urinates, it is natural.
So what if it urinated on someones foot?
The reaction would be similar the person would be justifiably disgusted, annoyed, angry, choose which one you prefer.
One thing I can tell you is, he will not be civil, compliant, agreeable, submissive, look the other way, condone, and generally be OK with it.
So therefore, now MY rights have been impinged upon.

Hi ALTRAV,
Interesting that you raised a theological argument. There are two ways of looking at human origins. One is the biological argument, that we, like other animals, are a product of biological and cultural evolution. The second is to claim that we are directly or indirectly, creatures of a creator-god.
So let's look at the theological argument first, since it is easy to address. If we ARE creatures of a creator-god, then that same god made gay folks? OK so far?
So, if god created gays, and gays are evil, then that is HIS problem, not ours. And one questions why a supposedly good god would create something evil anyway. In other words, there is no sense to it.
Biology? Yes, the biology of sexuality, including variations, is being better understood.
I am sorry if a gay person peed on your foot. But I don't imagine it is a common occurrence. It certainly never happened to me.

Rob, I'm not sure if you're taking the piss?
Firstly a queer did not piss on my foot, I said a dog, pissed on someones foot.
And here I was thinking I was conversing with a mature above average person with a modicum of intellect.
Apparently I am wrong, anyway.
So about your religious take on gaiz.(I do not subscribe to the name 'gay', I will however submit to the word 'gai'or gaiz')
I reject PC so as the word gay is absolutely and totally inappropriate and quite frankly an egregious attempt at trying to make themselves more amenable and acceptable to the community as a whole.
As it turns out they are anything but gay.
Forget the God thing, you and I both know religion is guilty of a lot of things being born different is not one of them.
On the other hand we look at biology, which by the way, you have nothing to offer except for a dog pissing on my foot?
So let me take the lead on your biological angle.
If humanity evolved naturally from nature, then it is only natural that we have flawed fauna or humans just like flawed flora or plants.
The problem is that in life, there are set rules and demands, that when they are breached cause the individual to be considered sick, unwell or abnormal.
For example if the body temperature is above or below a certain amount, it's not normal, they are sick, and have to be cured.
When a person is born, with any physical abnormalities, again, not normal.
Now any attempt at saying otherwise is futile, sure there are others with the same illness, flaws or faults.
These people exist, they can even join up to form a group, they can do many things 'normal'people do, but they are not 'normal'.
The difference with gaiz is that their abnormality is psychological, or neurological or whatever but not physical.
So because they look normal, they don't act normal.
So by definition and deduction they are abnormal.
Therefore they cannot be treated as normal.
They are abnormal!