WatchThis question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.
Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.
Just saying...
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Oral sex?
Gay Anal sex?
Interspecies sex?
It's not easy being green.
Masturbation, group sex, interspecies oral sex, three-ways, jerk off exhibitionism, gay anal sex, …
It's Michael Jackson!
Sodomy is the norm in nature. Therefore, to say that gay sex is immoral because it "is contrary to nature" is clearly factually incorrect.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
What kind of oxymoron statement is this? I mean, you had to avoid using the phrase "occurs in nature", which is what we're talking about, because it's so obviously self-contradictory. I'm not giving you counter-examples from a courthouse in New York City. I'm giving you counter-examples from nature.
Just because something occurs universally in nature does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs throughout nature.
Yeah, that's a clearer rendering of the idea you want everyone to accept.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
1. Nothing I've written is random. Any person reading this thread can see exactly how I've gone from what you said to either empirically disproving it, providing a counter-example, or showing the logical flaw. You're not fooling anyone.
2. I've never made a claim that was "true just because I said so". Feel free to try to point out a specific example.
3. Every reason you gave for gay sex being immoral has been show to
a. Be based on false facts easily disproved by photographs and videos.
b. Result in a conclusion that rape or some other universally accept evil must be good.
c. Contain obvious self-contradictions.
d. Really be based solely on your own bigotry, i.e., "gay sex is immoral because I said so".
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
Glendon says
Scientists test hypotheses by observing what occurs, then draw conclusions based on those observations. In contrast, religious fundamentalists and Glenda do the opposite: they begin by asserting a false conclusion, then condemn what occurs whenever observation disproves their false conclusion. By Glenda's Alice in Wonderland illogic, kissing is unnatural and immoral if it doesn't lead to coitus, but the Vatican acted morally in requiring Galileo to renounce his observations of how planets move, because those observations contradicted the Vatican's geocentric solar system. Even the Vatican apologized for that, as it must eventually apologize for much else, but Glenda keeps her own self-invented faith. Scientists observe what happens in nature and use those observations to support conclusions about what is natural; Glenda repeats her false conclusion and, when it is disproved, condemns those who disprove it.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
Have you even read anything that I've written. I suggest reading the following bit very carefully as you keep demonstrating it.
Dan8267 says
You are not adding anything to the conversation by ignoring every point I made, each of which addresses specific statements you made. Saying something stupid like
does not further your position or address the counter-arguments I clearly laid out.
Ultimately, every counter-argument you drop, which so far is all of them, is a counter-argument that you concede is correct.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
Wow, you know someone is a sore loser when they flip over the chess board and shout "you're a poopy head and you cheated!".
To accuse me of being absence of logic and real thought is like accusing Katt Williams of never giving pot a chance, or Bill Clinton of being too picky regarding women, or George Bush of not eating enough paste.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
Of course, the agreement of other people does not indicate a correct argument. However, calling those people who conclude that your arguments are weak and your opponent's are strong is simply a low blow and unfounded accusation and is indicative of your lack of confidence in your own position.
Glendon says
Feel free to provide some details to support your assertions. Your only rebuttals are "you arguments are terrible". You never say say or show any reason or evidence to support such assertions.
In contrast, my so-called "illogical and scientifically invalid" arguments are based on verifiable facts, logic that can be confirmed, and plenty of empirical evidence.
If this were a court of law, you would be disbarred for incompetence and possibly held in contempt of court.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Glendon says
Your wife can confirm my sexuality, not that it's important for the sake of this, for lack of a better word, debate.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
curious2 says
There you go again, curious2, fact checking. Stuff like that will get you accused of being illogical, unscientific, and gay.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
As I have stated like a thousand times on this thread already, the argument that gay sex is immoral because it prevents you from passing on your genes is false because
1. Having gay sex does not prevent one from having straight sex. At best this would be an argument that chastity and celibacy are evil.
2. Numerous scientific studies have shown that nature selects for a certain percentage of purely homosexual organisms in various species because of evolutionary advantages in kin selection, social prestige and thus kin survival, and group selection, just to name a few.
For example, the female relatives of gay men have more children than do those of straight men. This suggests that genes for homosexuality, although disadvantageous for gay men and their male relatives, could have a reproductive benefit among straight women.
Again, I've made this points dozens of times. It's time the opposition either accepts or addresses them. If you ignore it, you concede it.
3. Strategies that maximize the offspring of individuals can and do cause the extinction of a species. On can even make the case that the human species may damn well go extinct by reproducing beyond the capacity of our global environment.
4. This argument implies that rape is a morally right choice.
Example: A teenage boy is at a party. He goes upstairs to use the bathroom. On the way he sees a teenage girl passed out on a bed. He could have sex with the passed out girl without getting caught or punished. Doing so would increase his chances or reproducing and/or increase the number of his offspring as well as decreasing the number of his sexual competitor's offspring by taking a potential mate off the market before his competitors can acquire her. According to the principle repeated by Tommy and Glenn, ad nauseum, it would be morally wrong for the teenage boy to not fuck the teenage girl.
5. This argument also implies that any girl turning down sex is being immoral.
6. This argument also implies that any person sacrificing his or her life for others is immoral. The dead can't reproduce or raise their existing offspring. So all soldiers and firefighters are immoral.
As you can see, this argument has been thoroughly discredited.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Let's put that theory to the test.
thomaswong.1986 says
Throughout the vast majority of human existence, we didn't. Surnames became popular when populations expanded to the point where there were a dozen guys named John in a town. Surnames were made obsolete by ID numbers like the Social Security Number when the IRS decided to use SSNs to doggy tag everyone.
Today, your surname doesn't mean jack diddly shit. Your SSN is all that matters.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
curious2 says
I'm reminded of a bishop who once refused to look through Galileo's telescope lest he see proof that moons revolved around Jupiter rather than the Earth.
This may just be an allegorical tale, but it applies as much today as it did in the 1600s.
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
glendon has such a problem with gay sex, cause he is closeted... He doesn't want it out and "in his face" so to speak!
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,382 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Dan8267 says
Sodomy is certainly part of our human ecology; but I think what Glendon is suggesting is that it's an aberrant part.
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
JodyChunder says
infanticide occurs throughout nature too; rape occurs throughout nature. So, I'm not going to say if something occurs in nature, it is therefore ok. Mind you, I'm on your side on this argument, but I'm not sure that is your strongest case you can make!
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
JodyChunder says
We can try to sharpen Glenda's false arguments for her, but her proffered arguments are not the point. Even with your effort to save her, she'd run in a circle right back to the original question: why object? Being left handed or exceptionally intelligent is aberrant, or even choosing Dr. Pepper instead of Coke, but Glenda does not object to those aberrations.
robertoaribas says
Exactly. That's the point.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
2,853 comments
Dan8267 says
Only stupid Socialist / Atheists like you wish to put a number on people like cattle...
Vast history has always shown, people do have a family name and culture/clan that dates back 1000s of years. They carry that culture with their name.
Dan8267 says
You stated nothing.. and wish to erase everything of humanity leaving a corpse with a number. Just like the Holocaust.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Thomas, your comments are becoming more hostile and make little sense. Many gay couples have kids with one or both family names. Social Security is not "just like the Holocaust." Neither has anything to do with the morality of gay sex.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,382 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
curious2 says
Nah, not a save -- I just think taking big drizzly shits in concert all over someone who, at least initially, seemed to present his opposing viewpoint with a modicum of clinical detachment is not exactly the most deft approach to any debate. You sure as hell don't open the phones on a hot button issue like this without the hope of inspiring someone like Glen who disagrees with you to pipe in. I just wanted to retrain the sites on the core of the issue, and away from commenters calling one another fagellas. That shit gets real boring.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
2,853 comments
curious2 says
Our western tradition, along with many cultures, has a long history of family names and and family "blood line" continuity. My comments were not of gay morality, but end of that family blood line with gay couples. And as such it has been the family unit that has provided advancement of people and cultures through out history. Yes religion takes a big part. But of course you have your local Atheist and his hate of religion his desire to end it in favor of more progressive science based system, like Socialism. That will not happen! we are not cattle to be numbered as the Socialists crave.
Hostility ? LOL! like to see the Jack Ass Atheist tell a bunch of Scots their Clan name means nothing.... that should be fun!
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
heck, if half you closeted guys get comfortable with it, and start picking up guys it should leave alot more loney women for me and uncle Jody!!!
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
JodyChunder says
I respect that, but it seemed clear to me from the start that Roberto had pointed out the core issue. Maybe having seen so many of Bop69/Glenda/Larry Craig, my trigger finger is a bit quicker, but my aim is true: Glenda's agenda became obvious to everyone eventually.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
thomaswong.1986 says
Ok, I guess I credited the wrong songwriter, but I'm pretty sure the song isn't about gay leather fetishists; its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,382 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
bdrasin says
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
You just never know with people. I've had friends over the years who were at least tacitly phobic toward the idea of male homosexuality (for whatever reason, lesbians -- not so much). I remember getting into a brief discussion once with a homophobic female coworker back in the day. It came up at breakfast one AM that she suspected a favorite cousin of hers of being homosexual, and she was visibly unnerved by it. I thought it was weird that she was so wound up, and so I asked her why it was she even gave a damn. Following much wrangling, what it all seemed to boil down to for her was an intense aversion to the fecal/septic. She didn't seem to care about the social element at all really, and empirically speaking, she was not surreptitiously gay herself.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
JodyChunder says
I can't help suspecting her proffered "reason" was intended to manipulate your feelings on the subject and shut down the conversation. Although I hesitate to wade into it, consider a scale comparing Santorum to changing a diaper or walking a dog. If you believe her, then she would be both an unfit mother and an unfit dog owner, in addition to being a narrow minded wife.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,382 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
curious2 says
I never kept up with her after she married an alpha asshole, so I don't know whether she had kids with him or not. She did have a dog. And a god. She also ate bacon.
Of course, she's one example only. Plenty of otherwise decent people have intense and even irrational aversions to things more benign than feces. I had a women break it off with me many years back because she saw me picking my nose in bed one night. I knew a grown man in charge of a team of employees who wouldn't eat his meal if the beans were touching the meat loaf on the same plate.
So, no, I have no real reason to doubt she was being sincere. In fact, if there's an overarching narrative here, it's that people are fucking peculiar when it comes to which grotesqueries they'll tolerate and which ones they won't. I suspect that sometimes, it's not any more deeply philosophical than eewww gross. Seriously.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
JodyChunder says
Glendon is asserting that sodomy, whatever he means by that, is immoral because it goes against nature, which is empirically false.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
robertoaribas says
Nor would I. I have never taken the position that what is natural must be good. However, if Glendon and others are going to argue that natural means good and unnatural means bad, then I'm most certainly going to hold it against them when they get which is which wrong.
But yes, the fact that many natural things are immoral is yet another counter-argument to Glendon's assertion, and one that I have made in this thread.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
curious2 says
Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
You mean only stupid capitalist Jesus freaks. After all, when was the last time an atheist was elected to Congress or the White House or chosen for the Supreme Court? Oh wait, that has never happened. So how the fuck am I responsible for the government issuing social security numbers, then using them as tax IDs to ensure that every citizen must have one from age 18, then insisting that babies be given social security numbers before their parents can take a tax deduction for them (thus assuring every citizen is literally tagged at birth). That way you assholes, not me. That was your evangelical Jesus freaks in government, not me.
Just because I point out the policies of our government does not mean I support or advocate them, dumb ass.
Oh, and I'm not a socialist either, you idiot.
thomaswong.1986 says
Not only do you pull the whole "humanity's corpse with a number" delusion out of your ass, but you state lies that are trivially easy to disprove by pressing [Page Up] or clicking on a link.
Do you ever get tired of looking like a moron and an asshole? It's people like you that give Earth a bad name to the rest of the universe.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
curious2 says
Oh, so that's what he was going for. Couldn't tell from his piss poor writing. I think we can simply invoke Godwin's Law. I'm pretty sure that all my Jewish neighbors would kick Tommy boy's ass if he said something like that to them in person.
Follow
Befriend (1)
77 threads
1,120 comments
Dan,
what is "immoral"?
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
Vaticanus says
Dan can speak for himself, but I'd say a good place to start is to look at a dictionary:
Dictionary.com
Sounds like a good definition to me - anyone think they can do better than that?
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
256 comments
Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?
Follow
Befriend (1)
77 threads
1,120 comments
adarmiento says
so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
256 comments
Vaticanus says
He should stick to finance and economics on this board. If he can't get enough stimulation discussing them here, then he should go to another board.
Follow
Befriend (13)
52 threads
2,639 comments
Premium
Dan8267 says
Closeted Cowardly Self-Hating Gays:
http://nyjtimes.com/Stories/2005/BoyScoutExec&ChildPorn.htm
BTW, Smith was charged just a few weeks after he fired another executive for going to a gay event. The guy was 2 years until retirement.
More examples:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/07/homoquotable-bob-allen.html
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/08/03/disgraced-ex-idaho-senator-larry-craig-my-toe-tapping-bathroom-trip-was-official-govt-business/
Exodus "Ex-Gay" Ministers caught soliciting man love:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/scandals-defections/
And of course:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/
And:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-caught-soliciting-prostitute-stunned-minn-church-remains-supportive-79358/
http://clergygonewild.com/sex-abuse/38-solicitation/851-arkansas-bentonville-pastor-arrested-during-prostitution-sting-resigns
I could go on and on and on.
I stand in awe of this kind of hypocrisy.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
Dan8267 says
Dan, the data suggest that most homophobes are in fact secretly homosexual. That's the conclusion of the study that Jody linked to above:
JodyChunder says
It is also consistent with the many linked examples that thunderlips11 listed above. Bop69's pattern is similarly obvious.
I haven't figured out Vaticanus yet. Something about the campaign for marriage equality affected him so deeply that he changed his avatar from a photo of Cardinal Nazinger to a toilet sign. He says he isn't even Catholic, so I'm unsure why he chose the name Vaticanus, or the Nazi pope avatar, but obviously there must be some reason, and it seems related specifically to this issue. What kind of person sees millions of people supporting the equal protection of the laws by using an equality sign as their avatars, and then responds to that by changing his own avatar into a toilet sign? I've never seen that anywhere else. He might be merely an immoral asshole (to use your phrase above), but I can't help suspecting something existential motivates him to identify specifically with this issue.
adarmiento says
PatNet began about housing prices, which were in a bubble and have since become a function of political manipulation. In order to understand the political manipulation, you need to have some awareness of the political process including the two major political parties. The Republican party in particular has campaigned on manipulating people into voting against their own self-interest: religious fanatics with little or no money voting tax cuts for the top 1% of income recipients, and homophobes who are secretly homosexual. If we had a free market economy, we could evaluate housing prices purely in terms of market forces: supply and demand, rental value, costs and wages, etc. Those market forces cannot explain current prices, however, which result from political manipulation wrought by the two strong factions grappling in the federal capitol. To understand those, we need to look at the coalitions driving each faction. Personally, I wonder if Obamacare might tip the electoral balance, or if the mandatory spending might produce a Weimar situation (familiar to Vaticanus' previous Nazi avatar). Anybody can look at past data and say when they should have bought or sold housing or any other asset; many people can look at present data and offer intelligent observations about current reality and how we got here; almost nobody can predict what the future holds, however, so we look at political forces for the same reason that meteorologists look at cloud formations to predict rain.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Vaticanus says
Your question is a generalization of the question asked by the original post. This is worthy of discussion, but I would start a new thread for that more general subject.
bdrasin says
The first part of that definition, "violating moral principles", is worthless as it says nothing; it merely pushes the question to "what constitutes moral principles".
The second part of the definition is fine, as long as you are willing to accept a few consequences including that morality is not absolute and what is moral and immoral may vary greatly from culture to culture. If you accept that definition, than morality isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. As such, I would argue that morality is more than arbitrary cultural preferences. In fact, I wouldn't include arbitrary cultural preferences in morality at all. However, this definition does cover b.s. morality like it's wrong to work on Sundays, eat meat on Fridays, for a woman to show her legs above the kneecap.
adarmiento says
Because Patrick.net has a religion topic.
Vaticanus says
It's not masturbation if you are doing it with other people. So, by your analogy, this would be an intellectual orgy.
curious2 says
Yeah, but I don't buy that. According to the Williams Institute report gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual persons make up slightly less than 4% of the U.S. population. Even if only half the GLBT were closeted such that they weren't included in the count done by the Williams Institute, that would make the GLBT community a mere 8% of the total population. And even if all of them were self-hating, that would not be sufficient. Clearly more than 8% of the U.S. population is anti-gay.
I would use more conservative figures in estimating. About 30% of the U.S. population is bigoted against gays. With maybe 4% being GLBT, including closeted ones, and about half being self-bigoted (which I think is pretty high), that leaves 2% out of 30% or 6.7% of the bigots are gay. The other 93.3% are straight assholes.
Also, take a look at the Middle East. About 100% of the population is anti-gay. I don't think that means 100% of the population is gay. I mean, really, just look at the lack of a fashion industry. Their clothes haven't changed in 700 years. There's no way they are all gay.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,265 comments
Premium
Dan8267 says
That region holds many contradictions, men kiss each other and hold hands in public while also claiming to support anti-gay laws. One of Michael Jackson's fans tried to persuade him to relocate to the middle east, where a rich guy could have young boys living with him and no one would object. If you read the history of the dancing boys of Afghanistan, you can observe that much of that country's homophobia arrived with the British, who demoted them from the equivalent of rock stars to rent boys.
The issue comes down to, among those who are "anti-gay," what are the motives and priority? When Muslim fanatics murder their own daughters for family "honor," it's difficult to say that being anti-gay is their highest priority. When someone who says he isn't even Catholic calls himself "Vaticanus" and turns his avatar into a toilet sign, it seems comparatively important to his identity.
The 2012 Republican platform included two planks that polled at -40%. Yes, negative forty. Both were proposed amendments to the Constitution: one to ban abortion, even in cases of rape; the other, to stop gay couples from getting married. A rational party wanting to win an election would have dropped both. Somebody had to prioritize those planks to put them there despite overwhelming evidence that they would hurt their party's chances.
Dan8267 says
The 30% number is probably correct, and equals approximately the % who wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, and who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because he's black, and who insisted on supporting GW Bush to the end because he's a churchgoing Christian.
The 4% number reflects only those who self-identify as GLBT. It omits the closeted ones. I suspect that actually a larger number are resentful cowards. How many people have you seen who compromised and settled for failure and resented those whose courage and sacrifice and luck enabled them to succeed? It's human nature. The 19 hijackers on 9/11, for example, were all adult males, yet none had any children. What motivated them to sacrifice everything, including their whole lives and any chance of evolutionary success? Religion is part of it, but religion motivates most believers to be fruitful and multiply; only a minority (e.g. nuns and priests) are motivated to die childless. There must be some reason why the same set of beliefs motivates different people in opposite directions.