Why the hell is gay sex immoral?


By Dan8267   Follow   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 11:22am   48,261 views   872 comments
In Boca Raton FL 33433   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (7)   Dislike (6)  

This 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...

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 833-872 of 872     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    833   1:24am Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Dan8267 says

    Why the hell is gay sex immoral?

    it is one thing... a dead end to your family blood line and heritage.

    in all cultures, the continuity of family blood line keeps the family unit viable
    today and into the future. destroy the family blood line .. you destroy the fabric of any society.

    why do we all have a Family name ?

    this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.
    what was the alternative ?

  2. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,776 comments
    Victorville, CA

    834   1:29am Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    why do we all have a Family name ?

    It's really just an ages-old convention...we need something to put on your toe tag that differentiates your cadaver from the one on the next slab over.

    thomaswong.1986 says

    this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.

    But we are neither strong or stable. We've gotten more & more fucked up over the last 100 years. We might have slicker consumer gadgets to distract from and palliate the pain of our imploding collective soul, but don't kid...we're fucking fucked.

    As for society...it's just a concept for living, Tom -- an egalitarian blueprint designed to enable people of disparate creeds, race, gender and ability to cohabitate together in relative harmony. The finest iteration of this design is the meritocratic society, where one's basic pursuit of happiness is delimited only by one's effort. The only thing that could possibly disrupt society then is a corruption of this core framework. Sexuality doesn't even enter into the discussion.

  3. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    835   12:04pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    And now you prove my initial assertion, that your OP is a loaded question built on an internal contradiction.

    Honey, a proof is more than saying "I have a proof". You have to actually follow through as I will demonstrate now.

    Glendon says

    As soon as anyone demonstrates a logical basis for the values judgment you shoot down the values judgment. Sodomy is immoral because it is contrary to nature, infecund - a biological dead end, and runs counter to the basic functions of the mouth and rectum, or in the case of women, the use of fingers or objects because they don't possess a penis to complete the act.

    To say that sodomy -- by whatever arbitrary definition you choose from among the thousands of different definitions -- is "contrary" to nature is clearly empirically false. That means it doesn't give with the historical facts.

    Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

  4. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    836   12:04pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  5. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    837   12:08pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs

    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.

  6. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    838   12:13pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    This random garbage you are spewing, like "is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals" is the prototypical form of the "ipse dixit." Because you have said it, well, it must be true.

    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".

  7. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    839   12:16pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs.

    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.

  8. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    840   12:16pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    The purpose of the reproductive system, like every other constituent part of a body, is reproduction. Just like the circulation system is for circulation, or the endocrine system for hormonal regulation. You just toss logical and function and purpose out the door because you don't like that it is a suitable and legitimate argument.

    "Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

    Idiocy.

    Have you even read anything that I've written. I suggest reading the following bit very carefully as you keep demonstrating it.

    Dan8267 says

    Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

    Bob: The sun is hot because it is made of burning coal.

    Joe: Electromagnetic Spectroscopy proves that the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, not carbon. Furthermore, it is nuclear fusion, not chemical reactions, that power the sun.

    Bob: Coal is hot when you burn it. The sun is hot because its burning coal.

    Notice how Bob looks like an idiot? Why? Because he completely ignores Joe's argument and simply repeats his own, now debunked, idea.

    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

    "Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

    Idiocy.

    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.

  9. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    841   12:19pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    Your absence of logic and real thought is your own indictment.

    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.

  10. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    842   12:26pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    That some other buffoon agrees with your absence of thought and said that you "totally demolished my arguments" is sheer idiocy as well.

    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

    You're not very good at this. You just comment, and comment, and comment some more. It doesn't matter that your words have no logical or scientific validity.

    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.

  11. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    843   12:28pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Glendon says

    And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

    Your wife can confirm my sexuality, not that it's important for the sake of this, for lack of a better word, debate.

  12. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    844   12:30pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    Glendon says

    the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

    "We rate Marshall’s claim False." Glenda, is your last name Marshall?

    There you go again, curious2, fact checking. Stuff like that will get you accused of being illogical, unscientific, and gay.

  13. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    845   12:45pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    it is one thing... a dead end to your family blood line and heritage.

    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.

  14. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    846   12:49pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    in all cultures, the continuity of family blood line keeps the family unit viable

    today and into the future. destroy the family blood line .. you destroy the fabric of any society.

    Let's put that theory to the test.

    thomaswong.1986 says

    why do we all have a Family name ?

    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.

  15. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    847   12:57pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    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.

    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.

  16. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,776 comments
    Victorville, CA

    848   4:09pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

    Sodomy is certainly part of our human ecology; but I think what Glendon is suggesting is that it's an aberrant part.

  17. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    849   5:09pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    JodyChunder says

    I think what Glendon is suggesting is....

    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

    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!

    Exactly. That's the point.

  18. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    850   5:42pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Dan8267 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.

    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

    As I have stated like a thousand times on this thread already,

    You stated nothing.. and wish to erase everything of humanity leaving a corpse with a number. Just like the Holocaust.

  19. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    851   5:56pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    stupid.... Just like the Holocaust.

    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.

  20. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,776 comments
    Victorville, CA

    852   6:21pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 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?

    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.

  21. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    853   6:38pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 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.

    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!

  22. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    854   9:11pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    JodyChunder says

    I just wanted to retrain the sites on the core of the issue....

    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.

  23. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    560 comments
    Alameda, CA

    855   11:00pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    bdrasin says

    Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,

    But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

    -Willie Nelson

    no willie nelson didnt write that... he did a cover from the original because he thought it was funny. but really ! even in SF, LA and NYC you see chic Gay running around dressed like cowboys. Are they real Cowboys .. of course not, but they are real Gay !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Are_Frequently,_Secretly_Fond_of_Each_Other

    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.

  24. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,776 comments
    Victorville, CA

    856   11:56pm Sat 18 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bdrasin says

    its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.

    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.

  25. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    857   12:39am Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    JodyChunder says

    what it all seemed to boil down to for her was....

    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.

  26. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,776 comments
    Victorville, CA

    858   2:47am Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 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.

    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.

  27. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    859   5:11pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    JodyChunder says

    Dan8267 says

    Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

    Sodomy is certainly part of our human ecology; but I think what Glendon is suggesting is that it's an aberrant part.

    Glendon is asserting that sodomy, whatever he means by that, is immoral because it goes against nature, which is empirically false.

  28. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    860   5:14pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    robertoaribas 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

    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.

  29. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    861   5:15pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    robertoaribas says

    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!

    Exactly. That's the point.

    Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.

  30. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    862   5:22pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    Only stupid Socialist / Atheists like you wish to put a number on people like cattle...

    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 was 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

    Dan8267 says

    As I have stated like a thousand times on this thread already,

    You stated nothing.. and wish to erase everything of humanity leaving a corpse with a number. Just like the Holocaust.

    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.

  31. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    863   5:23pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    curious2 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.

    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.

  32. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,266 comments

    864   7:35pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan,
    what is "immoral"?

  33. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    560 comments
    Alameda, CA

    865   7:40pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Vaticanus says

    Dan,

    what is "immoral"?

    Dan can speak for himself, but I'd say a good place to start is to look at a dictionary:

    Dictionary.com

    im·mor·al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
    adjective
    1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

    Sounds like a good definition to me - anyone think they can do better than that?

  34. adarmiento


    Follow
    Befriend
    21 threads
    494 comments

    866   7:40pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?

  35. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,266 comments

    867   7:46pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    adarmiento says

    Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?

    so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?

  36. adarmiento


    Follow
    Befriend
    21 threads
    494 comments

    868   7:47pm Sun 19 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Vaticanus says

    so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?

    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.

  37. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    205 threads
    4,386 comments
    Premium

    869   9:15am Mon 20 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    Dan8267 says

    Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.

    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.

  38. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    870   11:08am Mon 20 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    curious2 says

    robertoaribas says

    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!

    Exactly. That's the point.

    Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.

    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

    bdrasin says

    its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.

    http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

    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

    Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?

    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.

  39. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,025 threads
    12,541 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    871   1:46pm Mon 20 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Vaticanus says

    Dan,

    what is "immoral"?

    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

    Dictionary.com

    im•mor•al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]

    adjective

    1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

    Sounds like a good definition to me - anyone think they can do better than that?

    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

    Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?

    Because Patrick.net has a religion topic.

    Vaticanus says

    so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?

    It's not masturbation if you are doing it with other people. So, by your analogy, this would be an intellectual orgy.

    curious2 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:

    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.

  40. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    872   2:10pm Mon 20 May 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    look at the Middle East.

    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

    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.

    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.

« First     « Previous comments    

Dan8267 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 170 milliseconds to create.