« previous   next »

Why the hell is gay sex immoral?


By Dan8267   Follow   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 3:22am PST   58,027 views   872 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (7)   Dislike (7)  

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     Comments 833-872 of 872     Last »

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 17 May 2013, 6:24pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 833

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 ?

JodyChunder   Fri, 17 May 2013, 6:29pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 834

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 835

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 836

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:08am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 837

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:13am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 838

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".

curious2   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 839

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 840

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:19am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 841

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:26am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 842

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 843

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 844

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 845

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 846

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.

Dan8267   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:57am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 847

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.

JodyChunder   Sat, 18 May 2013, 9:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 848

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.

curious2   Sat, 18 May 2013, 10:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 849

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.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 18 May 2013, 10:42am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 850

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.

curious2   Sat, 18 May 2013, 10:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 851

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.

JodyChunder   Sat, 18 May 2013, 11:21am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 852

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.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 18 May 2013, 11:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 853

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!

curious2   Sat, 18 May 2013, 2:11pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 854

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.

bdrasin   Sat, 18 May 2013, 4:00pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 855

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.

JodyChunder   Sat, 18 May 2013, 4:56pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 856

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.

curious2   Sat, 18 May 2013, 5:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 857

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.

JodyChunder   Sat, 18 May 2013, 7:47pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 858

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.

Dan8267   Sun, 19 May 2013, 10:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 859

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.

Dan8267   Sun, 19 May 2013, 10:14am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 860

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.

Dan8267   Sun, 19 May 2013, 10:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 861

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.

Dan8267   Sun, 19 May 2013, 10:22am PDT