« previous   misc   next »

Why the hell is gay sex immoral?


By Dan8267   Follow   Wed, 14 Nov 2012, 3:22am PST   60,368 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 593-632 of 872     Next »     Last »

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 1:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 593

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 1:51am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 594

Bap33 says

And the Angels had no sexual componant with each other, and could only pro-create with earth-bound life. Not saying just "female humans", because I have no reason to believe their sexual interaction was limited to only female humans. The myths of the half-man, half-animal beings could be partly based on the results on angels trying on beasts too. Maybe they have the magic DNA that mixed with everything, and the mix they created with apes is what we are?

The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

I can only image what religion nonsense you'd spew if a time traveler left a copy of the Twilight novels in ancient Sumeria. You'd probably discuss the history of vegan vampires or some such nonsense.

Look, mythology can be fun, but you have differentiate between it and reality. Otherwise, you'll end up at Comic-Con like these guys, and you don't want to be these guys.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 1:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 595

mell   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 1:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 596

Dan8267 says

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

Tru dat.

mell   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 2:06am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 597

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

too often, people just seem to accept that because things are the way they are, that is how they should be. It seems to me that this is overtly dependent on the time factor ie. things change over time. As far as i know, there are plenty of laws in the states prohibiting all types of sexual behaviours,,,,,oral sex, anal sex etc.,,,,,good luck enforcing them! For those of you that support using the government as a weapon against your fellow (wo)man and their private actions that don't affect other people, do you ever bother to ask the question, at what cost?

Fully agree here. I think it's not natural and not normal, but there is strong business pressure to keep up the basic premise of monogamy as desirable and then let people fail. So much money depends on this repeating circle. If people would stop treating each other as possessions and set each other free if necessary (this is true love) then we would not need divorce lawyer sharks, nasty custody trials and more. Throughout my life I have never felt any resentment for ex-gf's and never talked shit about them and have stayed friends with a lot, It just gets harder once you have a family and enter society's marriage circus - or better try to stay out of it. People think it's ok that we can declare anyone as enemy combatant in an instant and then send drones to kill them but if Petraeus sticks his dick into another chick there must be consequences! ;)

leo707   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 3:21am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 598

Dan8267 says

errc says

is monogamy moral? or natural? or even desirable?

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

In nature yes, but in humans monogamy is much more common homosexuality.

I think that there is a problem with the thinking that monogamy or *er* non-monogamy is either moral/immoral, natural/unnatural, desirable, etc. Both seem to occur in just about equal parts in humanity, both are natural and both can be approached in either moral or immoral ways.

I feel that it is more important that relationships are consenting, equal (more-or-less) partnerships, where people are honest with each other about their sexuality.

mell   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 3:36am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 599

leo707 says

In nature yes, but in humans monogamy is much more common homosexuality.

I'd contest that, maybe serial or perceived monogamy yes, but if you take the few ones that actually never stray (for both genders) the numbers become very small.

"Monogamy is the Western custom of one wife and hardly any mistresses."
-- H.H. Munro

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 5:09am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 600

Dan8267 says

rdm says

Dan8267 says

My morality has nothing to do with me. It is entirely objective.

You can't possibly believe the second sentence. Can you see that the first sentence gives lie to to the second?

No. Please explain in great detail. Leave no steps out.

I reserve the right to show any flaws in your work.

1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.

2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.

3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.

4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations.

BTW, accepting such a morality is the large step from the universal morality to the corporative one. I.e. good is what's good for me, or "for my family", "for my company", "good for Jews", "good for my social class", "Deutchland ueber alles", etc. Out of the people I've met only some Zionists openly endorsed corporative morality, but obviously there are plenty of closet "corporative moralists".

So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...

Interestingly enough, you also wrote you are not interested in Harris' attempts to find biological (neuro-biological) sources of morality, since it's all about science and you an "engineer".

Bap33   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 5:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 601

Dan8267 says

Anyone who believes in god shouldn't be allowed to vote.

if everyone followed God's word there would be no such thing as voting.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 5:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 602

michaelsch says

1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant. For example, a pie is to be divided into two slices. One person divides the pie, the other person chooses his slice. The person constructing the division has no motive to divide it any way but even because the other person chooses the slice. Hence the divider will objectively evaluate the division of the pie and make it even.

There is nothing in my morality that applies more or less due to my own personal situation. And if my situation were randomized by an act of a fictitious god, I would be no more or less happy with my morality than I am now for I have divided the pie evenly. I can do this because I base my morality on rational thought, not feelings and prejudices.

michaelsch says

2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.

WTF?

michaelsch says

3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.

No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.

Furthermore, even when I was a Catholic, I never, ever had to rely on a god for moral authority. I could easily understand the difference between right and wrong without a god. For example, baby rape is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a god or that god wants you to rape babies. Would you consider baby rape to be good if you thought your god desired it? That would be fucked up.

michaelsch says

4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations

I have no idea WTF you are trying to say here either.

michaelsch says

So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...

Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs. The underlying mathematics and physics are absolute, but the bridge design is creative and there is no single, universal bridge design. The same damn thing goes for morality. It's engineering, not arbitrary religious dogma.

michaelsch says

Interestingly enough, you also wrote you are not interested in Harris' attempts to find biological (neuro-biological) sources of morality, since it's all about science and you an "engineer".

If you think that is what I wrote, then you clearly misread what I wrote. And it's not like my writings are that hard to follow. Any failure to communicate is a problem on your end.

Bap33   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 6:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 603

hey Dan, check out your thread count!! lol. (this will not be very funny in a short while!)

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 6:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 604

Sorry Bap, but 666 is an integer and we all have to go through it before reaching 667.

By the way, the only reason 666 is consider "the devil's number" is because there are three sixes and 6 was consider an evil number. Having three sixes is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. So 666 is evil and 777 is good luck.

So why is 6 considered evil and 7 considered good luck or godly? Pagan astrology, where Christianity got most of its myths.

Excluding the stars, there are seven astronomical bodies you can see from Earth (excluding Earth itself, of course) with the naked eye. They are the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Notice that there are seven of them. Notice that we have seven days in a week including Sunday and Moonday (Monday) and Saturnday (Saturday). The ancients were fucking subtle.

Also notice that the Bible says god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.

Well, since there were seven heavenly bodies visible to the naked eye and therefore were the only ones that existed in the minds of the ancients, then seven was a heavenly number. Six, being one less than seven, is falling short of heavenly and is why six represents evil.

Combine 7 with the Holy Trinity to get lucky number 777. Combine 6 with an unholy trinity to get 666. The mark of the beast is nothing more than this lame myth.

Ever wonder why the devil appeared to Eve as a snake instead of as a dove? The snake is the natural enemy of primates like humans. We have an instinctive fear of them. If the rabbit were the natural enemy of primates, the devil would have appeared to Eve as the Easter Bunny.

Ever wonder why there are 24 hours in a day? Also astrology. The ancients looked up in the night sky and imagined twelve constellations dividing that sky. They called these the 12 signs of the Zodiac. So they divided night into two equal parts.

You can't see stars in the day, but since on average days and nights are equally long, if you are going to divide the night into 12 parts, you should divide the day into 12 pars as well. Hence we have a 24 hour day.

Since an hour is a relatively long period of time, we divide the hour into 60 parts since base 60 was a popular numeric system as it makes arithmetic easy (60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 30). We call each minute part of an hour a "minute". Again, the ancients were so fucking subtle. Since the minute is still relatively long, we divide that into 60 parts, that is "second" order minute parts of an hour. Can you guess where the word second as a measurement of time came from? If the ancients wanted to divide the second up into smaller parts, we'd have thirds. Luckily, this did not become necessary until modern times when we moved over to base 10.

Always look to were beliefs and customs came from.

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:04am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 605

Dan8267 says

No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.

Enough. The paragraph above tells it all. As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter. Your brainwaves or states of your neurons are as well. Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.

However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.

Dan8267 says

Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs.

Another example of a pure bullshit. Probably what you wanted to say is that there are various systems of social ethics based on common thing like engineering is based on mathematics. I have a news for you: this common thing is called morality.

The bullshit is in the fact that you think that by shifting your terminology you may be able to change the facts and avoid answering my questions. However, the only thing you do this way is saying: "I'm a faithful atheist and I do not care if my religion is consistent".

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:10am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 606

Just came by a joke in Russian:

"It looks like America will be the first country to outlaw sex as a discrimination against impotents"

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:15am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 607

Dan8267 says

The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.

What a bullshit! Stop whom to take credit for what. With all your lecturing you loose a common sense.

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:20am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 608

Dan8267 says

The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

Bullshit! It illustrates nothing about homosexuality.

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:26am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 609

Dan8267 says

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.

Another example of your bullshit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject."

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 610

I have much respect for Ayn Rand. But I confess to being a subjectivist.

Isn't it ironic that Ayn Rand got her early inspirations from Nietzsche?

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 611

Peter P says

I have much respect for Ayn Rand. But I confess to being a subjectivist.

Isn't it ironic that Ayn Rand got her early inspirations from Nietzsche?

I think you mixed objectivity and objectivism.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:42am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 612

They are somewhat related.

What about science and Scientism?

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 8:46am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 613

Peter P says

They are somewhat related.

Well, Ayn Rand objectivism is a different thing. I think it came from the word "objective" == goal. Basically, her "philosophy" was get your objectives no matter what.

And yes it was a primitive form of Nietscheanism.
Remember, Nietsche was a very unhappy man. we usually take his "God is dead." out of context. In fact it was like "God is dead. We've killed God. It's impossible to live in this new world of us. We need something instead right now." So he invented his Superman. He was very talented man, suffereing a lot from the state of his mind and anding in complete insanity.

Ayn Rand was a poor and vulgar writer, a cynical mediocre in any sense whose crede was: let's grab all we want as long as we enjoy it. She just found a way to sell cynicism to those who liked that form of it.

Ironically, they became very popular among extreme right wing atheists. Nietsche -- in Germany, Ayn Rand -- in America.

What about science and Scientism?

A good question to ask Dan.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:05am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 614

Ayn Rand did believe in objective reality (metaphysics) and epistemology.

Yep. "God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.

Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:17am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 615

Peter P says

Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.

Really, do you personally know any "Untermensch"?
If you do are you sure you know him well enough to decide?

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 616

Peter P says

"God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.

Well God as far as we may know Him is all about the meaning of life.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:20am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 617

You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...

michaelsch   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:29am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 618

Peter P says

You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...

Very nice!
I would say for most of young people I happened to know who turn to believe in God, this is the path. They need the meaning of life and they need an objective one. (Including me many years ago. :)

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 9:32am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 619

I am the rare one who turned to Nietzsche. Yet I believe God exists in my subjective reality. :-)

Bap33   befriend   ignore   Sat, 1 Dec 2012, 12:54pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 620

anyone notice that the sodomite model, that castrated and murdered his newscaster lover, is all over the news without the mention of the whole male/male sodomited designation. Weird.