- On 20 May 2013
in
The Most-Corrupt Administration Ever?,
Dan8267 said:
As soon as you consent to the frauds and abuses heaped upon you they cease to be frauds and abuses It is for that reason that I am an absolutist on where the Second Amendment's boundaries lie. It is impossible as a matter of logic for me or anyone else to depend on someone else to stop a criminal who intends to take my life or that of those in my care, irrespective of how we would otherwise design such a social system. By definition the first person able and often the only person able to stop such an assault is the victim that the perpetrator intends to assault or kill. It matters not whether the assailant is an individual thug, a pair of thugs, an organized gang or a government agency.
The bottom line is the same; your right to life only exists so long as you are willing and able to defend it.
Damn, I was waiting for him to go there. The fact is, your rights exist only so long as you are willing to defend other people's rights, not just your own. That means, unless you're planning to break Bradley Manning out of prison and take down Elizabeth Lederer, then all that Second Amendment talk is just bullshit.
Hell, what your proposing is called "domestic terrorism". If you don't want to be laughed out of the room, then you have to show that you have a chance in hell of succeeding. Try to bring justice to those responsible for the unjust imprisonment of Manning or the Central Park Five. Otherwise, why should I take your position seriously? Letting people buy any kind of gun, without background check, and without a national registry isn't going to make us a more free country.
The first principle behind The Declaration is that we are a nation governed by laws, not men, with each such law that is valid and enforceable being able to be tied back all the way to The Declaration through The Constitution.
Which is exactly why we cannot tolerate privileges for government including
- executive privilege
- senators trading stock
- lack of prosecution of banker, prosecutors, executives, and government officials who break the lawYet, both major parties participate in all the above. And not regulating gun usage isn't going to do a damn thing about that.
Now, there are specific changes we can make that would reform our government greatly, and they don't require violence, just a strong political will from both sides of voters.
In conclusion, where the hell was this author when the Bush administration ass-fucked the Constitution back in 2001? It's impossible to respect anyone who bashes Obama but doesn't also bash Bush just as hard. Obama is just black Bush. He's Bush's third term with an elephant label instead of a donkey label. The two scumbags are far more alike than they are different. If Obama were a white Republican, the right and Fox News would be praising ever action he's taken since coming into office.
[OK, three parter because I couldn't find a better split point.]
- On 20 May 2013
in
The Most-Corrupt Administration Ever?,
Dan8267 said:
Swindles by the billions in countless schemes during the 2000s related to securitizations and other hinky deals (where despite black letter legal requirements for actual endorsement and delivery of documents banks simply did not comply and now argue there should be no penalty for not having done so, and that these defects are "mere procedural errors" despite intent to not comply.) The result is that our land title system no longer has any resemblance of integrity.
I don't know what he's talking about here.
Intentional destruction of anything approaching a "free market" for health care going back 30+ years and now compounded through active conspiracy by Obama and all of the political parties to grant, protect and enforce through government monopolies and cost-shifting resulting in cost escalations of 500-1,000% or even more against market prices and now, with Obamacare, abuse of the IRS tax power to force another 100% or more increase in those expenses down your throat for the express purpose of enrichment of those in the medical industry.
Obama's health plan sucks because it's a Republican counterplan to Hilary's inadequate proposed reforms.
To say that our health care system is a "free market" shows a complete lack of understanding both of our health care system and the very concept of a market. Not only is our health care system going back 30+ years not a "free" market, it's not a fucking market at all.
The very term market implies published prices and the ability of consumers to shop around. This does not apply in any way, shape, or form to America's health care system. When was the last time you were giving a price list for services from a hospital or health care practitioner? There is no market, period. Not by any reasonable definition of "market". So to claim that the free market has served us well in health care is pure, unadulterated, grade-A bullshit.
Verdict: The Democrats suck at health care reform, but at least they try to help people. The Republicans are actively trying to ass-fuck you and your children, and they're damn good at that.
I'm sure I've missed a bunch, but this is a good start.
You missed ten of the most critical ways Obama sucks major donkey ass.
What do all these (and more) have in common?
The people's refusal, as Americans, to stand and demand that The Rule of Law be restored and honored and that those who refuse to do so be impeached (if in government) and stand trial for their abuses.
The problem is that most Americans don't give a shit when their own representatives break the law or do something unethical to give them an advantage. Corporate executives have their lawyers dictate legislation to senators they have bribed so that they can squash competition. Union members don't mind getting bailed out at everyone else's expense. Neither do bankers. Stock traders use insider information they get from senators. Senators trade stocks based on legislation they are deciding. Entire states are sucking at the government's warfare spending teat, forcing the army to buy tanks it doesn't want while soldiers don't have even basic body armor.
The solution is for all Americans to man up and take the position: I'm not going to fuck over you for my own selfish interests; rather I will vote in the best interest of the entire nation. Given how selfish and stupid Americans are, I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.
You do not have the right to health care.
You do not have the right to a job.
You do not have the right to go to college.
You do not have the right to a house.
You do not have the right to food.
Ah, but why should corporations have the right to
- copyrights
- trademarks
- intellectual property
- legislative favors
- even to exist?All of these things are made up. Government makes these things up supposedly because they are in the best interest of society. It is also in the best interest of society that
- health care is universally available and affordable
- employment is at 100%
- the population is well educated
- that housing is affordable
- that food is healthy, affordable, and available (all nations are just three meals away from revolution)The question is what is the best way to reach the above goals?
You do have the right to effort to generate some form of economic activity by your own hand and mind for yourself and those who you have as dependents through your own actions, such as your children (who exist because of your actions -- your exercise of the power to create life.) You may then expend the fruits of that economic activity as you see fit because such is your property; you earned it through an honest exchange with another.
Ah, but corporatism undermines this by taxing the wealth producers (labor) and pitting them against each other by controlling the means of production and distribution, while creating artificial scarcity to drive up prices.
This is why Georgism is needed.
You do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (but not guarantee of attainment) of happiness.
And as such, it should be completely legal to
- smoke pot
- run around naked in public
- use profanity on t.v. and radioBut those three rights only exist so long as you will stand and defend them. A person is a victim only until he or she gives consent.
Put a different way: The only difference between sex and******is consent.
Ummm, and violence. You forgot about violence.
Ever tried to withhold consent to be arrested from a cop while exercising your freedom to pursue happiness by smoking a joint? Nice idea, but until those Second Amendment gun nuts nut up and start shooting cops who arrest pot smokers, this idea just isn't going to work.
The sad thing is that the average American has virtually no power to change, even in a minor way, the system. And until all the nut-jobs shut up and let the rational moderates take back the country, this isn't going to happen.
- On 20 May 2013
in
The Most-Corrupt Administration Ever?,
Dan8267 said:
Another two-parter due to the insanely low post text limit…
This thread so well demonstrates that the only opinions that count are
- negative opinions of own's own party
- positive opinions of parties other than one's own
- the opinions of those who despise both partiesWhat a surprise, Republicans think Obama is responsible for ever wrong in the country and Democrats think he's responsible for none. One administration ago, Republicans thought Bush could do no wrong and Democrats thought he could do no right (ok, bad example, but close).
Let's go over this diatribe.
Fast And Furious (guns for drug lords, resulting in murder of Americans and Mexicans)
Operation Fast and Furious was launched in 2009 by top DOJ officials, in collaboration with the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as part of a strategy to identify and eliminate arms trafficking networks. Instead of prosecuting the individual “straw purchasers” who buy guns for the cartels, ATF agents would track the guns to the top bosses of Mexico's powerful drug cartels.
However, the underlying strategy, called "gun-walking" was actually started by the Bush administration in 2006. Fast and Furious was just the latest and largest of these efforts.
One of the guns sold in this sting operation ended up being used by a drug agent to kill a border patrol agent.
One might, just might, make the case that the FBI, DOJ, ATF, and DEA all fucked up. One could also make the case that these departments did the right thing and executed the sting operation as good as one can expect in the real world. But it is ludicrous to say that this is Obama's fault. The "gun-walking" stings were in place before his administration as were every one of the agencies involved.
However, Obama did use "executive privilege" to give a big fuck you to Congress when Republican senators wanted to investigate the scandal. Of course, the Republican senators were acting under purely political motivations and they would have gladly destroyed all evidence of wrongdoing had a Republican been in office, but hey, what can you expect from politicians.
Obama should not have been allowed to use executive privilege. In fact, no president should. The very concept of executive privilege goes against every principle in western civilization, foremost transparency. However, Republicans are up shit creek without a paddle because they were a-okay with executive privilege when their criminal, Bush, was in office. Turns out you can't abuse executive privilege in one administration and cry foul in the next.
Verdict: Both Democrats and Republicans are hypocrites regarding this issue. Thumbs down to both of them.
Robosigning (over 100,000 perjured affidavits filed in court cases)
The criminal use of forged signatures in the "robosigning" scandal is clearly the fault of the largest banks who committed those crimes.
One could blame Obama for not having the balls to pursue criminal prosecution of the banks and their executives as he should have. However, it was Republicans who filibustered and defanged Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Protection Agency. Republicans have consistently protected the big banks from any legal accountability and as such bear the guilt that robosigning and other unpunished crimes.
Verdict: 10% blame to Obama for not standing up to Republicans. 100% blame to Republicans for giving Americans a big "fuck you" by saying the banks are above the law.
IRS Tea Party and other group and individual abuse in direct violation of the law (politically-based harassment and now apparently-perjured testimony before Congress)
The IRS is pure evil and has never been held accountable for its actions. The fact that the IRS tries to maximize the taxes, fines, penalties, and interests on American taxpayers is situation normal. This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
The IRS harasses, threatens, and intimidates average Americans every day. Republicans are finally bitching about it because their dog bit their own hand.
Verdict: Get rid of the IRS and start with a new agency from scratch that is composed of no one who worked for the IRS. Limit the income tax to the richest 1% as it was originally intended and use it to combat poverty rather than providing social services. Use Georgist taxes on land and other rare commodities.
Money Laundering for terrorists and drug lords (by multiple large banks)
Also, entirely the fault of Republicans as they are the ones who have defended the criminal actions of bankers and kept those criminals from being prosecuted.
Intentional and unlawful destruction of property rights (GM bondholders screwed for political cronies in the UAW)
What the author is saying is unclear.
Intentional and unlawful destruction of your saved wealth (QE, QE2, QE3, QEinfinity, $1 trillion+ deficits, etc; Treasury and Federal Reserve actions)
Both Democrats and Republicans are 100% responsible for this. The Federal Reserve has been "unlawfully destroying you saved wealth" for 100 years. The inflation strategy was advocated by Greenspan under the Bush administration and continued under Bernake. The only person in Congress to oppose it was Republican Ron Paul who was laughed at during the past three election cycles, prevented from participating in debates, and had votes for him deliberately discarded by Republican election workers. To pin this specifically on Obama is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Benghazi (apparent illegal arming of terrorists, then an attempt to reverse that leading to the attack on our CIA outpost and what appears to be intentional indifference and orders to stand down during the attack that had to come from the White House despite ability to respond; this amounts to conspiracy with the terrorists to kill Chris Stevens and the others who died.)
Oh yeah, the guy who killed bin Laden, used drones to kill the children of persons merely accused of sympathizing with terrorists, and outsource torture is "conspiring with the terrorists to kill American soldiers". Even Alex Jones couldn't come up with a bigger pile of bullshit.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
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.
Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?
Because Patrick.net has a religion topic.
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.
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.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Evil: Revised Guantanamo force-feed policy exposed,
Dan8267 said:
You continue to post Anti-American propaganda in support of terrorist groups.
There is nothing "anti-American" about supporting the Constitution and the principles upon which it is based.
People like you are the reason the terrorists are winning.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Evil: Revised Guantanamo force-feed policy exposed,
Dan8267 said:
Enemies deserve a trial, followed by speedy administration of justice. Gitmo detainees receive neither. And this injustice is America's responsibility.
You speak of "justice" and have already called out actions as "injustice".
What gives you the right to call our actions as "injustice".
The First Amendment of the Constitution.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Evil: Revised Guantanamo force-feed policy exposed,
Dan8267 said:
Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason.
You dumb ass, a person cannot commit treason against the United States without being a United States citizen. Just like you cannot commit treason against the People's Republic of China while being a United States citizen.
This dumb ass idea you have that the whole world is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and law is just plain ignorant.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Makers And Stars Of Porn Being Turned Away By Some Banks,
Dan8267 said:
Well maybe if they didn't order a sausage pizza every single week, they'd have more money.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Bloomberg Refused Second Slice of Pizza at Local Restaurant,
Dan8267 said:
Anyone bother to check the source? It's satire!
Fair enough. But had it actually happened, I'd be a-okay with it.
The fact that it's satire does have one hugely important consequence though. Bloomberg isn't shown to be the asshole that the article makes him out to be.
Still, this thread shows how some people like to blame "liberals" for everything including things that go completely against liberal philosophy.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Bloomberg Refused Second Slice of Pizza at Local Restaurant,
Dan8267 said:
Dan you can say what ever you want, but in the great words of Ralph Nader...
"Liberals are the meanest nastiest Motherfuckers there are..."
Are you trying to suggest that what I'm saying is untrue? If so, quote specifics and demonstrate that it is untrue.
And since when did you agree with Ralph Nader on anything? He's a socialist and very firmly left.
Oh, and I'm going to need a reference for that quote. I doubt Nader actually said that.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Do You Reinvest Your Dividends?,
Dan8267 said:
Is there a strong reason for reinvesting your gains with the asset that brought those gains?
Absolutely, if you are investing in a passively managed, broad index fund like one modeled after the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 indices. If your index already gives you the diversity you seek, it makes sense to reinvest the dividends. I do that all the time with Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund.
- On 20 May 2013
in
Bloomberg Refused Second Slice of Pizza at Local Restaurant,
Dan8267 said:
"I'm sorry sir. We're serious," Benito insisted. "We've decided that eating more than one piece isn't healthy for you, and so we're forbidding you from doing it."
"Look jackass," Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, "I fucking skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don't be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some fucking pizza, okay."
"I'm sorry sir, there's nothing I can do," the owner repeated. "Maybe you could go to several restaurants and get one slice at each. At least that way you're walking. You know, burning calories."
Perfectly valid use of free speech. As a liberal, I agree 100% with the restaurant owner.
Pizza shop owner stands up to Liberal Tyrant.
Correction: Liberal pizza shop owner stands up to daddy-knows-best governor.
Daddy-knows-best politicians believe that the government can infringe upon your liberty in order to
- protect you from criminals and terrorists
- protect you from dangerous Canadian pharmaceuticals
- protect you from an arbitrary set of drugs like marijuana
- protect you from dangerous and seditious music like rock-n-roll (1950s), rap (1980s and 1990s), hip-hop (today)
- protect you from dangerous religions (Islam)
- protect you from dangerous voters (felons)
- protect you from dangerous habits (smoking, drinking soda)
- protect you from dangerous speech (hate speech)
- protect you from dangerous weapons (banning all guns in D.C.)Two-thirds of these daddy-knows-best issues are Republican. One-third are Democrat. And zero percent are Liberal.
Republicans are twice as Democrats likely to be, as you say, tyrannical. Liberals are the only ones that don't support any of the above things.
So, CaptainShuddup, have you hugged a liberal today?
- On 20 May 2013
in
CDC Report: Nearly One Third of All Young People Are Fucked In the Head,
Dan8267 said:
...or...
A third of all young people could use a good swift kick in the ass.
I would say the same thing about a third of American adults across all age brackets.
- On 20 May 2013
in
CDC Report: Nearly One Third of All Young People Are Fucked In the Head,
Dan8267 said:
Report brought to you by CDC's corporate sponsors: PhRMA, AMA, AHA, AHIP. Report subtitle: PhRMA has achieved 20% of its goal, and is on track to achieve the remaining 80% starting in 2014.
Yeah, I wondering how much of this statistic is the result of reclassifying the normal painful process of growing up as a "mental disorder".
OMG! You're five-year-old is throwing a tantrum. Put him on Riddlin.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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 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.
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.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state but not state socialism,
Dan8267 said:
As for the rest of the original post, I would suggest that an economy based on the principle that all rents are paid to the government and used to provide equal distribution of wealth to all citizens is the ultimate solution to a fully automated economy. In such an economy, there would be little to not wealth disparity as few if any persons are actually producing any wealth.
Equal redistribution gives no incentive to better oneself. Humans need that or we rebel. Like I said before, we're not herd animals. We need unequal redistribution based on merit, as well as a social safety net for all.
The economic philosophy I stated has nothing to do with "equal redistribution". Another example of the false dichotomy I mentioned one post up.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state but not state socialism,
Dan8267 said:
I would suggest that an economy based on the principle that all rents are paid to the government and used to provide equal distribution of wealth to all citizens is the ultimate solution to a fully automated economy.
That was the ultimate wet dream of a communist. It went really well in East Germany. Did you ever look at their version of a German automobile?
You are confusing georgism with communism. Communism seeks state control of all economic activity. Georgism seeks tax the privileged such that a person's wealth is determined entirely by what he actually produces rather than by what he controls.
Don't fall into the false dichotomy fallacy that all economic systems either have to be capitalism or communism. There are literally an infinite number of alternatives.
- On 18 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 18 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
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.
- On 18 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.
- On 18 May 2013
in
Why the hell is gay sex immoral?,
Dan8267 said:
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.