patrick.net

I wouldn't say gay sex is immoral, but I think there is evidence that promiscuous unprotected anal sex does spread disease rapidly, faster than oral or vaginal sex.

This thread was created for those who do believe gay sex is immoral to justify their belief.

If they choose to make an argument that the spread of STDs is quicker with gay sex than straight sex, I'll tear a new asshole in their arguments quicker than a priest at an altar boy convention. Morality and practicality are clearly not the same thing. Furthermore, if the immorality of gay sex were due to the practicality of spreading STDs then once science eliminates STDS, which is likely to happen within a century or two, then gay sex suddenly becomes completely moral.

Moral arguments based on pragmatism are tenuous at best.

curious2 says

lostand confused says

Perhaps it is just a way for some people to feel morally superior by crushing someone else?

More likely, rules regarding sexuality are a perversion of morality endorsed by those wanting to control the sexuality of others and reproductive resources to further their own genetic self-interests much in the same way that corporations lobby government to provide advantages that allow the lobbying corporation to control a market and crush competition.

I dunno about morals or whatever, but anyone who has endured the digital prostate exam knows that it's an abomination.

And let's not forget the banks or whoever had no problem fucking over tens of millions of 'moral' and 'decent' people in this housing bubble.

msilenus says

If someone says homosexuality is immoral because they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right. Within the context of their moral system, of course. That doesn't mean there's anything unethical going on with homosexuality, under your moral system.

Your argument is that morality is arbitrary and meaningless. This is not the position that those who oppose gay sex take. The position of the religious is always that morality is absolute and universal. It cannot vary from person to person, from nation to nation, from century to century.

Those who oppose gay sex do not adopt a existential philosophy of morality.

But let us wait for those people to speak for themselves rather than guessing what they will say. The point of this thread is to get them to say why they believe gay sex is immoral. Once that happens, we can either say, "wow, that's an awesome reason; you've convinced me", or more likely, "that reason is flawed because of x, y, and z".

At least it gets everyone thinking about the morality of gay sex instead of just assuming one thing or another. Thinking is always good.

New Renter says

Well with 7 billion people on the planet and growing I think we should embrace homosexuality if for anything as an effective means to population control.

The smart thinking heterosexual man has always encouraged homosexuality in his fellow man. I would gladly have dropped the army's gay bomb on campus in college if that bomb had actually worked. Increasing the percentage of homosexuality within the male population would have been in my best interest.

The greater the rate of homosexuality in the male population, the less competition there is. That means more and better mates for the rest of us. It's all about supply and demand.

I suppose it might be unethical to drop the gay bomb for selfish reasons though...

rdm says

I think the more interesting and possibly related question is why some/many/most? hetero males often find gay male sex so repugnant, to the point it can make them feel physically sick.

I find old people having sex disgusting to the point of making me feel sick. That doesn't make it immoral.

Bap33 says

If you believe in right and wrong,
If you believe in moral and immoral,
and If you believe in the existance and application of proper behavior in society,
then you should undersatnd why public acceptance of male /male coupling is bad, immoral, and anti-society.

There is no logical flow in this argument.

If you believe in right and wrong,
I do believe in the existence and distinction of right and wrong, so I'm guessing this evaluates to true for me.

If you believe in moral and immoral
I do believe in morality and distinguish between moral and immoral choices, so it sounds like this also evaluates to true for me.

If you believe in the existance and application of proper behavior in society
I do believe proper behavior does exist, and I do believe in behaving property in society. Of course, what I consider proper and what I consider "in society" may not be the same as what you consider, but it still seems that this evaluates to true for me.

All the premises evaluate to true, so the conclusion should be true.

you should undersatnd why public acceptance of male /male coupling is bad, immoral, and anti-society

No, this does not follow from any of your premises. You have not provided any reason whatsoever as to why male/male coupling, as you call it, is bad, immoral, or anti-social. [I'm guessing that you meant anti-social when you wrote anti-society, but I'm not 100% sure on that.]

Please try again. This time just honestly and sincerely give the reason you think gay sex is immoral.

Well, a lot of people replied to this thread today. However, no one has presented a reason why he or she thinks gay sex is immoral.

Then again, Bap33 is the only one who has come out in stating that he believes gay sex is immoral, but he has yet to give any reason why.

Let's try again.

Anyone who actually believes that gay sex is immoral, now is your chance to convince the rest of the world. All you have to do is give your reasons and be prepared to defend them.

Yes I reserve the right to skeptically evaluate the reasons, but if they are logical, I will accept them. As a rationalist, I must always accept sound reasoning. The question is, does anyone actually have a good reason to believe that gay sex is immoral, or are such beliefs nothing more than despicable bigotry.

This is an open forum. Let the world hear this debate.

Dan8267 says

Please try again. This time just honestly and sincerely give the reason you think gay sex is immoral.

LOL, that would mean anything other than vaginal intercourse is immoral.

Dan8267 says

find old people having sex disgusting to the point of making me feel sick. That doesn't make it immoral.

Interesting, so both types of sex can make some men feel sick. Why is that? What is the correlation? Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

rdm says

Interesting, so both types of sex can make some men feel sick. Why is that? What is the correlation? Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

The correlation is that neither serves my selfish genetic interests. And no, that doesn't make it a moral issue.

rdm says

Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

I think you made an error when you excluded conditioning. In contemporary America, people have an "organic" reaction against the thought of their own parents having sex, even though they know it must have happened and they don't call it immoral. People in other places and times, with whole families living in one room, didn't have the same reaction. Most Muslim and some Judeo-Christian cultures have developed a very repressive code that they confuse with morality. Probably familiarity is a bigger factor, for example try reading the many alt boards and see how your reactions vary based on familiarity. Of course, familiarity isn't morality. Or maybe it is: even 2yo children can detect when something isn't the way they expect, and some call that a basis of morality. For some (e.g. Bap69), gay sex isn't what they've been taught to expect, yet they keep coming back to the topic, ostensibly to express their uninterest, yet at the same time unable to let go.

Then there is always this logic or lack thereof.

I'm less concerned about Gay sex as much as I am about those that constantly expect everyone to listen and watch the illicit details.
That and it's more natural for heterosexuals to feel uncomfortable about the topic, than it is for the gay community to constantly inject their lifestyle into modern culture. There has been great strides in acceptance over the last several decades. In spite of Liberals and the LBG movement would have you think.

Their nonstop constant advertisement campaign will be their own undoing.
The more they push, the more society will rile back, and it wont be pretty.
This isn't the first time in History when Gays had a good run, but didn't know when to say when.

Humans will never reach some Gay Nirvana where straight couples sit in a park with their kids, next to Gay couples groping each other on picnic blanket. I would expect a campaign of Gays being round up and sent of to Degaying camps, long before that ever happened.

Especially with the Anti Family campaign, and the all out war on families being waged on Families. That will be the biggest down fall of the Gay movement. And why in the hell is there even a movement. If you love someone, go home and love them, you're wasting your time wanting the whole worlds blessing, defeating your own cause really.

Dan8267 says

However, no one has presented a reason why he or she thinks gay sex is immoral.

That's because there isn't one. It's based purely on bigotry and nothing more.

CaptainShuddup says

Especially with the Anti Family campaign, and the all out war on families being waged on Families.

What nonsense. The only "anti-family" campaign out there is the Republican war on the middle-class.

I see it as a utilitarian, everything has a purpose

God made a womans vagina for the purpose of giving mans penis great pleasure
God made a womans mouth for the purpose of giving mans penis great pleasure
God made a mans butthole for the purpose of pooping

Seems pretty simple to me. However, you are asking from a morality stand point, to which I must admit to filing for chapter 7 moral bankruptcy, so this is probably the one issue where idan82457 invited the wrong expert to fact check his thread for him

CaptainShuddup says

I'm less concerned about Gay sex as much as I am about those that constantly expect everyone to listen and watch the illicit details.

If you are tired of the "gay agenda", pride parades, and homosexuals lobbying for legal equality, then there is a simple and effective solution. End bigotry and legal inequality. Once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and are not persecuted, all that "in-your-face" publicity goes away.

Think about it. No one rallies to support interracial or interclass marriage today because those things are accepted. The Abolitionist Movement totally died once slavery ended.

Don't want to be reminded of gays? Make sure none of them are ever killed again like Mathew Shepard or denied the right to marry or have consensual sex with others. When being gay is no longer a big deal or a basis of discrimination, you'll never hear about it again.

I think there is some truth in this humor:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

finehoe says

That's because there isn't one. It's based purely on bigotry and nothing more.

That certainly seems to be the reason. In that case, religion is to blame as it is precisely those who are most religious -- whether Christian, Islamic, or other -- that causes such bigotry. And religion prohibits questioning and examining beliefs, or faith as they call it.

That is precisely why I opened this thread. To give the religious the chance to prove they aren't just despicable bigots by justifying their beliefs, and to challenge those beliefs should they prove to be founded on falsehoods. Getting the religious to start thinking instead of asserting is a good first step.

Of course, if no religious person responds, if they coward from this subject, then we are left to conclude that anti-homosexuality is purely dishonorable and childish bigotry and that their religions are to blame.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but that means someone has to challenge this conclusion and the only way to do that is to answer the very simple and direct question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

Dan8267 invited Pope Benedict XVI to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

CaptainShuddup says

Humans will never reach some Gay Nirvana where straight couples sit in a park with their kids, next to Gay couples groping each other on picnic blanket. I would expect a campaign of Gays being round up and sent of to Degaying camps, long before that ever happened.

Oh I don't know. I'll bet there have been times in history that have been a lot more gay friendly than we have been lead to believe. How much of our history has been reburied because it went against the morality of those who discovered it?

Heck, some people still deny homosexuality in animals even though the evidence is all around them:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Dan8267 says

If they choose to make an argument that the spread of STDs is quicker with gay sex than straight sex, I'll tear a new asshole in their arguments quicker than a priest at an altar boy convention. Morality and practicality are clearly not the same thing. Furthermore, if the immorality of gay sex were due to the practicality of spreading STDs then once science eliminates STDS, which is likely to happen within a century or two, then gay sex suddenly becomes completely moral.

Unprotected sex without consequence of disease or pregnancy - That will be a truly great achievement for mankind.

Dan8267 says

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

Oh No! - he dropped the Pope bomb!

I tried to invite the American Family Association to this discussions, but those pussies don't have an email. Sure they'll spam you, but they don't want your email.

Dan8267 says

That certainly seems to be the reason. In that case, religion is to blame as it is precisely those who are most religious -- whether Christian, Islamic, or other -- that causes such bigotry. And religion prohibits questioning and examining beliefs, or faith as they call it.

I'll bite. I'm not religious, and I believe homosexuality to be wrong.

Homosexuals can't bear children, and they create a terrible example. If we weren't such a successful society, homosexuals would have long ago died out as a specie due to lack of proper human breeding.

OK, so at least Fort Wayne has the balls to provide reasons. His reasons are

1. Homosexuality is immoral because it does not lead to children.
2. Homosexuals create a terrible example.
3. Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species if humans were not so successful.

I'll address each of these independent reasons separately.

First, Homosexuality is immoral because it does not lead to children.

1.1 If you accept this premise then abstinence and chastity must be immoral. After all, there is no better way to prevent procreation than being abstinent. Therefore, priests and nuns are far more immoral than homosexuals as they take vows of celibacy.

1.2 This premise does not imply that homosexuality is immoral or that homosexual acts are immoral. It actually implies that the lack of heterosexual activity is immoral. So you could be as gay as you want and have all the man-on-man butt sex you desire as long as you also occasionally bone a fertile woman. You don't even have to like boning her, you just have to take one for the team.

1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature therefore indicating that natural selection favors having some homosexuality in various species. Someone please challenge me on this. I love posting gay animal sex videos. There's this one with a chimp and a frog...

1.4 If having sex that cannot lead to procreation is bad then it would also be as immoral as gay butt sex to

a. Have heterosexual sex after menopause.
b. Have heterosexual sex with an infertile partner.
c. Have heterosexual sex with a woman not in the fertile period of her cycle.
d. Have heterosexual sex with a condom or any form of birth control (that will be great for HIV, but lousy for our species).
e. Have heterosexual oral sex or any heterosexual sex act that doesn't deposit the sperm in the vagina.

Perhaps some will argue that d and e are immoral, but who the hell is going to argue that a 90-year-old man is being immoral by having sex with his wife of 70 years? Screw that WWII vet.

And no one is going to argue that a married couple in which one or both are infertile are being immoral every time they have sex.

1.5 In an overpopulated world, not having children is a far superior moral choice than having children. If anything threatens peace, prosperity, and the continuing existence of our species, it's the ecological collapse brought about by overpopulation. There are over 7 billion people in this world and a third of them don't even have clean drinking water. Adding to the population is certainly not a moral duty.

Continuing...

Homosexuals create a terrible example.

Sorry, but you are going to have to clarify this as I do not know what you mean. Please provide examples of how homosexuals "create a terrible example" and explain why those things are terrible, specifically what negative effects they have.

Hey, if all the religious nuts truly did not want the gays to have sex, then they should require gays to get married. Just saying...

Dan8267 says

If you are tired of the "gay agenda", pride parades, and homosexuals lobbying for legal equality, then there is a simple and effective solution. End bigotry and legal inequality. Once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and are not persecuted, all that "in-your-face" publicity goes away.

No less of that than the constant "Chase Bank" commercials, the gratuitous gay plot twists in every HBO, Showtime, and Stars original programming, as well as feature films, my kids being sent home with "Legalize gay marriage" because some Liberal shit head parent thought it would be cute in an election year, and took it upon her self to off load one on to her daughters friends.

I'm sick and tired that I can't even eat a goddamn Chicken sandwich with out it being some moral gay rights issue, I'm really fed up hearing about how the religious right, don't like the Gay agenda. News flash, dogs don't like cats, so don't put them in a cage together.

It's everything, I've got homo fatigue already, I could care less if all of the gays were round up and sent to prison at this point. Not that I'm advocating that, and it's something I would have been vocally against, in the past. But the constant war on families to move the gay agenda forward, has it's price, and the LBG movement is running a deficit at this point.

There is such thing as market saturation, and this cause passed that a long time ago.

Continuing...

Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species if humans were not so successful.

3.1 Homosexuals are not a species. Homo sapiens is our species and the homo part doesn't mean gay.

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

3.3 This reason sounds like you are attempting to say that any trait that is selected against by natural selection is an immoral trait. This would be ridiculous. Traits that are highly successful in some environments are extremely unsuccessful in others.

For example, in England before the industrial revolution butterflies were light in pigmentation. During the industrial revolution factories put out pollution which covered the bark of trees making them darker. Butterflies evolved to become darker as well as to hide from predators. Was it immoral for a butterfly to be hatched with the trait of having lighter pigmentation?

In our species there are countless traits being selected for and against through natural selection including the process of mate selection within our species. Are we all being immoral by not having the perfect traits (blue eyes, bilateral symmetry, small pores, big boobs)? Having less than desirable traits -- which we all do -- certainly hinders the replication of our genes. But why is that immoral? Is morality nothing more than doing whatever it takes to get your genes into the next generation? If so, then rape would be a moral duty. I doubt anyone would want to argue that position.

Dan8267 says

Continuing...

Homosexuals create a terrible example.

Sorry, but you are going to have to clarify this as I do not know what you mean. Please provide examples of how homosexuals "create a terrible example" and explain why those things are terrible, specifically what negative effects they have.

Sure thing Dan.

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

Dan8267 says

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

It doesn't in our society because of our success. Our capitalism is so successful, that almost everyone survives. One can be born with millions of diseases and abnormalities and still make it to old age. And now with artificial insemination, some of these even get to procreate their bad genes.

Dan8267 says

3.3 This reason sounds like you are attempting to say that any trait that is selected against by natural selection is an immoral trait. This would be ridiculous. Traits that are highly successful in some environments are extremely unsuccessful in others.

I'm not saying it is immoral in a religious kind of way. I'm saying that it is bad for society in a long run. Goes against evolution and Darwinism. It adds a cost to society.

Dan8267 says

If so, then rape would be a moral duty. I doubt anyone would want to argue that position.

Didn't a couple uber conservatives open their mouth with their true belief and misinformation (I'm being kind here.) that a woman's body 'shuts down' during a 'real rape' and will not get pregnant? I don't know, if a homophobe doesn't even know the basic genetic facts of reproduction and a woman's body, arguement is futile and a waste of time.

Homosexuality is wrong! Our bodies are not design for this and they need help. We make a big deal about 1% of the population. Silence all homos and get them treated because they are sick and they don't think correctly.

CaptainShuddup says

No less of that than the constant "Chase Bank" commercials, the gratuitous gay plot twists in every HBO, Showtime, and Stars original programming, as well as feature films, my kids being sent home with "Legalize gay mariage" because some Liberal shit head parent thought it would be cute in an election year, and took it upon her self to off load one on to her daughters friends,

1. Don't watch HBO, Showtime, and Stars if you don't like their programming. I don't, except for Real Time with Bill Maher, which I do like. There is so much good stuff to watch, I don't even have the time to do that, so why watch anything you don't like. It's not like T.V. is compulsory. Watch the Science Channel and certain shows on The History Channel instead. (Some things on the History Channel are crap, others are great).

2. Regardless of whether or not you think gay sex is immoral, as an American you should champion gay marriage because it is a right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as demonstrated in the Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967). To not support gay marriage is to not support equality under law and the very founding principles of this country.

And that is why the "liberal shithead" thought your kids should be informed of the one of the most important political events that they are living through. I suppose that liberal shithead also thinks your kids should know that we fought a revolution to gain government by the people and we fought a Civil War to end slavery and preserve the union. The real question is why conservatives don't also think that such understanding is important.

A republic composed of well-informed and educated people will perform far better than one composed of ignorant idiots.

I'll support gay marriage when the Liberal propaganda machine stops their assault on the Family unit. Just look at the latest Direct TV campaign that features a dysfunctional family with the wife and husband.
CNN featured a story they were proud of today, how 50 shades of grey led to a divorce, "Really" there's nothing else out there to report?
There's nothing in the constitution that protects Gays. And I can give two shits what some Liberal judge in 1967 ruled. I bet you would probably get a whole different ruling today from that same judge had he know then how it would turn out now.
Families are vital to a nation, Bob and Franks life partner status is not.
Bob and Frank are incapable of churning out successors.

FortWayne says

Sure thing Dan.

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

First of all thank you FortWayne for stepping up here. I appreciate you are voicing your opinions in such a reasonable manner.

As for setting a bad example tell me, what is it about homosexuality that you see as a bad example for children?
As a father myself I do not agree with you in the least. I see homosexuality as a part of the natural world. It makes perfect sense to me that some members of a species will be sacrificed - reproductively speaking - for the bigger picture. Biologically speaking it makes sense for a large family to have a few non-reproducing members who are then available to help with the children of the breeders. In a primitive society this could lead to lower a lower mortality rate and a greater success of the family.

If you want an extreme example of an alternate family structure look to ants and bees. Their colonies are comprised almost exclusively of non-breeding members yet are far more successful in species longevity than we.

CaptainShuddup says

I'll support gay marriage when the Liberal propaganda machine stops their assault on the Family unit. Just look at the latest Direct TV campaign that features a dysfunctional family with the wife and husband.

CNN featured a story they were proud of today, how 50 shades of grey led to a divorce, "Really" there's nothing else out there to report?

There's nothing in the constitution that protects Gays. And I can give two shits what some Liberal judge in 1967 ruled. I bet you would probably get a whole different ruling today from that same judge had he know then how it would turn out now.

Families are vital to a nation, Bob and Franks life partner status is not.

Bob and Frank are incapable of churning out successors.

Perhaps the gays will disarm when the Christian right does.

Why is there so much gayness on TV? Because its titillating.

In a similar vein Star Trek was also criticized for a kiss between a white man (Capt'n Kirk) and a black woman (Uhura). Sure Kirk had already banged blue and green and pointy eared babes but kissing a black woman? Fire up the torches boys!

Nowadays? Meh. The only thing I think most guys feel is envy. Nichelle Nichols was a fine looking woman!

Bobpak says

Homosexuality is wrong! Our bodies are not design for this and they need help. We make a big deal about 1% of the population. Silence all homos and get them treated because they are sick and they don't think correctly.

Argue your point rationally please.