patrick.net

whittaker says

We can use the silly reasoning I see throughout this thread. Hey animals

You seem to have missed Dan's point. The examples of other animals were a factual correction to refute the demonstrably incorrect argument, advanced mainly by the religious, about what they claim to be "unnatural." Their argument is misplaced because the facts are contrary to what they believe. I agree the religious arguments are silly, so why don't you supply a valid argument?

Moreover, a government should not enforce morality.

The only functions of a government ought to be:

1) Protect private properties
2) Enforce private contracts

That's it.

Peter P says

I think sex with anything is morally neutral as long as it is not forced upon any human.

Yup, I'm done here.

Wow, is this still going on? 9 States have legalized gay marriage: "Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and two Native American tribes—have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis."

If you look at a map in Blue and Red, I don't think I need to explain.

The opponents are: "Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States ground their arguments on parenting concerns, religious concerns, concerns that changes to the definition of marriage would lead to the inclusion of polygamy or incest, and other intellectual ideas expressed in natural law theory. The Southern Baptist Convention says that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and National Organization for Marriage argue that children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children.

The support is scientific: "The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence which supports the conclusions: that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships essentially equivalent to heterosexual relationships; that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children; and that the children of same-sex parents are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite-sex parents"

This reminds me of the debt ceiling debacle a couple years ago.

whittaker says

Sex is sex. If gay sex is moral like you say, why isn't sex with animals?

It is just as equally valid to say:
Sex is sex. If straight sex is moral like you say, why isn't sex with animals?

It's a red herring because there is no more connection between
"Gay sex is not immoral, therefore bestiality is not immoral."
than there is between
"Straight sex is not immoral, therefore bestiality is not immoral."

Unless you are saying that gay men are subhuman and therefore beasts. You know, this exact same argument was made by the people who were against interracial sex.

If interracial sex isn't immoral, then what about bestiality? If a woman can marry a black man, what's next, marrying a farm animal?

To equate interracial marriage or sex with bestiality is offensive and retarded. To equate intrasexual marriage or sex with bestiality is offensive and retarded for exactly the same reasons.

But since you want to go there, let's go there. Why the hell is bestiality and polygamy immoral? Hey, you asked for it, now you got it.

whittaker says

Yup, I'm done here.

Not really. The original question remains unanswered.

Peter summed up what used to be conservative philosophy, before the Republican pact with Pat Robertson changed the definition of "conservative". (Now apparently it means massive deficits, war all over the world, and legislating Pat Robertson's definition of "morality" in people's homes.) But, you haven't yet answered the question.

The world is so hopelessly overpopulated that everyone should salute to couples, straight or gay, who choose not to have children.

B.A.C.A.H. says

No it's not. It's from the experience of enduring a digital prostate exam. Teaches us everything we need to know. Immoral or not, it's repugnant.

And I agree. I find gay butt sex completely repugnant, but that doesn't make it immoral. I find Indian food disguising and repugnant. That doesn't mean eating Indian food is immoral.

I find old people having sex repugnant and sickening. Imagine your grandma taking out her dentures and gumming grandpa's dick. Are you sickened yet? Sure, but can you really argue that grandma and grandpa are being immoral for getting it on after 50 years of marriage?

A visceral reaction of disgust is not a sign of immorality. We all have the same reaction to someone who appears to have a contagious disease. That doesn't make the person immoral.

Visceral reactions are more indicative of our own biases than any objective evaluation of morality.

B.A.C.A.H. says

prostate exam.

That's your third post on those exams. You do realize that for most people they're a waste of time, yes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/health/07prostate.html?_r=0

So why do you keep going back for more? Of course, with Obamacare, you're required to buy coverage for them, and soon the exam may also be mandatory. Enjoy, it's the law!

Useless overpriced medical exams may be upsetting, but they have nothing to do with the morality of sex.

Don't worry, it's PG-13.

So now, we can legitimately bring up the question:

Is it immorial for a woman to fart during straight heterosexual vaginal intercourse?

This is just one morality question that can be devised from the video. :)

http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5en3xtUZPg

I think morality is subjective.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

I honor all of Americas warriors.

Including the gay ones?

being a warrior has nothing to do with male or female or coupling. Or, at least, it should not.

@Dan,
I have not "disliked" a single comment from you on this subject. I can't recall doing it anywhere, on anyone's, ever, but that is not impossible - so I will just assure you that I have not done so on here. Not my style homie.

Since you and I have a differing opinion on what is right/wrong, moral/immoral, just/unjust then it makes it kinda hard to explain where my view of life is valid over your opinions of life.

I have no idea what you see as immoral, other than Christianity and conservative social views. Since my anchor and understanding of morality are based (for the most part) on my understanding of Christianity and are expressed by my conservative social view, it puts us a odds from the start.

Can you tell me if it is immoral to cut in line? Please.

Peter P says

I think morality is subjective.

So are most conditions of man, like freedom for example. A slave in a dungen is not as free as a slave working in the King's garden, but the garden slave, and every soul other than the king, is not as free as the king. subjective.

Dan, do you have children? I seriously doubt it. The thought of exposing my own children to even the IDEA of homosexual sex is absolutely abhorrent to me. And that's what the gay movement is now about. It used to be about rights. Now it's about acceptance. Universal acceptance. California passed a law requiring gay sex to be taught about in schools. To kids. Someday my kids may bring home a permission slip to learn about gay sex in health class or social studies, and I won't be giving permission. I'd like them to keep their innocence of that particular type of (what to me and 95% of others) is a perversion as long as possible. I'll teach them what they need to know about straight sex, but that at an appropriate age and with the utmost care.
Of course, if the gay mafia has its way, kids will be forced to learn positive and wonderful things about their lifestyle and sexual practices. Neolithic thinkers like myself will have their kids forcibly removed and placed in (very) loving gay homes for reeducation.
Understand this: people like me will not stand idly by for this.
The gay community was decimated by AIDS once already. Do you really think that was an accident? Think about it.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

FortWayne says

That is my argument, disorders should be treated not celebrated.

AMEN!!!

A mental disorder cannot be immoral, by definition. Only the biggest bastard in the world would say that a child with Down Syndrome is being immoral. Does any asshole here want to claim that this girl is immoral for having Down Syndrome?

The way I see it, it's not the same thing Dan. I never said every disorder is immoral. I only said homosexuality is a disorder that I think should be treated because it sets a terrible example for children to imitate at a young age. And today they are exposed to way too much, children today are way too precocious.

With destruction of family values so goes the nation. Our values is our glue that binds us all.

You are from a younger generation you are growing up in a different society. But I tell you, todays parents have it a lot harder than we had. There are a lot more "freedoms and rights" children have to be protected from before they are old enough to comprehend it all.

Quigley says

Dan, do you have children?

Not that I know of. But that's irrelevant. I was a child. I remember what it was like being a child. And being a parent certainly does not make one an expert or authority on children. If it did, then all people would parent the same way and there would be no bad parents.

If anything, not having a child makes me objective and thus better at resolving the conflicts of interest between parents and children. A judge must be impartial.

Quigley says

The thought of exposing my own children to even the IDEA of homosexual sex is absolutely abhorrent to me.

And that is your bigotry and nothing more. There have been plenty of parents who found the idea of their daughter being with a black man to be equally abhorrent. That doesn't make interracial sex morally inferior to same-race sex. The exact same analysis applies when comparing straight sex to gay sex.

Just because something upsets you doesn't make it immoral regardless of how strongly you feel about it.

There are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of Islamic men who are absolutely abhorred by the idea of women freely choosing their own mates and trying to attract those mates through flirtation. These men consider such actions the epidomy of immorality because they feel so strongly about it. However, that does not make female flirtation or sexual freedom immoral.

Your cultural and personal biases have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the difference between moral right and wrong.

Once again, I'll remind you of the example of an old married couple having sex. That's absolutely disgusting to me, but it doesn't make it immoral.

Gut reactions are a lousy judge of right and wrong. Gut reactions lead to mob vigilantism. Gut reactions are prejudice and unaccountable. Gut reactions are based on what your genes think is in your own selfish best interest, and those dumb-ass genes still think that it's the Stone Age, so they are often wrong about what's in your own selfish best interests.

Dan you really ought to invite some more experts and authors. President isn't going to answer this thread. They'll probably just ignore the email, like they do every email I send them. I haven't gotten a response to the email I sent to Barack for over a year now.

Quigley says

The thought of exposing my own children to even the IDEA of homosexual sex is absolutely abhorrent to me. And that's what the gay movement is now about.

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images. However, a good parent would have the sex talk with their children so that the children can wisely navigate the treacherous waters to adulthood. And having that talk includes talking about homosexuality, polygamous relationships (which are the norm today), being attracted to two people at once, cheating, STDs, heartbreak, and all the other nasty things in romantic relationships that they will encounter.

Most parents are cowards who just don't have the balls to have the difficult conversations with their kids and will do anything to weasel out of it. To those parents I say listen to the JFK speech again. We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. JFK got it right. It is exactly those things that are hard to do that build character.

Quigley says

It used to be about rights. Now it's about acceptance. Universal acceptance.

If by acceptance, you mean gays should be free from hate crimes and legalized discrimination, then yes, that's a good thing. Gays want to be "accepted" in exactly the same way that interracial couples are today.

Quigley says

California passed a law requiring gay sex to be taught about in schools. To kids. Someday my kids may bring home a permission slip to learn about gay sex in health class or social studies, and I won't be giving permission. I'd like them to keep their innocence of that particular type of (what to me and 95% of others) is a perversion as long as possible.

A bit off topic as this deals with the division of responsibility between the state and parents, not the question of the morality of gay sex. I'll address it briefly, but if you want to have a conversation about this, then spawn a thread.

The reason California is attempting to teach kids about homosexuality is to prevent them from growing up to be like the assholes who brutally murdered Mathew Shepard. And if talking to kids about gayness before they become violent teens prevents such murders, than I'm all for it. Imagine if those murderers had gotten such an education when they were kids. I think there's a pretty damn good chance that Mathew would still be alive.

Can we get this trash off of a HOUSING BLOG.

Dan8267 says

Not that I know of.

'Nuff said. You know it's always you people that don't have kids, don't want kids, knows all about child rearing.

Dan8267 says

If anything, not having a child makes me objective and thus better at resolving the conflicts of interest between parents and children. A judge must be impartial.

Well then in that case, me NOT being a Liberal, makes me objective and thus better understanding what this country really needs. We need less Liberals thinking they understand Family values, and we need less Gays pretending to be important to society based on how they swing.
Look if you can build a City with your bare hands, then God bless you, but the minute you pull your pecker out and expect moral acceptance, then that just makes you perverted sick deviant. That was once known as a great city builder.

Quigley says

Of course, if the gay mafia has its way, kids will be forced to learn positive and wonderful things about their lifestyle and sexual practices. Neolithic thinkers like myself will have their kids forcibly removed and placed in (very) loving gay homes for reeducation.
Understand this: people like me will not stand idly by for this.

That's the kind of paranoia that causes holocausts. It's irrational and dangerous.

There is no gay mafia, no attempts to take children away from their parents. And if paranoid people act on such delusions, they'll find themselves in prison very quickly.

Quigley says

The gay community was decimated by AIDS once already. Do you really think that was an accident? Think about it.

Missionaries often get tropical diseases. I guess that's god's way of saying that missionaries are immoral.

FortWayne says

I never said every disorder is immoral. I only said homosexuality is a disorder that I think should be treated because it sets a terrible example for children to imitate at a young age.

I don't follow your reasoning. Should disorders only be treated if they "set a bad example" for children? So, a heart order should not be treated because children aren't going to mimic heart palpitations, but Tourette Syndrome should because cursing is bad etiquette.

All disorders should be treated by definition of the word "disorder".

I think we are disagreeing on two issues. The first is whether or not homosexuality is a disorder. As I stated, all the well-respected medical associations (see the list above) do not classify homosexuality as a disorder and do not prescribe any treatment to cure homosexuality or diminish its symptoms.

It is utter irrational to ignore the entire medical community and accept the argument that homosexuality is immoral from some who probably doesn't practice medicine (yes, I'm making an assumption based on the fact that most people aren't doctors) and has given no medical evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is indeed a disorder.

Just from a rational, objective point of view, the statement that something is a disorder that isn't recognized as such by the entire medical world is an extraordinary statement and extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence.

I submit that you only consider homosexuality to be a disorder because your gut tells you it is. But you see, your gut is dumb. My gut is dumb. Everybody's gut is dumb. Guts convict people of crimes they didn't commit and make terrible decisions. Guts are persuaded by Stone Age instincts, cultural biases, and arbitrary personal preferences. Don't trust your gut, trust your frontal lobe.

Dan says, "Missionaries often get tropical diseases. I guess that's god's way of saying that missionaries are immoral."

I'm not equating morality with disease. That would be an idiot's argument. I'm suggesting that HIV was deliberately introduced into the very promiscuous gay community where it spread like wildfire. There is no real evidence to support this. But there is a connection between Equine Immunodeficiency Virus (EIV) which has been around for centuries and HIV. There have been cases of humans contracting the very similar EIV from horses (don't ask). And in 1974 researchers at the Johns Hopkins institute applied for and received a grant to develop a new virus based on EIV. How much further down this rabbit hole do you want to go?

FortWayne says

I only said homosexuality is a disorder that I think should be treated because it sets a terrible example for children to imitate at a young age.

So the second thing we disagree on is whether or not the public acknowledgement of the existence of homosexuality sets a bad example for children.

If two gay guys were fucking in front of your kids, I'd perfectly understand that you wouldn't want that. But that's already illegal for straights as well. It's not a discriminatory policy. More importantly, this isn't happening.

If you simply don't want your kids to know that homosexuality exists until they are teens, well that also doesn't have anything to do with the morality of homosexuality. But the most effective way to keep children ignorant of this fact is to fully embrace the gay rights movement.

If there is no slavery in our country, you can keep you kids ignorant of that horrible part of our past until they get to high school. If no woman is denied the right to vote, you can keep your kids ignorant of that injustice until high school. If our country doesn't torture (waterboard, etc.) people, you can keep your kids ignorant of that fact until high school. If interracial marriage is accepted, then you can keep your kids ignorant of such racism prevalent before 1970 until they reach high schools.

But if any of these evils occur on a daily basis in your country today, then you cannot keep your kids ignorant of these issues. So if you just don't want your kids thinking about this issues until they are older, the only way to accomplish this is to make gay sex as accepted legally and culturally as interracial marriage or woman's suffrage.

Now, I don't agree that keeping kids ignorant of social issues is a good thing, but that's another story. The bottom line is that gay pride parades go away when they are no longer needed. When was the last time you saw an abolitionist march?

That said, I disagree with the idea that two men kissing sets a "bad example" for children. That is nothing more than an arbitrary cultural bias. And as an American who firmly believes in the principle that all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I would find it repulsive and Unamerican to prohibit two men from kissing in public. Why did we fight the Nazis, the Soviets, the Civil War, and the Revolution if not for freedom.

FortWayne says

With destruction of family values so goes the nation. Our values is our glue that binds us all.

I would argue that the values that bind our nation are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would further argue that anti-homosexuality is not a "family value" and that the very term "family value" is a corrupted marketing term used to mask prejudices.

You might not want your kids to know about homosexuality, but image if one of your children turned out to be gay. Would it not be an essential "family value" to accept that child and his or her gay partner? Family values must include acceptance of gay people because eventually someone in your family is going to be gay.

FortWayne says

But I tell you, todays parents have it a lot harder than we had.

I agree with this, but I think for different reasons than you. I see parents today having to protect their kids from cops, soldiers, and corporations in ways that Americans did not have to a century before.

Civil and human rights have been greatly attacked and diminished over the past 12 years. The right to privacy is non-existent. Corporations pollute the environment and that poisons our bodies, and this is accepted as good for the economy. Teenagers are arrested and labeled "sexual predators" for sending a picture of their breasts to their boyfriends -- not something I approve of, but certainly something that doesn't make the girl a pedophile.

People are arrested for videoing the police, which is a First Amendment right and essential to prevent crimes by the police. Corporations hold detailed information about people without their consent. The president can legally arrest and kill a U.S. citizen without pressing charges or holding a trial because due process means whatever the government wants it to mean.

Yes, there are scary things in our society today, but two men kissing in a public park ain't one of them.

FortWayne says

Dan you really ought to invite some more experts and authors. President isn't going to answer this thread. They'll probably just ignore the email, like they do every email I send them. I haven't gotten a response to the email I sent to Barack for over a year now.

I'll gladly debate the president any time, any place. I'll tell him to his face exactly why his actions are evil and what he must do to correct them. And I'll do so sincerely and without any partisan bullshit. And that goes for any president who has ever existed or will ever exist.

Billybigrig says

Immoral maybe , but ridiculous yes !

I hate to break this to you but...
- the penis is round
- the asshole is round
- the mouth is round
- the hand can be oriented into a round shape

Mick Russom says

Can we get this trash off of a HOUSING BLOG.

It's under the Religion topic, so no. And since when is questioning the moral condemnation of homosexuality trash? People have literally died over this issue.

CaptainShuddup says

Nuff said. You know it's always you people that don't have kids, don't want kids, knows all about child rearing.

As I said, if anything this makes me objective and thus better qualified to deal with the inherent conflicts of interest between parents and children. A judge must be impartial.

Furthermore, your assumption that you must be in the role X to understand anything about X is utterly ridiculous.

I have never been a slave in my life. I still know that slavery is evil. I have never been a slave owner in my life. That doesn't mean I cannot judge the morality of slave owning.

Although your premise is wrong, it does illustrate the hypocrisy of your position. Let's for the sake of argument assume for the moment that your premise was sound. Someone who is not a parent cannot possibly have a valid philosophy regarding parenthood. OK, then by logical extension: Someone who is not homosexual cannot possibly have a valid philosophy regarding homosexuality for the exact same reasons.

Game, point, match.

CaptainShuddup says

Well then in that case, me NOT being a Liberal, makes me objective and thus better understanding what this country really needs.

Ah, Republican math. No wonder you guys could never balance a budget and ran this country into debt.

Social conservationism -- which is just code for bigotry -- is the antithetical position of liberty. Being childless is not the antithetical position of being a parent. The childless do not hate parents the way that conservative loathe liberals.

Quigley says

I'm suggesting that HIV was deliberately introduced into the very promiscuous gay community where it spread like wildfire. There is no real evidence to support this. But...

OK, not sure I buy the conspiracy theory, but spawn another thread if you want to discuss that. It's not relevant to the question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

Dan8267 says

I don't follow your reasoning. Should disorders only be treated if they "set a bad example" for children? So, a heart order should not be treated because children aren't going to mimic heart palpitations, but Tourette Syndrome should because cursing is bad etiquette.

I never said "ALL". Seeing a heart disease isn't going to give a child a heart disease, but seeing homosexual behave in their inappropriate manner is something totally different, it just might screw them up.

Sex is perfectly legal, but it's not shown on tv for a reason. Same with homosexuality, not in public, not where children can see it.

Just amazing to me, it should be obvious to readers here, the treasury has been fleeced, the safety net is frayed for everyone, straight or gay, there is a huge imbalance of wealth (which affects every child), the housing market, I don't even want to fucking go there. Yet, for some, 'family values' will save us and these Ugandian views on what same sex couples do?

FortWayne says

I never said "ALL". Seeing a heart disease isn't going to give a child a heart disease, but seeing homosexual behave in their inappropriate manner is something totally different, it just might screw them up.

OK, yes children do imitate, but the don't imitate everything they see, and when they do they don't imitate it exactly as it happened. Seeing gay is not going to give a child the gay. No more than seeing women in dresses is going to turn a little boy into a cross dresser. Lots of little boys experiment with wearing dresses, but very few become cross-dressers; it takes much more than seeing someone in a dress to make that happen.

My kids see smelly bums quite frequently in our neighborhood, but have never expressed an interest in exploring that behavior. They have also seen lip-on-lip kissing, but they don't imitate that behavior. I wish that they would imitate the putting poo and pee into the toilet behavior they see.

Yes, seeing some things can "damage" kids psyche, but loving adults holding hands and kissing is not one of them.

If a kid shows a desire to frequently "playact" man-on-man affection or woman-on-woman then there may be something else going on with that kid.

BTW, my kids have seen many gay couples and never imitated or said boo about it.

Billybigrig says

My post has absolutely nothing to do with shapes , only concepts of true nature of things .... Does a Mystro use a toilet plunger to lead an orchestra , does a carpenter use a saw for a hammer

? what is it about a man mouth that makes is so much less suited for a penis than a woman mouth?

Dan8267 says

As I said, if anything this makes me objective and thus better qualified to deal with the inherent conflicts of interest between parents and children. A judge must be impartial.

It is a question of understanding not impartial judgement, to which anyone's claim of is absurd.

Not defending the homophobes who project their subjective opinions of morality on their children but I do understand where the need to protect children arises from. It is not a simply from the head brain

There was a time when I didn't have children, I now have children my understanding of children and their relationship to parents and the outside world changed.

This thread is great. Here is what I learned...

If something bad happens to someone in my religion, that is god testing their faith.
If something happens to one of my enemies, that is god punishing them for their sins.

If I don't like something, then it is immoral and should be banned. Otherwise, someone might do it in front of the children and then my children will be doing it. Think of the children. It must be immoral in order to save the children.

In other news of circular logic: gay sex is immoral. Therefore, if we allow gay sex, we will then allow bestiality. Therefore, it is a slippery slope, and gay sex is immoral.

Gay people have a square penis.

Dan is smarter than most of the adversaries that he hooked into this debate. Bap seems to be smart enough to generally agree to disagree and avoid the debate.

Prostate exams are or maybe should be immoral.

Some people still think that homosexuality is a psychological disease.

Does that pretty much sum it up or did I miss something?