patrick.net

robertoaribas says

So, I have a capital idea for the idiots on here: If you find yourself bothered by gay sex, don't have gay sex.

I suspect that for some that is easier said than done.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

You seem fixated on male/male homosexuality. Does that mean that female/female homosexuality is more palatable in your narrow world view? Or do you only concern yourself with the half of same sex relations that get your dick hard?

FortWayne says

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.

Even if every gay rights issue were passed, men would not be having gay sex in public. Yes, I'm fine with that being illegal. There are far bigger problems then legalizing public sex.

However, if that's all you mean by "setting a bad example", I don't think you have anything to worry about. No gay rights movement has ever proposed legalizing public sex, gay or straight.

If you mean you don't want your kids to see two adult men kissing in public, then that is just your own cultural and personal prejudices and the state should not act on them. Men do kiss in public in other countries and it doesn't screw up kids. Heck, heterosexual men kiss in public in some cultures.

Billybigrig says

Does a Mystro use a toilet plunger to lead an orchestra , does a carpenter use a saw for a hammer

Does a theatre troupe use garbage cans and brooms as instruments?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zu15Ou-jKM0

Oh, wait.

Dan8267 says

Even if every gay rights issue were passed, men would not be having gay sex in public. Yes, I'm fine with that being illegal. There are far bigger problems then legalizing public sex.

What is the philosophical basis of outlawing public sex?

I doubt it is worse than spitting on the street from a public health stand point. I would feel more threatened by people spewing germ-filled saliva in public.

rdm says

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

I can understand the practice of teaching because I was a student. I can understand the practice of parenting because I was parented. I can understand the horrors of the Holocaust, not because I experienced it but because I have empathy. I can put myself in someone else's shoes without having to physically experience the exact same things. I don't understand why this skill is unique to me. Why the hell doesn't every other member of my species possess this skill? It's not that difficult.

But in any case, as I said above, if my opinion on parenting doesn't count for shit since I'm not a parent, then nobody's opinion on homosexuality counts if they are not homosexual. Same diff.

leo707 says

robertoaribas says

So, I have a capital idea for the idiots on here: If you find yourself bothered by gay sex, don't have gay sex.

I suspect that for some that is easier said than done.

Your right. I hate gay sex, but somehow I always end up sucking cock on a Friday night. What's up with that?

Kids are more screwed up by bad parenting than by anything else. People need to stop blaming the society. If we worry so much about having bad kids perhaps we should restrict procreation only to certain people.

robertoaribas says

The people who through time have proven themselves to be the least intelligent are the most against homosexuality. I'd love to see some study of the correlation of intelligence and intolerance, but if this thread is any example, I'd bet its pretty high.

It's the same inverse correlation as intelligence and religion. Yes, there's something fundamentally there.

I consider myself an intolerant person (I prefer exactly 69F or it is either too hot or too cold). I just happen to celebrate choices and differences.

Choice is the most sacred thing a human being can possess.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

Citation?

You won't get any citation. The conservative right lives in a bubble and no facts can get through. The fact that Bap33 even made such a ludicrous statement demonstrates that he has no grasp on reality when it comes to the gay rights movement. It's like when McCarthy claimed that the army was full of communists.

I think such delusional perceptions of reality are clear proof that it is homophobia that is the mental disorder, not homosexuality.

CaptainShuddup says

What's the difference in China breeding all Males, most of which will never get a chance to mate and leave their legacy offspring, or if the American male turns into Richard Simmons. The outcome would be the same.

Wow, you are really grasping for straws. First off, that would be an issue of practicality, not morality. Second, unless every single man in the world turned into a flamer and refused to touch a woman, there would be no ill effects. Third, such an argument can't apply to polygamous bisexuals, who are also discriminated against. Fourth, anyone taking a vow of celibacy would be harming America by your assertion. Fifth, even waiting until marriage to have sex would be bad for America by your assertion.

Well, just over two full days and I have yet to hear a single, even remotely plausible justification for considering gay sex immoral. Does the religious right want to concede that they have always been wrong on this issue, or do they need more time to think something up?

Morality tends to be a loose meme based on volatile emotional reaction, tradition, paternal domination, hierarchy, attempts at enforcing social order, religion, evolved reactions designed to protect procreativity and health etc.

Sex is the ultimate territorial lynchpin, and since everybody tends to have some different variation of it, it becomes the biggest secret and the most emotional, irrational, personal and evocative secret.

My own opinion is that if you have a sense of justice, value ethics and fairness, do not act or react out of hatred or emotional volatility, and recognize when something hurts and endangers others, society, and yourself, then you don't have much need of morals per se. You are using a more precise and constructive instrument.

Dan8267 says

Does the religious right want to concede that they have always been wrong on this issue, or do they need more time to think something up

But the kooky right does love to hate though, and they're very good at it too.

Dan8267 says

Why the hell doesn't every other member of my species possess this skill? It's not that difficult.

Diversity is good for a species, right?

Dan8267 says

I can understand the practice of teaching because I was a student...

Yes, I agree that empathy (and logic) can bring someone a long way, but...without having the experience one will never fully understand because having an experience changes people. Without having fully gone through that change one will every truly "know" what any given experience is like. That said, all people that have children are not changed in the same ways, and cannot necessarily "understand" the others experience.

However, I still think that one can have a "valid" opinion on a matter that they have not personally experienced.

I am entering this conversation solely to engage in debate on the subject. I would be embarassed if someone thought I actually believed the following statement:

Gay sex is immoral because the bible says that it is.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Morality is defined as "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

I see a causation issue that I would like to address as respectfully as possible, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone by overlooking the limitations of typing on a screen.

zzyzzx says

the people I see who have the biggest problems with homosexuality all seem to be parents.

leo707 says

having an experience changes people.

Studies of voting patterns have shown that parents of public schoolchildren are not more likely to vote for more school funding than people who don't have children in public school. So, the experience of having children does not appear to change people in that respect. They may certainly feel different, and know more than they did, but their voting patterns don't seem to change as much as one might expect. Other threads on PatNet may explain why: both parents and teachers disagree sometimes with teachers' unions and how public school funding gets spent.

On the other hand, the likelihood of becoming parents varies significantly based on factors that have little to do with being right or even intelligent. For example, religion correlates inversely with intelligence (i.e., religious people tend to have a lower IQ), but correlates positively with having children (i.e. religious people are more likely to "be fruitful and multiply," as the Big Mormon Wagons illustrate so vividly). We had an earlier thread about a straight couple having sex on a table at a restaurant; they didn't seem very bright, which may actually increase the likelihood one of them might get pregnant.

So, I conclude that people who have children aren't more likely to become homophobic; they care very much about protecting their children, but they don't lose the ability to see that homosexuality isn't a threat. Meanwhile, people who are very religious, and parrot religious objections to homosexuality, are more likely to become parents. (And to tool around in SUVs that endanger their occupants and everyone else on the road, and to vote for holy wars all over the world, etc.) It doesn't mean that parents have necessarily more expertise on this particular subject, in fact they may have less.

jessica says

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

...and a responsibility to respect others' right to live by other principles not based on the Bible; furthermore:

curious2 says

msilenus says

If someone says...they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right.

But if they ignore most of what the book says, and fixate on certain points that they need for reasons of their own, then they aren't "right" objectively with reference to the book itself - they're merely illustrating something about themselves.

jessica says

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

The problem is when you decide for others based upon bible teachings. It also takes more effort to hate than is does to actually not even think about it or not hate.

And, other people as part of American society have the right to decide that your principles are wrong and hateful, along with their primciples NOT based on the teachings of the bible. Your choice of freedom of religion is protected, but not your efforts to force it onto others.

curious2 says

So, I conclude that people who have children aren't more likely to become homophobic, even though they care very much about protecting their children.

Yes, people do want to protect their children, but someone who does not view homosexuality as a "threat" is not going to change their mind on the subject after having kids.

curious2 says

Meanwhile, people who are very religious, and parrot religious objections to homosexuality, are more likely to become parents.

I am not so sure about this. I think that the biological drive to procreate transcends religion. However, there are certain religious groups that encourage people to have more children that they probably would have had otherwise.

curious2 says

It doesn't mean that parents have necessarily more expertise on this particular subject, in fact they may have less.

Agreed.

curious2 says

Jessica - that issue was addressed in the first page of the thread:
curious2 says

msilenus says
If someone says...they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right.
But if they ignore most of what the book says, and fixate on certain points that they need for reasons of their own, then they aren't "right" objectively with reference to the book itself - they're merely illustrating something about themselves.

There are no statements in the bible that contradict the passages that call gay sex immoral. There are statements that say sinners can repent for forgiveness but my citations are not 'picking certain points as I need them.'

The question posted wasn't 'why is gay sex bad for society.'

jessica says

There are no statements in the bible that contradict the passages that call gay sex immoral.

Sure there are; read Samuel's depiction of the relationship between David and Jonathan, or read Luke 17:34. And there are plenty of condemnations of other things that are legal, e.g. remarriage after divorce, wearing clothing of mixed fiber, handling pigskin (football), etc. And there are endorsements of things that are illegal and now considered immoral, e.g. slavery, religious murder, etc.

Melmakian says

Who cares?

Some Apocalypse could happen and the last thing on these peoples minds will be what gay people are doing.

"Dear Dr. XXX

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
"

Dan8267 says

I hate gay sex, but somehow I always end up sucking cock on a Friday night. What's up with that?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/

I think there is some truth in this humor:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

This too:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/irishamericans-gear-up-for-the-reinforcin-o-the-st,9200/

There's no point running away from stereotypes, especially when they're fun. And besides:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-whos-116th-irish-proud-of-his-irish-heritage,103/

jessica says

I am entering this conversation solely to engage in debate on the subject. I would be embarassed if someone thought I actually believed the following statement:

I thought about trying to play devils advocate on this one as well. I think that you articulated the only "reasonable." Reasonable in as that it makes "sense" that someone believing in the bible could come to that conclusion.

There are two flaws in the argument that immediately come to mind:

1. Cherry picking: not in that other parts necessarily contradict your claim, but that it is one "abomination" of many in the bible. Most (read all) American Christians choose to ignore some abominations but favor others. David9 illustrated this nicely with the DR. XXX letter (first time I saw it, it was a letter to Dr. Laura).

2. It is a circular argument, only convincing to people who first buy into the divine nature of the bible. FortWayne's argument was an attempt at being more universal, but I disagreed with his underlying assumptions. I think that an argument for a behavior being moral or not needs to have more universal appeal.

That said, if someone does believe in the bible very little can convince them otherwise.

Dan8267 says

You won't get any citation.

Yeah, I was not expecting one.

You can pretty much tell which commentors actually know gay people and which ones are red-state bumpkins who are just talking out their ass (no pun intended).

leo707 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

Citation?

good point. I can't give the "what/who/why" of the male/male sodomite agenda that has been placed in public schools, but I can say it has, because it has. Fact.

is cutting in line immoral?
is murder immoral?
is calling a person that looks like a negro, "niger", immoral?

Does morality (if it does exist) exist for the good of the whole or the individual? Seriously Dan, if you skip the other stuff, please answer this one. Thanks.

Bap33 says

is cutting in line immoral?

You keep asking that apparently rhetorical question, but I answered it for you pages ago. I'll go back and find the link for you. Essentially when you cut in line you are stealing from other people. You are taking from them something that they earned, i.e. they invested their time waiting to get to the head of the line, and you have taken that from them without their permission. Since you seem to claim a (selective) biblical morality, it seems reasonable to remind you that the 10 Commandments prohibit stealing but don't prohibit same-sex marriage.

curious2 says

Most of your examples involve stealing from someone else in one form or another. Sort of like when a group of religious fanatics hijack an airplane or a government and use it as a weapon to hurt other people... And you haven't identified anything at all wrong with, as you put it, "male / male coupling." The one thing you have illustrated correctly is why Republicans lost last week: they've fallen into the Rush Limbaugh / Fred Phelps cesspool, and they can't get out.

I have asked it (and the others) a bunch, and it has not been answered. I read your post, and I admit that I cant find your "yes" or "no" to my extreemly easy question. Try a simple yes or no, please. Is cutting (not waiting your turn behind others) in line immoral? Yes or no will work peachy. Thanks.

Bap33 says

Yes or no will work peachy.

I'm trying to understand why you are avoiding answering the original question. It seems like you are trying to play some sort of game to rationalize your endless claims to disapprove of "male/male coupling," to which you have returned even on other threads that have nothing to do with the subject, without answering the original question.

jessica says

I am entering this conversation solely to engage in debate on the subject. I would be embarassed if someone thought I actually believed the following statement:

Gay sex is immoral because the bible says that it is.

The religious don't dare try to use the Bible as a morality guide on me because they know from experience that I'll tear them a new asshole. The Bible doesn't even get the easiest moral question correct. Is slavery wrong? The Bible says slavery is ok and slaves should honor their masters. Well, there goes any credibility in the Bible.

Also in the Bible are gems like you must fuck your dead brother's wife and make sure to cum inside her or it’s a sin. Women who are menstruating must leave the city. If a mob wants to gang-bang your houseguest, you must offer your daughters instead.

Needless to say, the religious know enough not to even try using "word of god" as a moral justification. Even if there were a god, it would not effect what was right or wrong. Good and evil are a prior, not deities. If something is immoral, then even god should be able to answer the question why. Nor could a god turn something evil into good. For example, if god wanted you to rape babies, would raping babies be good? Hell no.

jessica says

The question posted wasn't 'why is gay sex bad for society.'

So true. The question is "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?". A question so far unanswered.

Bap33 says

is cutting in line immoral?
is murder immoral?
is calling a person that looks like a negro, "niger", immoral?

Is cutting in line immoral

Yes, because you are imposing a cost on another person against their will. It's a minor evil, but certainly it is a harm.

How does this apply to gay sex? Not at all. Consensual gay sex, like consensual straight sex is a benefit to the parties involved, not a cost.

is murder immoral?

Yes, even when cops and soldiers do it. Murder, the deliberate killing of another person without that person's permission, is immoral because you are taking away that person's life, freedom, and potential happiness without his or her consent.

How does that apply to gay sex? Not at all. Gay sex does no intentional harm. Of course, either gay or straight sex could pass on a STD if you are not using a condom, but unless the harm inflicted is intentional then it is not immoral, but just tragic. Furthermore, gay sex is not in itself harmful just like straight sex is not. That said, until science cures all STDs, which will probably happen in the next 100 or 200 years, wear a condom.

is calling a person that looks like a negro, "niger", immoral?

It depends on the context and purpose. If you call a person a nigger with the intention of dehumanizing that person, then yes, it is immoral. If, like many African Americans today, you use the word nigger in direct address as a means of removing the power of the word and preventing it from dehumanizing blacks, then it is actually quite moral to use the word and to call your friend or acquaintance a nigger.

Note to white people: Although blacks may use the word nigger to refer to literally any person, place, thing, idea, abstract concept, or dilemma regarding existential nihilism, it is still inappropriate for white people to call anyone a nigger. Black people, however, for the purpose of diminishing the word may say things like "That nigger stole my nigger and hide it in the nigger next to the nigger.". A fellow brother will completely understand what he means by each "nigger" in the sentence as the context makes each instance of the term disambiguous. If you don't know what was stolen or where it was placed in the preceding example, please refrain from using the word.

P.S. How does someone as racist as Bap misspell nigger?

Bap33 says

Does morality (if it does exist) exist for the good of the whole or the individual? Seriously Dan, if you skip the other stuff, please answer this one. Thanks.

Jesus Christ, I was already planning on writing the definitive text on the abortion question this weekend. Now you want me to explain the nature of morality, too? Seriously man, I need a time dilation machine to get done all the shit I have on my To Do list.

Here's the executive summary. I'll explain morality and how it works in detail after my abortion article.

- Yes, morality does exist.
- No, morality is not absolute.
- No, morality is not arbitrary.
- No, morality is not subjective.
- Yes, morality does have context.
- Yes, morality is culture-agnostic. Cultural rules are not moral rules even if marketed as such.
- Yes, there is more than one valid moral system.
- Yes, one can meaningfully compare moral systems and rate them according to various needs.
- No, there is no universal "best" morality as there are trade-offs.
- Yes, morality does exist to facilitate cooperation and the good of society (or the whole).
- Yes, morality does exist to protect the well being of the individual.
- Yes, the previous two goals do conflict. Get over it. That's why there are more than one valid moral systems for any given society, human or non-human.
- No, morality has nothing to do with a god or a religion. At best, religion can refrain from fucking up the discussion of morality.
- Yes, there are shades of morality. There are also complex trade-offs in more advanced systems.
- Yes, morality applies to non-human animals and artificial intelligents.
- Yes, engineers, particularly software engineers, are the best people to develop moral system. We have the hands on experience in coding systems. Morality is just another business domain. The tools used to model ecommerce, electronic publishing, online banking, and World of Warcraft are exactly the same tools you need to model morality correctly. Software is the most general purpose discipline, just like computers are the most general purpose tool.
- Yes, morality can be modeled entirely in a Turing Machine.
- Yes, this implies that one could create a machine that judges the morality of anything without error. Feel free to cause such a machine "god" if it makes you better. If I weren't so busy doing other things, I could program this god myself. And yes, if I did build such a machine, it would probably end up with the same fate as Jesus.
- No, I am not the only person on this planet who could program this god. There's bound to be a few others.
- No, Apple could not. The machine would have to work correctly.

Bap33 says

Try a simple yes or no, please. Is cutting (not waiting your turn behind others) in line immoral? Yes or no will work peachy. Thanks.

I love it when Bap thinks he's laid a cunning trap. It always turns out like this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/X4ccuyaz_Sw

Curious2 did answer your question with a simple yes. Yes, cutting in line is immoral. Cursious2 then went on to say why it's immoral and how the reason doesn't apply to gay sex.

Maybe if you oiled the trap again?

The answer to the question "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?" Depends ENTIRELY upon what or who you got/base your morals on. If your morals are based on/from the Bible, then gay sex is pointed out to be an immoral act several times. Since my moral code/rules come from the Bible, to me gay sex is immoral. Whatever you base your moral code/rules on, may make gay sex immoral in your eyes, or it may not.

mmmarvel says

The answer to the question "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?" Depends ENTIRELY upon what or who you got/base your morals on.

True morality is not an arbitrary opinion. There is something a universal and absolute basis for morality even though morality itself is not absolute. One cannot simply choose to make rape a moral act. It's not mere fiat. There are legitimate reasons underlying the distinction of good and evil. I'll go over those reasons when I write about how morality works.

For now, let's keep this thread on track and address only the question of gay sex.