patrick.net

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.

Dan8267 says

Curious2 did answer your question with a simple yes. Yes, cutting in line is immoral.

I really cant find where that is, help me if you would please.

In an 8th grade understanding way, so I can grasp it and respond, please tell me: (1) why is cutting in line immoral? (2) is morality's primary function for the good of the group or the individual? This one is very important to help move the discussion along.

By the way, I hope you did see where I said I never dis-liked your posts. It matters to me.

oh, MAYBE male/male coupling is not reacted to in the same way as female/female coupling because the male human roll in the family/clan/tribe/society/group/nation is not the same as the female?

IMHO, people have a problem with people who are Lesbians/Gays/Bisexual/Transgendered (LGBT) in general because they think about sex when discussing these people. The rest of the time, they don't have to .

If someone is attracted to another person, they can imagine having sex with them and it's a happy little thrill. However, to be forced to think about "deviant" sex is another story. Because there's such a stigma attached, even if someone is turned on by the behavior they still deny it.

Celebrities/Actors are terrified to come out because they'll lose their career - which is crazy, considering that the average woman would never have a chance with the actor if the were straight. However, it's the illusion that sells.

People selectively quote the bible to support whatever view they have. They choose whichever "facts" to quote to support their story. It's no different than Faux News, MSNBC, etc. I think that Faux is the worst but the others do the same.

During the election, there was a commercial that said that an independent study found that.... without saying that the "independent study" was one they commissioned for the benefit of the commercial.

Same thing with gays - the perception of being a gay person is that you have promiscuous sex with everyone and anyone. Monogomy isn't associated with gays at all, even tho there are many gay people in monogomous relationships, or who are celebate.

It's alot easier to hate and mistrust than to accept that people have private lives that we don't know about... and that they are just the same as everyone else.

Dan8267 says

True morality is not an arbitrary opinion. There is something a universal and absolute basis for morality even though morality itself is not absolute.

Are you saying that meta-ethics is absolute and universal?

Morality is quite like aesthetics. A "bad" painting will look bad to most people. But it is not necessarily bad to find that "bad" painting good.

Dan8267 says

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

In fairness to Christianity, these are all Old Testament laws for the Jewish tradition. Christ's redemption freed the Christians from Old Testament law, which is why you won't find anything in the manner of the above in the New Testament.

Dan8267 says

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.

And I entirely disagree. Morality is a standard, that is why using the Bible works (for many of us) because, it is a standard, there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Just because YOU have decided, based on whatever your moral standard is, that rape is wrong, then it is to you. Society happens to share that standard with you, however, if your culture, your society and your 'norm' was that rape was okay (if not encouraged) then to you it's not immoral. In fact, in some people's twisted minds, it IS okay, if they society they live in disagrees, then they will be punished (when caught) but in their mind, there isn't much wrong and they don't understand why society has an issue with it. No, an individuals morality is based on what standard they are using to judge/base their attitude and behavior on/from. To you gay sex isn't wrong and it isn't immoral, to me it is. We obviously have different standards of morality.

Dan8267 says

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

Golly Dan, you're going to edumacate us all on how morality works, gee, thanks.

And my answers have been/are on track. In your world, using your particular moral standard, gay sex is okay. In my world, using the Bible to base my moral standards off of, gay sex is not okay. The question really isn't that hard, nor is the answer. It appears to me that you wanted some people to bash the issue using Bible verses so you could attack them.

mmmarvel says

It appears to me that you wanted some people to bash the issue using Bible verses so you could attack them.

I think this is an emotional issue, and the reasons people use can be rational to them and irrational to others. But did I miss something? Dan didn't bring up the bible first.

jessica says

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

Yes, morals are the ideal. Character, on the other hand, is what we do when no one is watching.

mmmarvel says

using the Bible works (for many of us) because, it is a standard

The NT quotes Jesus condemning remarriage after divorce. It also endorses faith healing. It does not quote Jesus saying anything against gay marriage; to the contrary, read Luke. Paul acknowledges his endless disagreements with the original disciples, yet you claim to believe in some imaginary monolithic doctrine that never existed. You claim the Bible as your standard as if you wrote the thing, and thus you illustrate Dan's earlier point. Abdicating responsibility for your own hypocrisy and blaming it on a book that you read selectively, and then claiming that book as your own standard while ignoring all others who reject your interpretation, is dishonest. I don't use those words lightly.

Bap33 says

By the way, I hope you did see where I said I never dis-liked your posts. It matters to me.

I believe you. The disliking of Dan's posts started when mmmarvel arrived, so I made that connection and never suspected you.

I have answered repeatedly your question about cutting in line. If you insist on a yes or no, fine, I'll spring the trap: yes, cutting in line is at least a little bit immoral, a comparatively minor trespass, not nearly as dreadful as what the Republicans were trying to do to America's Constitution. Taking someone else's place in line is bad, but "taking back" someone's whole country and government, which belongs equally to all of us, is much worse. Exactly one major demographic voted for Romnesia: white "Christians". They demanded to "take back" a country that never belonged exclusively or particularly to them, in the name of a theocracy that the founders of the republic expressly rejected. You, Bap, seem to epitomize that transgression. Have you learned nothing from defeat? The Larry Craig Republican vision has been rejected, and rightly so, yet you seem to persist in it. Last week Americans elected America's first Buddhist Senator, first Hindu Representative, first openly gay candidate for Senate. America is one nation, indivisible, and belongs equally to each of us. Attempts to hijack it and impose theocracy are much worse than cutting in line.

why do you say/feel/think/believe cutting in line is immoral?

Bap33 says

why do you say/feel/think/believe cutting in line is immoral?

Why do you keep repeating the same question no matter how many times I answer? And, why do you never answer the original topic question? And, why do you return to the original topic (gay sex) even on threads that have nothing to do with it?

I asked the same question, only because I do not see an answer. An answer that goes something likem "I think cutting in line is immoral for X Y and Z reasons."

I keep asking this question because it is important to shaping the discussion and force the pro-sodomite side to establish the existance of something other than self. Nothing more than that. It makes little sense to base my answer on my view of morality to only have someone say my entire view of morality is not part of their world, so my views are not welcomed. So, I am asking a very basic question, about a very basic function in society, and I assure you that Dan is a very smart guy and knows what I am doing and what my next move is, like chess. That is why he attacks right away, a kind of queen gambit, and then sets back and lets the discussion smolder as the name calling and "you only hate fags because you are one" typical crap gets slung around. This has happened 100% of the time in the past few years, so I'm pretty used to it. So, please answer and leave off the comments aimed at emotion, it just messes up the flow of the conversation in my opinion.

If, when, I mention male/male coupling on another thread, it was part of my point. I do not have a type of buzz-word turrets, where I just randomly type out the word sodomite.

Bap33 says

Dan is a very smart guy and knows what I am doing and what my next move is, like chess.

Dan is a very smart guy and you could learn a lot from him. Instead you seem to be playing some kind of game in your mind that you use as a rationalization to avoid answering the original question. You're so bent on Charlie Sheen "winning" that you don't seem to realize your strategy is self-defeating. At least people like Charlie Sheen, because he's funny and not a malicious bully, unlike Rush and Phelps and Larry Craig and Romnesia and their delusional followers.

Rush is highly entertaining. And I think Fox News is the best because they have Megyn Kelly.

Peter P says

Rush is highly entertaining.

So was Hitler

Peter P says

highly entertaining

Unfortunately it's mis-infotainment. Viewers of Faux News become less informed, and more uninformed, the more they watch.

If you want infotainment, try Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Jay Leno or David Letterman.

Bap33 says

I asked the same question, only because I do not see an answer. An answer that goes something likem "I think cutting in line is immoral for X Y and Z reasons."

Cutting in line is immoral because - as it has already been stated within this thread - the person cutting is depriving something from the others in the line. This is a simple form of cheating which is immoral.

Perhaps you are trying to compare the time cheated from those in line behind the cutter to the "ick" suffered by people offended by the idea of gay sex? Is this what you are trying to do?