patrick.net

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?

Peter P says

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

You go girl!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/E1lJ3tfQFpc

Dan8267 says

For example, if god wanted you to rape babies, would raping babies be good? Hell no.

Well, yes, it would, if it actually came from God. There is no such thing as a true right or wrong, good or evil. We do things based on what society says or what we believe God wants, defining the terms. If society wanted us to rape babies and God gave us a big thumbs up and promised Heaven for it, then surely it would be a "good" act. It is similar to killing terrorists, murder is technically "evil" but if we murder someone that society approves of us murdering, then it is now a good act. Two people opposing each other, both thinking they are doing good acts...happens more then you'd think.

Personally I could care less if two men have sex. If there was a God and it angered Him, that's their problem, not mine. Everyone should live their own life and not worry so much about what others are doing on their own time.

New Renter says

Peter P says

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

You go girl!

She was great in that video!

New Renter says

Peter P says

Rush is highly entertaining.

So was Hitler

Only in one of those Downfall parodies on Youtube.

Peter P says

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

She is a super hottie!

I think there are a lot of reasons people try to label homosexuality (or whatever) is immoral. Patrick mentioned the "moral rules in the interest of public health" reason. There is also the xenophobia thing -- homogenous groups tend to be more cohesive, so isolate the "others" by labeling their behavior / beliefs as immoral...etc.

I think another big one is that it's easier to think of the world in terms of oneself, so when you ask someone to think about and accept gay sex, it's tantamount to asking them to be ok with someone putting a penis in their rear. It's hard for them to get past this, so they aren't able to accept homosexual sex. It's easier for them to label it as immoral because it makes the whole uncomfortable thought experiment nice and tidy -- they appeal to some higher power and get off the hook for having to actually think about it.

Therefore gay sex is immoral.

QED

mell says

Peter P says

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

She is a super hottie!

She and maybe Erin Burnett. :-)

New Renter says

the person cutting is depriving something from the others in the line

If that is true, it would seem that man has some expected behaviors, and forming a line and waiting your turn one of them. Waiting your turn is not only moral, it is:
1) normal
2) expected
3) universal
4) simple enough that it is one of the first lessons for kids
5) Humans that do not follow the expectation are frowned upon, NO MATTER THE EFFECT ON OTHERS.
6) this normal activity has survived all of the generations of America without a special law, ammendment, citation, or decree.
7) Bible does not say to do it.

Now, who is willing to say that human coupling is more complicated, or less basic to a healthy society, than the simple act of forming a line to wait your turn? It seems that humans do some things because they are "just", "right", "moral", and they pass them down on purpose. If cutting in line is immoral, then male/male coupling is immoral. Society and the history of man says so.

New Renter says

This is a simple form of cheating which is immoral.

who says cheating is immoral? what is the reason?

Bap, your claim that what's "normal" and "expected" is "moral," and everything else is "immoral," doesn't make any sense and is merely a circle that you are trapped in to say that certain couples are supposedly "immoral."

If someone asks, "How are you," it is normal and expected for you to say you're fine. But, you could answer honestly that you're suffering from explosive diarrhea, or you could say you're "peachy," or you could say "blue kettle flying teapot." None of those answers would be normal or expected, but none of them would be immoral.

Anyway male/male couples have been normal for thousands of years, getting married etc. You seem to define "expected" based on the terribly limited experience of 1950s TV. Consider Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan." People assume that "normal" swans are white, and that a black swan would be an abnormal and extremely rare event, until they see plenty of healthy black swans.

You can't rationalize calling certain couples "immoral" based on such contrived sophistry. You certainly can't claim any moral high ground for yourself, in a world where we are all sinners, based on conformity.

curious2 says

You certainly can't claim any moral high ground for yourself, in a world where we are all sinners, based on conformity.

on this we agree 100%

Bap33 says

New Renter says

This is a simple form of cheating which is immoral.

who says cheating is immoral? what is the reason?

(Sigh) seriously?

Cheating is immoral because - again - it deprives others of something whether it be their time, their money, their labor etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating

Who calls it immoral (aside from wikipedia)?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm133.htm
(Its punishable too:)
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-16216.h1.html

Most academic honor codes (if you don't like my example feel free to find one from any accredited university of your choice)
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/03/11/pavela1

I'd guess your significant other might have some strong opinions on it too - heck, why not go ask her right now?

Hey honey, if I we're to cheat on you, would that be wrong?

Get back to us when you're out of the hospital.

People should not take "books" as their moral guide. Esp. most religious books have been heavily censored by the ruling church at the current time and rewritten countless times. Religion/Spiritualism can be great as a moral compass and passages of books can help, but in the end it is between you and whatever your personal higher moral instance is, a never-ending dialog of refinement and searching, yet a positive one. Live and let live. Or, in geek terms and on an interstellar level, the "prime directive" ;) Personally I prefer religious/spiritual interpretations where (consentual) sex is viewed as purely positive and as a deeply spiritual tantric experience, without the claim to any possessions and the mandate of monogamy which goes against our beautiful human nature. Consentual sex is never immoral, be it gay or straight. Heed the bonobos! ;)

mell says

Consentual sex is never immoral, be it gay or straight.

Bravo!

curious2 says

It does not quote Jesus saying anything against gay marriage; to the contrary,

Gee, and Jesus never said anything about breaking the bones in a puppy's legs either. In fact there are a whole world full of specific things that Jesus never said anything about, do you REALLY think he thought gay relations (let alone marriage) was a good thing? My thoughts are if someone had asked him, he would have done one of those, "Do you REALLY have to ask the question?"

curious2 says

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

I claim it as my standard because I believe it to be God's word. I'm not abdicating responsibility, I've read the Bible, I believe I understand the Bible and I try (very hard) to live as we are asked to do from the Bible. The Bible does have absolutes, period. I am not/do not ignore others who reject my interpretation, everyone is free to accept, reject, come up with their own 'standard' by which they live. If you and Dan and whom ever else wants to do whatever (including believing that gay marriage is fine), bully for you. From my point of view, after you die (and after I die) we will be held accountable for our actions. You may believe that after we die there is nothing, your choice on what you believe. You might feel that after you die, your actions and beliefs that gay marriage is proper and fine is what the final judge will want people to believe/do - fine, your choice. We are placing bets, I've made my choice/placed my bet, you've done the same. After we pass away we'll see who was right and who was wrong.

mmmarvel says

we will be held accountable for our actions.

Perhaps, but I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions in the here and now.

The bottom line is that gay sex/gay relations has absolutely zero impact on the person not participating. There is simply not a single valid compelling reason to deny a whole class of people their civil rights. So in the end, what you think of me and what you think of gay sex is none of my business.

Back to the here and now, I would like to leave you with this;

Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people

Before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children.

Before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors.

In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

mmmarvel says

We are placing bets, I've made my choice/placed my bet, you've done the same.

I wouldn't call it a bet, it's more of a spiritual journey. I am closest to a mix of Gaianism (babylonian mother earth) which views the earth (and thus the universe) as one organism that you protect and cherish because you are a part of it, some shaman influences from Ruiz, some buddhism as well as Indian tantra/yogi spiritualism and some of my christian roots and it makes a good compendium.

Buster says

In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

Which has been said in other words as, 'Walk the talk' - and I agree with you.

mell says

I wouldn't call it a bet, it's more of a spiritual journey

Different terms for the same idea in my mind.

mmmarvel says

Buster says

In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

Which has been said in other words as, 'Walk the talk' - and I agree with you.

Good for you mmmarvel and I applaud you. Unfortunately, most people of faith have zero connection with how they live their lives vs how their faith tells them to live their lives. Faith and religion is simply a mask they wear for others to see all the while living imoral lives. The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

New Renter says

Cheating is immoral because - again - it deprives others of something whether it be their time, their money, their labor etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating
Who calls it immoral (aside from wikipedia)?
The Uniform Code of Military Justice
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm133.htm
(Its punishable too:)
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-16216.h1.html
Most academic honor codes (if you don't like my example feel free to find one from any accredited university of your choice)
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/03/11/pavela1

everyone please note: These are all from text/books, and were wrote by humans.

Bap33 says

everyone please note: These are all from text/books, and were wrote by humans.

Your point Wile E?

Buster says

The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

Hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to those who claim to live life with a religious bent to it. I love the liberals who want everyone to be open minded and tolerant ... right up until they meet with someone who espouses a different point of view.

mmmarvel says

Buster says

The irony is not lost on any casual observer and unfortunately the examples of this are hoisted upon us everyday. Hypocrisy of these folks seems to be infinite.

Hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to those who claim to live life with a religious bent to it. I love the liberals who want everyone to be open minded and tolerant ... right up until they meet with someone who espouses a different point of view.

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition. That is not intolerance rather it is trying to gain a better understanding of an alternate viewpoint.

dig the meme though :)

New Renter says

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition.

Never said the OP was intolerant, but the reason of considering it immoral because it goes against what I take to be my moral standard (the Bible) is no more or less a legitimate position as those who believe that it's not immoral because two people 'love' one another. As I stated before, it is or is not immoral to you based on what you are using to be your moral standards.

mmmarvel says

New Renter says

The OP simply asked those who feel homosexual sex is immoral to explain their position in a manner that the OP can understand. That manner asks for logic and enlightened reasoning instead of than tradition and superstition.

Never said the OP was intolerant, but the reason of considering it immoral because it goes against what I take to be my moral standard (the Bible) is no more or less a legitimate position as those who believe that it's not immoral because two people 'love' one another. As I stated before, it is or is not immoral to you based on what you are using to be your moral standards.

So to sum up you believe gay sex to be immoral because the Bible says so. Is this correct?

mmmarvel says

I've read the Bible....

You don't appear to have read Samuel and Luke, or Proverbs 18:22, and you seem to have overlooked the fact that same-sex marriage was legal and part of the social context when the Bible was written. And, you haven't explained how re-marriage after divorce, which the NT expressly condemns, can be moral and yet at the same time same-sex marriage wouldn't be. You just reiterate your circular claim that you believe your belief, which you tie to a book that doesn't necessarily support your claim anyway. It's as if you were saying, "my next door neighbors told me so and they're always right," when in fact that isn't what they said and besides they can't always be right because they contradict each other.

If this were only a matter of your private character, no one would care. But too often such circular claims of "morality" are misused as arguments for and against legislation. We have at the moment a major political party that has become an apocalyptic cult, abandoning its role in addressing matters of genuine public concern in favor of enforcing what some call biblical morality. The relevance should be clear: consider John Ashcroft's efforts to divert FBI funding away from counter-terrorism and instead towards pornography enforcement and the "drug war," culminating in his infamous September 10, 2001 letter to Congress. Evidence-based government requires careful objectivity, while faith-based government results in catastrophic consequences.

This is from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity was seen as unnatural or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.

Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. In addition, state courts in 10 states applied state constitutional provisions to invalidate sodomy laws. As of early 2003, eight states had laws that barred heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. Three other states barred sodomy between homosexuals.

And also:

sodomy n. anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman. If accomplished by force, without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is. Homosexual (male to male) sodomy between consenting adults has also been found a felony, but increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense. However, there have been a few cases, including one in Indiana, in which a now-estranged wife insisted that a husband be charged with sodomy for sexual acts while they were living together. Traditionally sodomy was called "the crime against nature." Sodomy does not include oral copulation or sexual acts with animals (bestiality). (See: rape, bestiality)

And from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

definition of sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

New Renter says

Bap33 says

everyone please note: These are all from text/books, and were wrote by humans.

Your point Wile E?

lol .. if you read through the volumes above here you will find those on your side telling those on my side that we are stupid for following a book. Honest, it's there. lol. Not a biggie, just funny.

curious2 says

You don't appear to have read Samuel and Luke, or Proverbs 18:22, and you seem to have overlooked the fact that same-sex marriage was legal and part of the social context when the Bible was written. And, you haven't explained how re-marriage after divorce, which the NT expressly condemns, can be moral and yet at the same time same-sex marriage wouldn't be.

Let's answer these questions since you've seen to have taken such offense to me; no problem (must be that tolerance that liberals show). First Samuel, the story of Jonathan and David, I could dispute it based on it is from the Old Testament and as a Christian I'm not bound by the Old Testament but merely look at it as backup, tradition to the New Testament which I am bound by, but let's not go the easy route. The story is of two men who are very close friends, NO WHERE in the story is it suggested that they are intimate. They are merely close friends who support each other to an extreme. I too had a friend who at one time was without cash or a place to stay, he stayed with me for four months while he got on his feet and I footed the expenses for everything; however we were never sexually attracted to each other. Next Proverbs 18:22, it says, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord." And since we remember that wife in the the Old Testament is always referred to as a 'she'; as in Proverbs 31:10 "An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels."

Let's move to Luke, now we're finally in the New Testament. The passage (Luke 17:34-35) where Luke is talking about the rapture. He writes, " I tell you, in that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." The way I read it, if it was support for gay sex, then both would be taken. No, the passage is meant to show that a person (even a homosexual who's sin is on the list of sins that are an abomination to God) who has heard and believes in Jesus, that that person will be saved; it does NOT advocate or promote gay marriage or gay sex.

Finally to your assertion that same-sex marriage was legal when the Bible was written. Well with Roman rulers like Nero and Caligula, yup, that wouldn't surprise me at all; however per God's Word, it's never been okay with Him. As for your other questions, like divorce; while I could easily answer that (although it takes a lot of text) this original question was regarding gay sex, so I'll limit myself to that. Good Day.

Bap33 says

In an 8th grade understanding way, so I can grasp it and respond, please tell me: (1) why is cutting in line immoral?

Dan8267 says

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.

I don't see how I can dumb it down any further. If you want me to trigger your trap, you really have to point out what you want me to say to set off the trap. I'm willing to trigger your trap, but I don't know how.

Bap33 says

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.

No, this question would be important to the thread in which I discuss the nature of morality, but I haven't written that thread yet. Just finished the abortion one and I'm waiting for Patrick to increase the thread size so I can post that thread.

This question is completely irrelevant to the question "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?". I will only entertain your question briefly as I'm not letting red herrings that this thread off track.

The answer to your question is neither. Neither the group nor the individual has absolute priority in a well-constructed moral system.

Bap33 says

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

Yes. I apologized for presuming that it was you. There must be some asshole flagging all of them. Not that a person's dislike count means anything, but I've always found it repugnant for a person to abuse a forum feature. It shows disrespect for the community.

It's fine for people to dislike what I say, but when they dislike a post simply because I posted it, like the following, it's transparently childish.

Dan8267 says

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.

But that's the price to pay for freedom of speech.

Personally, I only dislike posts that are deliberate trolling attempts. And very few people have gotten my dislikes.

Bap33 says

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?

No. Male homosexuality is loathed while female homosexuality is not because heterosexual men have lesbian sexual fantasies. Put simply, men are pigs and utter hypocrites when it comes to gay sex. We're simply not that noble or rational. And that's why everyone should listen to their frontal lobes rather than their guts.

Furthermore, in the modern era, there are no male and female roles but simply roles filled by men and women. The 21st century isn't the Stone Age. Labor is not divided based on gender. And, in fact, most labor is mental anyway, so Stone Age needs do not apply to modern society anyway.

Peter P says

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.

Universal, yes. Absolute, no.

Just like the laws of physics don't vary from place to place, neither do the laws that govern the creation of moral systems, even though such moral systems vary as greatly as bridge designs. The underlying mathematics of bridge design, however, is absolute and universal.

Philistine says

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.

The New Testament is pro-slavery. That alone makes the New Testament an utter failure as a moral guide.

Furthermore, the early Christian church, which is the root of all Christian religions, was as anti-women as the Middle East is today. That also makes Christianity at its roots a terrible basis for morality in the modern world.

mmmarvel says

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.

If morality was nothing more than arbitrary opinion, it would be worthless and there would be no reason to discuss it.

Some moral systems work far better than others. Understanding why matters.

mmmarvel says

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

Only if you are wise enough to listen.

Is there anything wrong with sharing knowledge? Why does the idea of learning something from another human being offend you so?

mmmarvel says

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.

1. Whether or not you consider gay sex to be immoral is not the question. The question is why do you consider gay sex to be immoral. Even if morality were just an arbitrary opinion, opinions have reasons. I like ice cream because it tastes sweet. I don't like the taste of shit because evolution implanted a repulsion response in my species in order to keep us from getting sick by eating shit.

2. The question was not meant to be hard. Yet, it still remains unanswered.

3. My intention in asking this question was to either find a legitimate reason why homosexuality is immoral or to demonstrate that there isn't one. The fact that Bible thumpers are the biggest and dumbest idiots isn't my fault.

Nevertheless, even the religious should be able to give a non-religious reason why they think gay sex is immoral. If there only reason is because their Bible says so, then I am right to point out the utter hypocrisy and contradiction as the Bible says that slavery is good and many, many other things that no Bible-thumper today would advocate as good morality.

curious2 says

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

Having read mmmarvel's recent posts, I agree. He does sound like a troll douche-bag.

Nevertheless, he's just making his side look like assholes.

At least FortWayne made some rational attempts to justify considering gay sex to be immoral. And even though his attempts ended up more about cultural norms and practical issues, at least it was a sincere attempt to answer the question.

curious2 says

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.

My strategy on this thread, and all others, is pretty straight-forward and simple. Transparency, transparency, transparency. Just keep probing by asking the question why until you get to the underlying kernel of truth, the reason for a political or, in this case, moral stance.

If just keep asking why, eventually you find out what's really important to people.

So far, it seems that what's important to anti-gay persons is simply conformity to their arbitrary culture. I think that gay sex is immoral because that was what I was raised to believe. And that is not a good justification for calling something immoral.