patrick.net

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Yes, one does wonder about someone with such strong negative beliefs about sodomy yet chooses such a blatantly homoerotic avatar.

I said that in the original post. Bap reminds me of Eric Massa.

Captian America is only homoerotic to male sodomites, and he's ok with that. The tights do have a function.

Per andrewsullivn today;
"What some have yet to understand is that marriage equality is not an "attack" on "morality". It's a way to affirm the already existing commitment to one another that a gay couple can achieve, to create a stable home where none existed before, to affirm values of mutual responsibility and care that are conservative, in as much as they protect the family from the acid of homophobia. It's homophobia that tears families apart, not same-sex orientation. And it's marriage that brings families together - including, at last, the gay members within it.

In many organic social changes right now, what appears to be de-moralizing is actually a form of re-moralizing, devising ways to channel already existing behavior into new and more productive and more responsible forms. That's what the marriage equality movement has in common with the fight against marijuana prohibition. It admits reality - loads of people are gay and even more people smoke weed - and makes the best of it, in true Burkean fashion. It offers civil marriage to gay people and a perfectly marketable, legal product to marijuana-enthusiasts - giving states revenues, parents' more security, and millions of people a reason to watch HD TV. It folds people into middle class society, rather than marginalizing them outside".

Bap33 says

my good fellow, is the OT law the law of the land? Do we kill birds and sheep each week? You are being dishonest in your approach for some reason.

If you want to disavow half the Bible, then fine. I disavow the entire damn thing. However, if you are taking the stance that the New Testament is all that matters, then what in the New Testament says that homosexual sex is a sin or immoral? Jesus never said anything about gay sex being bad.

You can't have it both ways. No pun intended.

Let's go with the New Testament is good and the Old Testament is evil -- forgetting that the New Testament is pro-slavery for the moment. Once again, I ask the question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?"

Bap33 says

ANd the blasts are coming faster and harder from you and your co-captians now that my point was made about the simple act of waiting in line and male/male coupling.

I must have missed that. Exactly how did you make the leap of logic from "cutting in line is immoral" to "gay sex is immoral"?

Bap33 says

That is why you see cutting in line as only being wrong because it harms the lone individual. Order, process, proper conduct, are all part of why waiting in line is a good thing and, for the record, waiting in line is ONLY needed for the good of the group. A singular person has no line. THere must be plural people to need the line. Waiting your turn is better for a moral society, just like shunning male/male coupling is.

Oh, I missed this because it was preceded by so much bullshit I had to stop reading. I can only take so many logical fallacies in a post before I just give up on it.

So, cutting in line is immoral because it creates chaos, interferes with a process, and is improper conduct. Surely decreases in efficiency are bad in the practical sense, but not necessarily in the moral sense. And the underlying reasons for all your complaints about cutting in line ultimately have to do with inflicting costs on individuals. In fact, there is no way to inflict costs on a group except by inflicting costs on the individuals that constitute that group.

More importantly, whether or not waiting your turn in a line is better for a moral society has nothing to do with shunning gay sex. How the fuck does calling gay sex immoral help society or any individual? It most certainly harms society and individuals. When a person like Mathew Shepard is murdered horrifically because of "shunning male/male coupling", it hurts the person murder, his family, his friends, his neighbors, and the community at large.

If you base morality on what makes community runs smoothly, then it is a moral imperative to fully accept homosexuality and homosexual relations. By the very principle you propose, it is utterly immoral to shun homosexual acts.

By demonizing gay sex, you not only harm society in all the ways I just mentioned, but you also create strife within families that have a homosexual member. Such strife can and does tear apart families unnecessarily. Given your emphasis on the need of strong families for society, this is yet another reason that demonizing gay sex is immoral.

Dan8267 says

By demonizing gay sex, you not only harm society in all the ways I just mentioned, but you also create strife within families that have a homosexual member. Such strife can and does tear apart families unnecessarily. Given your emphasis on the need of strong families for society, this is yet another reason that demonizing gay sex is immoral.

Dan, remove the words "gay" and "sex" and insert thievery, or murder. And where it says "homosexual member" insert thief or murderer. Now, read the sentance again and explain how soiciety is correct to protect itself from the actions of individuals that just happened to be born with the mental/physical condition to be such people. And then, go read the reasons you and others gave as to why cutting in line is immoral. You are willing to shun line cutters for the good of the one person that gets cut in front of, and that will bring strife to the family of the cutter. I am willing to shun line cutters for the cause of normalcy, order, good, and for the betterment of society - knowing that their family may be harmed, but hoping that their family has an understanding of what is moral, and why.

What happened to the discussion about prison behavior and prisoners that are sodomized and/or sodomizing. If they are gay, you would have to say it is no different than having women and men together in prison. But the very mention of that resulted in "Oh no there will be RAPE!". That conversation was going well and then fell silent. I'm not suprized. THe pro-deviant-male-sodomite crowd has no problem subjecting male prisoners to sodomite rape by force, but is against the idea of male/female prisoner sex. That is some queer thought process.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/04/homophobic_maybe_you_re_gay_the_new_york_times_on_a_new_study_of_secret_sexuality_.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_1412846.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/09/study-homophobic-people-likely-repressing-homosexual-attraction/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

http://www.care2.com/causes/study-homophobia-masks-gay-feelings.html

Food for thought?

Bap33 says

my good fellow, is the OT law the law of the land?

So, man's law trumps god's law in your opinion? Hmmm...that does not sound very Christian, putting the law of man above the law of god...

Bap33 says

A person calling themselves a Christian has nothing to do with a person being a Christian.

So, how do we know you are actually a "real" Christian? You seem to pick-and-choose which of gods laws you want to follow.

If "man" passed a law requiring you to partake in homosexual behavior would you just shrug your shoulders and say,"Oh, well! I gotta follow man's law over gods."

Bap33 says

What happened to the discussion about prison behavior and prisoners that are sodomized and/or sodomizing.

I believe that you and I were the only ones taking part in that discussion, and the Pnet time I have is limited.

Bap33 says

If the prisons were mixed, would man/women sex be consensual most times or rape? Give a percentage please.
What is the percentage of male/male sex in prison that is rape vs consensual?

I don't know I would have to do some research on this, and I am sure the data is spotty. Why is this important to you?

When a male prisoner rapes a male prisoner, which one is "gay"? Both?

Gays often become the targets of rape in prison. You should look up "situational homosexuality"; that will answer your question.

Bap33 says

THe pro-deviant-male-sodomite crowd has no problem subjecting male prisoners to sodomite rape by force, but is against the idea of male/female prisoner sex.

?
Perhaps you misunderstood my following comment:
leo707 says

It is not that I am assuming rape, but I mentioned rape because rape is what bothers me. Also, because it is very common in place where you put a bunch of anti-social aggressive men--like in prison. Consensual sex does not bother me. If adult consenting men--in prison or not--want to have sex I could really care less. If they can build strong healthy relationships, then I am happy for them.

To clarify...
Rape (any kind) = bad
Consenting sex (any kind) = fine*

*While I think that consenting adults should be able to have any kind of sex they want there are things done in the bedroom by both homo and heteros that would put me off, and I am pretty tolerant. You want percentages? 90% of people are shocked and disgusted by what 90% of people do for sexual gratification.

Bap33 says

That is some queer thought process.

Well, we agree that there does seem to be some queer thought process going on...

New Renter says

leo707 says

One of my favorite Bap theories is that the earth was once encased, somewhere at or above the thermosphere, in an ice shell. This shell was responsible for a few things that I forget. I think one was the melting of the shell caused Noah's flood.

Sounds like snowball earth:

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

I doubt the ice sheet was more than a few miles thick though

A sheet of ice sitting on the surface of the earth? How pedestrian!

Lift that sheet of ice so that it is above the atmosphere, and now you have a theory that sounds reasonable to Bap. Well, reasonable as long as it agrees with the parts of the bible Bap chooses to believe in.

From the former GOP RNC Chair on same sex marriage;

Ken Mehlman: Making the Marriage Equality Case
November 21, 2012
AFER Boardmember and former RNC chair Ken Mehlman pens an Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal making the conservative case for marriage equality.

“They say demography is destiny, and in American politics destiny has belonged to those who best aligned their core beliefs with the rapidly changing and ever-improving citizenry.

“Conservatives—and I count myself as one—succeed when we attract new supporters to timeless traditions. The Republican Party’s loss in this month’s presidential election resulted partly from a failure to embrace some of America’s fastest-growing constituencies. One area of significant change is in attitudes toward legal equality for gay Americans.

“Some misperceive the issue of marriage equality as exclusively progressive. Yet what could be more conservative than support for more freedom and less government? And what freedom is more basic than the right to marry the person you love? Smaller, less intrusive government surely includes an individual deciding whom to marry. Allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples will cultivate community stability, encourage fidelity and commitment, and foster family values.
…

“Conservatives don’t need to change core convictions to embrace the growing support for equal rights for gay Americans. It is sufficient to recognize the inherent conservatism in citizens’ desire to marry, to be judged on their work, and not to be singled out for higher taxes or bullying at school. These objectives can be achieved while also protecting religious liberty, as demonstrated by states enacting civil marriage with exemptions for religious institutions.”

leo707 says

To clarify...
Rape (any kind) = bad
Consenting sex (any kind) = fine*

It's really that simple. Freedom is what the US is supposedly all about. It's part of your civil liberties to stick your finger in somebody else's nose and pull the boogers out as long as it is consentual. And others have the freedom of association, or better non-association if they don't want to be around others that rub them the wrong way.

leo707 says

To clarify...
Rape (any kind) = bad
Consenting sex (any kind) = fine*

umm, that is not correct. There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent ... so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent. That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

Bap33 says

There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent

Yes...

Bap33 says

so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent.

A. Not all mental conditions prevent someone from giving consent.

B. Homosexuality is not viewed as a "mental issue" by any professional body that deals with mental issues (this has been responded to earlier in this thread). There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

C. Even if this were the case. Following your logic, homosexuals would not be able to consent to heterosexual sex either.

Bap33 says

That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

Thanks you for finally getting to the point.

leo707 says

Lift that sheet of ice so that it is above the atmosphere, and now you have a theory that sounds reasonable to Bap. Well, reasonable as long as it agrees with the parts of the bible Bap chooses to believe in.

This is an issue with monotheists generally; their personal god always agrees with them, and they come to believe that they are God. (See Dan's earlier thread on this topic.) The world was covered by a giant ice dome in the sky, until Captain America FKA Thor heroically hammered it away to make the world safe for American democracy which must impose Bap's theocratic beliefs on everyone. BTW Catholics aren't really monotheists, they have recreated the Roman pantheon with "patron saints" (minor deities) for every purpose, which insulates them somewhat (but certainly not entirely) from Bap's delusions of grandeur.

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

loe mentioned that the male population in prison in mostly males with mental conditions and birth defects -- one of the obvious reasons that they are in prison in the first place ... and it is well known that prisons have lots and lots of male/male coupling going on (wanted and unwanted). The mental health of those performing these acts should be questioned .... along with those not in prison.

curious2 says

American democracy

nope, a representative government with limited powers that are granted by the free members of each state.

Bap, by your rule left-handed people are immoral and mentally ill because they do not conform to the right way, i.e. the right-handed way. Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

Bap33 says

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

Restating your opinion is not evidence.

Bap33 says

loe mentioned that the male population in prison in mostly males with mental conditions and birth defects

? is that "loe" meant to be "leo?"

curious2 says

Bap, by your rule left-handed people are immoral and mentally ill because they do not conform to the right way, i.e. the right-handed way. Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

I am sure that Bap has a long list of people who he feels are mental/physical defectives and therefore are unable to have consenting sex.

Forget homosexuals, for starters half of Americans (Or is it just 47% Bap?), because of their inability to give consent due to having a mental disorder, are raped every time they have sex.

Bap33 says

I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Bap33 says

umm, that is not correct. There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent ... so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent. That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

No, that's exactly correct. You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public. I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will. You can think whatever you want, but under the premise of the US constitution adult consentual sex by law is never abuse.

mell says

I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will.

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

By demonizing gay sex, you not only harm society in all the ways I just mentioned, but you also create strife within families that have a homosexual member. Such strife can and does tear apart families unnecessarily. Given your emphasis on the need of strong families for society, this is yet another reason that demonizing gay sex is immoral.

Dan, remove the words "gay" and "sex" and insert thievery, or murder. And where it says "homosexual member" insert thief or murderer. Now, read the sentance again and explain how soiciety is correct to protect itself from the actions of individuals that just happened to be born with the mental/physical condition to be such people.

Yes because substituting words never changes the truth of a statement. For example, ...

Fucking your wife is a good way to spend your vacation.
Fucking your daughter is a good way to spend your vacation.
Murdering your wife is a good way to spend your vacation.

When you see a cop, smile and say "Have a nice day, officer!".
When you see a cop, smile and say "I'm going to kill you motherfucker!".
When you see a cop, smile and say "Now where did I put my crack, oh yeah, in my pockets.".

Police should arrest anyone who is murdering.
Police should arrest anyone who is praying.

Prayer is far closer to murder than gay sex is. Prayer has enabled people to commit crimes against humanity like the Holocaust. Not so much with gay sex.

Bap33 says

What happened to the discussion about prison behavior and prisoners that are sodomized and/or sodomizing. If they are gay, you would have to say it is no different than having women and men together in prison. But the very mention of that resulted in "Oh no there will be RAPE!".

What the fuck does gay rape have to do with consensual gay sex? The question of this thread is about consensual gay sex, not rape. Of course gay rape is evil for the exact same reasons that straight rape is evil.

And as for prisons, any violence perpetrated by a cop or an inmate on another inmate is the fault and failing of the prison system. The state should be criminally and financially liable for all violence done to inmates regardless of the costs.

To allow any abuse of inmates by anyone is not only immoral, but it is Unamerican.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

my good fellow, is the OT law the law of the land?

So, man's law trumps god's law in your opinion? Hmmm...that does not sound very Christian, putting the law of man above the law of god...

They are one in the same. Man writes the laws. God is a puppet figure.

leo707 says

You should look up "situational homosexuality"; that will answer your question.

Hmmm, this term seems to describe Republicans in general.

Bap33 says

so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent.

One could also argue that a black person is mentally subhuman and therefore could not give consent, and arguing such would be just as retarded as arguing that gay men cannot give consent and for the exact same reasons.

Actually, precisely this same kind of bigotry has been applied to both race and sexual orientation. The very arguments against gay marriage are the exact same arguments that were given against interracial marriage. And the very people arguing against gay sex are the very same that argued against interracial sex. This is not a coincidence. It's simply the same bigotry being applied to a different group.

Bap33 says

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

You are asserting that. You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry. One could easily replace references to gender with references to race and the lack of logical connection would be no different.

curious2 says

Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

That should be counted as an advantage in the upcoming cannibal anarchy.

leo707 says

Forget homosexuals, for starters half of Americans (Or is it just 47% Bap?), because of their inability to give consent due to having a mental disorder, are raped every time they have sex.

I think that Bap is on to something. Republicans are clearly mentally disabled and therefore cannot give consent. Therefore, we should physically prevent them from having sex or reproducing by putting them all in chastity belts. This will also help the careers of Republicans as it's the only thing that will keep them out of sex scandals.

Now since evolution is just a myth, no conservative has to worry about the lack of Republican offspring causing a shift to the left after a few generations.

leo707 says

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

The solution, of course, is to force Bap to live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia for a few years under Sharia Law. Force him to conform to Islamic culture and deal with having that religion forced down his throat. A few years of that and he'll be as liberal as the rest of us.

Bap just has to realize that Christianity's day as the predominate religions of the U.S. are coming to an end, and that within his lifetime, Bap will see Islam become more popular in the U.S. When he realizes that this is inevitable and soon to occur, he'll be all for separation of Church and State.

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

leo707 says

? is that "loe" meant to be "leo?"

yea, my bad.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

So, Bap you believe that your assertions are evidence?

leo707 says

. Not all mental conditions prevent someone from giving consent.

that may be true, but having a loose screw that causes a male human to desire to have a male human as a sex partner, or causes a male human to feel/act/react as a female human towards male humans, should result in protecting these people from abusing their bodies, being raped and abused, and suffering.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

So, Bap you believe that your assertions are evidence?

do the words on the page even matter to you?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

Yes, my assumptions and assertions that things are not immoral unless there is an underlying reason is certainly indicative of bigotry. Just like I'm a bigot for thinking that a black person is not a criminal unless I see evidence that he is. Lack of presumption in the guilt of things is the worst kind of bigotry.