patrick.net

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.

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

Bap33 says

do the words on the page even matter to you?

Bap, here is the problem with your argument, and why you will find it very difficult to get anyone to buy into it.

Your argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not. You have not provided evidence other than "It is because I say so" to show that premise to be true. Without that evidence your whole argument falls apart.

Bap33 says

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

leo707 says

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.

Those are the same for me, communism is doing similar oppression as a theocracy just under the premise of science or economics, which is actually much harder to get people to buy into than by citing one of the religious books ;) I actually don't have much of a problem if somebody in the US is "close to the bible" in their views as long as they grant the freedom of association with a different religion or no religion at all and therefor different behavior/manners/rituals to others (as long a they don't infringe on other people's liberty).

Dan8267 says

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

funny. lol

roberto,
Don't hate me for making an effort to express my opinion.

Dan,
If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me? I mean, if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!! we must!!

mell says

Bap33 says

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public. Secondly, Low-functioning (under 15 years functioning age) Downs people do not have freedom. Don't be silly, please.

Bap33 says

if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!!

You will qualify for mandatory insurance at the same premium as people who are less likely to injure themselves. But, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe in faith healing, so you won't be using any medical services anyway. And, as noted above, those happy pills on TV don't really work anyway, and are no substitute for a healthy sex life:

Find a suitable man, settle down, and quit insulting people who have never done you any harm and whom you haven't even met.

leo707 says

Your [Bap's] argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not.

Exactly. Although, I would put number 3 first for the sequence. And here's my counterargument.

1. The belief in a fictitious god and life eternal in heaven is a delusion.
2. Delusions are, by definition, mental illness. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.
3. The mentally ill can not legally vote.
4. Therefore, Christians (and other religious) should not be allowed to vote.

Same logical sequence of A --> B --> C -->D. Except, that all of these points are far better justified. The only one that one could possibly argue with is #3, the mentally ill should not be allowed to vote. But that point is accepted by our current legal system.

Bap33 says

If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me?

In the same way that I should be kind and gentle to the homicidal maniac? Religion kills in mass. Gay orgies are safe as long as people use condoms. Perhaps one can make a case that unprotected sex is immoral in the current environment, but that's not an argument against gay sex.

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

I agree 100%. The very idea of creating prisons was (in my understanding) to keep the suspected away from harm until they can be tried. Prison is immoral, in my opinion. If a human is too dangerous to be free, then they should be hanged. If a person is not a danger to society, then they should be active members of society. That would mean "white collar" money crime and theft would only result is restitution. This means Bernie gets set free. And when he is no longer safe in prison, he will be hung by the public. What we end up with is legal and more justice. Maybe.

Dan, side bar question, at what point does self-inflected mutilation move from personal expression to mental illness that should be addressed? Serious question.

Bap33 says

If a human is too dangerous to be free, then they should be hanged.

I knew there had to be some way for you to screw up the one time we agree on something.

Bap33 says

Dan, side bar question, at what point does self-inflected mutilation move from personal expression to mental illness that should be addressed? Serious question.

Why are you asking me? I don't know anything about self-mutilation and damn little about psychology. Heck, what even counts as mutilation? Piercings, tattoos?

Dan8267 says

Yes, because it is only the religious who make the claim that gay sex is immoral. Naturally this forum is the place to question that assertion.

What a crap!

Homosexuality was iilegal and a criminal offence in Soviet Union, which was an atheist state. It was officially persecuted in Nazi Germany, that was practically an atheist state with very strong pagan sentiment.

If you research human history, you find out that any society that valued public (and state) unterests above private ones were strongly homophobic, any those, which preferred private interest were tolerant.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Why would you care about what they think or say they think?

Because Mathew Shepard died.

What you say here is that the natural empathy mechanism of human mind develops some hormons in your body, which makes you feeling bad about Mathew Shepard death. Is that what you call moral? Your hormons driven feelings? But there are endless examples of such feelings that You would consider immoral.

A simple one: most adult men would feel attracted to a pretty 10yo. girl. But any one with a bit of morality would first consider the well being of that girl. Maybe he would write an "Alice in the wonderland" book for her, (and for us as well as the result) A completely immoral one would only be interested in his own "pursuit of happiness", damaging that girl's life and his own soul, see Humbert Humbert. (I just try to bring in some literary examples, because they are equally available to both of us.)

The bottom line is:
1. your hormons, your feelings, and your prejustices have nothing to do with morality. Moral or immoral may be only your choice.

2. Moral is sacrificing something of your own, while immoral is sacrificing others to your interests or whims.

3. The differences between moral and immoral we all can perceive is totally meaningless without absolute Truth and absolute Goodness.

Dan8267 says

Religion kills in mass.

Dan, you keep repeating this absolutely false statement.

In fact, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Nazism were all atheist and each one broke records in mass murder.

Also as far as I know the absolute record in the percent of population killed in shortest period of time belongs to Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, which was an extream atheist regime.

michaelsch says

Nazism

Michael, Hitler was raised Catholic and believed that God had chosen him for his special destiny, especially after he survived an assassination attempt that killed almost everyone else in the room.

Your arguments do not really defend religion, nor do they answer the original question. They simply say that bad things can happen even without religion. That does not excuse religion from motivating otherwise good people to do bad things. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

just don’t vote rethuglican. all log cabin boys and girls take heed: it’s not who you bed, but who you vote for.

curious2 says

Michael, Hitler was raised Catholic and believed that God had chosen him for his special destiny, especially after he survived an assassination attempt that killed almost everyone else in the room.

So what, he became a fierce anti-Catholic a social-democrat first and a National Socialist later on. BTW, many atheists beleave in luck, and many are extremely superstitious. Many were raised in religious surroundings, including our Dan. Jugashvili, aka Joseph Stalin was even a Church seminary student before he became a revolutioner.

curious2 says

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

In a way I would agree with this, though with one clarification: in this sense the worst of all religions yet invented is atheism. No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism. Not yet as least.

Dan8267 says

1. The belief in a fictitious god and life eternal in heaven is a delusion.
2. Delusions are, by definition, mental illness. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.
3. The mentally ill can not legally vote.
4. Therefore, Christians (and other religious) should not be allowed to vote.

That's great! Now, let's apply it to any belief. For example,
1. The belief in morality is a delusion.
The rest apply.

I suspect, Dan, you should not be allowed to vote.

michaelsch says

curious2 says

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

In a way I would agree with this, though with one clarification: in this sense the worst of all religions yet invented is atheism. No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism. Not yet as least.

This is just bs semantics. Communism, national socialism, whatever you name work the same as religions, it is something people can believe so strongly in that they will take its orders to oppress - and in the worst case - kill those who don't "believe" in it and want to be free. It's how you apply religion and -isms is what counts. There are people who get great strength out of it and help others and those who kill in the name of it. Whether you believe in a theory to be infallible or a higher power so that you execute their demands/manifesto without questioning, it's all the same result. Dogmas are inherently problematic and nothing is absolute, from then on just proceed heeding the prime directive and you won't be dangerous to others ;)

michaelsch says

No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism.

That is totally false and has been discussed previously. Bottom line, Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with atheism; as you say, he happened to be a former seminary student, and he later happened to be an atheist. His actions can neither be blamed on the seminary nor on atheism.

The French revolution included a combination of good principles that are still celebrated and honored today, together with some bad results (e.g. the Terror and the mistreatment of Marie Antoinette and her children). Most of the bad resulted from the thirst for revenge and redistribution, and the quest for power. These are human tendencies, one wonders what the OWS movement would do if they actually got power, how would they contain the anarchists within the group, etc. To blame atheism for the actions of mostly Catholic French people is inaccurate and a distraction.

The Nazis however, whom you mentioned, were officially Christian. Their disagreement with the Vatican had to do with who would control Christianity, and is entirely predictable within the history of religious people fighting over who will control the "one true religion." It is best addressed in Dan's earlier thread about how monotheists come to believe that they are God, partly because God agrees with them about everything.

Atheism is irrational. Pascal's wager.

Peter P says

Pascal's wager

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?" Remember the 10 Commandments, specifically the first two; you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

curious2 says

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?"

LOL!

This is why people ought to believe in their own personal religions. There needs not be a middleman between me and my god.

curious2 says

you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

What about having gay sex IN the wrong church? Does that cancel each other out?