patrick.net

This thread has unwittingly demonstrated that the anti-gay "family values" folks are the worst bigots in the world. Although I have repeatedly attempted to engage in fruitful debate on this subject matter, those who oppose homosexuality have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated the most vile aspects of human behavior once their poorly thought out arguments have been thoroughly demolished. Instead of exhibiting the rational adult response of, "gee, I don't have an answer to that, maybe I need to rethink my position on this matter", they universally take the position of "gee, I don't have an answer to that, you must be an evil sodomite".

And ultimately, they all resort to religious doctrine as the justification for their bigotry. Although this thread is about the morality of gay sex, it is absolutely relevant to point out that the anti-gay bigotry -- and that's really what it comes down to if you cannot honestly justify your beliefs -- is always based on religion and superstitious beliefs about there being a god and what that god wants. This demonstrates exactly why I have stated many times that religion, and the belief in the spiritual/supernatural, is inherently bad and causes great harm. Some, like Marcus, would say that all such people are "by definition" extremists and therefore not true Scotsman, but they make up a significant, if not majority, of the religious and therefore cannot be ignored.

No rational, objective person has used scientific knowledge and reasoning to reach the conclusion that gay sex is immoral. Plenty of religious people have used pseudo-science, incorrect facts regarding nature, and misrepresentation of evolution along with easily discredit false logic to argue that gay sex is immoral, but they always start out with the conclusion and then search for a reason. And the conclusion is always dictated by their Bronze/Iron Age religion and its false morality.

Glendon says

Wow, "Dan." How pathetic is this that you have to justify your abominable behavior to the extent of shouting down all opposition?

1. I am straight. I have never engage in homosexual behavior, not that there's anything wrong with that. If you have even bothered to read this thread, you will have seen that I have repeated stated that I find man on man butt sex repugnant, but that doesn't make it immoral. So your entire premise that I'm justifying "my abominable behavior" is blow away.

2. Even if I were gay, that would not invalidate any of the counter-arguments I made to your posts. Suggesting otherwise is a logical fallacy called Poisoning the Well and it is a sign of a weak intellect defending a weak position.

3. Rational debate based on facts and reasoning is not "shouting down all opposition". The fact that your arguments are flawed is your own fault, not mine. They were always flawed, even before I revealed their flaws. They were flawed even before you conceived them. This is self-evident.

4. I would argue that your behavior in calling homosexuality "abominable behavior" is, in fact, the real abominable behavior being demonstrated here. It is one thing to reach a flawed conclusion that gay sex is immoral. It is quite another to be shown the flaws in you facts and reasoning and to still consider gay sex immoral and anyone who questions that premise to be abominable. At this point, you are being willfully ignorant, and that I could argue is truly immoral.

Glendon says

Sodomy is immoral because it contradicts the basic function of the body,

1. There is no such thing as "the basic function of the body".

2. What constitutes sodomy is arbitrary and varies greatly from culture to culture. Sex in any position other than missionary is considered sodomy in some cultures. So, that married couple having sex with the woman on top is being immoral? But only if they do it in Kansas, in New Jersey, it's ok.

Glendon says

Sodomy is immoral because..., traditionally, the Judeo-Christian ethic states that God is a creator, and gave us the ability to beget, and in fact, in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic, God's first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply.

1. Tradition is a shitty basis for any moral concept. Slavery was tradition for a damn long time in this country. I can think of hundreds of traditions that would be considered down right evil by today's standards.

2. Judeo-Christian culture does not have any bearing on morality. Remember, both the Old Testament and the New Testament is pro-slavery, a point well pointed out by Baptist ministers before and during the American Civil War. A book that cannot answer the easiest moral question correctly is not a book with any moral credibility. Oh, and don't get me started on all the things in the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture that are down right evil. I think I'll let Penn and Teller take this one.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZaLaTMaKjdY&t=25m30s
Relevant parts from 25:30 to 27:00 and Penn's closing remarks.

Glendon says

God's first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply.

Have you even read the counterarguments I made? I already addressed this. According to this principle, chastity is evil and any 16-year-old girl who says no is being immoral. What's the derogatory term for not being a slut?

Glendon says

"God" struck Onan dead for pulling out.

Really? You want to go there? Your false god's law is that a man has to fuck his dead brother's wife and impregnate her. What if she doesn't want to be fucked by her brother-in-law like most women wouldn't? Your fictitious god, or more accurately the Bronze Age misogynistic men writing in his name, gives the woman no choice. That's right, your god is pro-rape.

In fact, your god is quite the fucking sicko when it comes to raping women and having sex slaves.

I never get tired of posting this image.

Glendon says

No matter how much a guy talks himself into liking sodomy, taking it in the ass is physical abuse.

To equate consensual anal sex -- which, I hate to break it to you, most heterosexual married couples try at some point to "spice things up" after 15 years -- with abuse is utterly despicable and insulting both to the millions of homosexual and heterosexual couples who engage in consensual anal sex, and to the people who have suffered actual physical abuse.

Glendon says

You race around in circles trying to serve your own perverted logic.

There is nothing circular about my logic. Nor are there any flaws. Everything I have stated has been written down such that the entire world can examine it for flaws. Any flaws can easily be pointed out in a transparent system such as a written debate on the Internet. The fact that you have not even addressed any of my counterarguments demonstrates that you have not found any flaw in them. If you had, you would cheerfully point such flaws out, repeatedly.

And race? Honey, my debating style is very systematic and consistent. I do not jump from point to point, but simply address each argument my opponent makes in the order it appears in the graph of the argument. If you would be more cooperative, I could illustrate the proper techniques of debate including how to build a graph of the argument to make sure all points are covered. But I doubt you have the rationality or patience to learn. Bigotry and impatience seem to go hand in hand. I wonder if there is an underlying principle in that correlation like the Marshmallow Test.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QX_oy9614HQ

http://www.youtube.com/embed/amsqeYOk--w

You know there's a high correlation between kids having the self-control to not eat the marshmallow and later academic and career achievement. I bet the same correlation exists between eating the marshmallow and becoming a bigot.

Using rational thought rather than taking things on faith because the arbitrary culture you were born into says so is a form of self-discipline.

Glendon says

Your ear hears. Your heart beats to push blood. Your brain processes. Your marrow exists to make blood cells. Your eyes see. Your stomach and intestines process food and eliminate waste, amongst other things. And your rectum exists to hold shat until you allow it to open and push out the shat.

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Bob: The sun is hot because it is made of burning coal.
Joe: Electromagnetic Spectroscopy proves that the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, not carbon. Furthermore, it is nuclear fusion, not chemical reactions, that power the sun.
Bob: Coal is hot when you burn it. The sun is hot because its burning coal.

Notice how Bob looks like an idiot? Why? Because he completely ignores Joe's argument and simply repeats his own, now debunked, idea.

As with the mouth, the ear serves multiple purposes. Yes, it's used for hearing. It's also used for pair bonding. Ever nibble on a lover's ear? To say that the ear isn't an erogenous zone is to reveal how clumsy and inexperience of a lover you are. And if the ear can be an erogenous zone, than so too can the ass.

Glendon says

"Has no purpose." What a fundamental denial of basic scientific fact. How do we take this stuff seriously? How can we possibly take the homosexual loon telling us black is white and 1+1=5, unless it equals 4, and sometimes 1 seriously?

Once again, you write as if you haven't actually read the entire text. Did you not understand the example of the development of the wing in dinosaurs? Did you fail to comprehend its relevance? I really need to know where your brain failed in order to explain my counterarguments better to you.

Oh, and exactly where did I, the "homosexual loon" with no homosexual experience or desires, ever state anything remotely contradicting mathematics like 1 + 1 = 5?

Although... ironically, 1 + 1 = 5 is a true statement in Z3 and, in fact, all groups of cardinality 3 since they are all isomorphic to Z3. Oh, I love Group Theory. I used to draw 3D representations of the finite groups and point out subgroups, but that's another story. I wouldn't expect someone like Glendon to comprehend "math" stuff. After all, he probably things math is so gay, just like logic and reasoning.

Glendon says

Two old or infertile people still copulate according to the functions of their body.

Not if she's menopausal and he's on Viagra. In any case, it still disproves your argument that sex for reason other than procreation is immoral.

Tell me, are you incapable of understanding that sex serves a psychological function as well as a biological one? Homosexual couples have the psychological needs as heterosexual ones, and that alone is ample justification for homosexual sex. If homosexual sex promotes pair bonding and strengthens a relationship, then it clearly has an important psychological function, and since human beings are more than just animals -- we're animals with big brains -- psychological functions are every bit as important as biological ones.

Glendon says

And actually contraception is also "immoral" since it makes sex masturbation, just like sodomy.

[2000] began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected.

World Watch Issue Alert, 31 October 2000

I would argue that it is immoral for people such as you to try to persuade people that contraception, including condom use, is immoral when there is an epidemic of AIDS rampaging Africa, killing millions, and the spread of this plague is heavily influence by such nonsensical statements.

Glendon says

That other animals do these things is irrelevant.

If you are going to make the argument that gay sex is "unnatural", what animals do in nature is most certainly relevant.

Glendon says

Outside of that, you are just rambling semi-coherently, which is the sole purpose of your original post.

If there is anything I have written that your feeble mind cannot understand, simply point it out and I will do my best to dumb it down to your level. I'm quite sure that most people with a literacy level beyond the fourth grade will have no trouble comprehending my writing.

Glendon says

To hear yourself scream down the world that you are "normal." You're not. You abuse yourself with others. You aren't a whole person, nor normal.

So, now that I've come out of the closet as being straight, you'll retract all the above statements, right?

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

Wow, I'm offended by that and I'm not even gay. The only time I've ever felt molested was while reading your posts.

I'd argue against those "buckets" you have, but I'm straight anyway, so I'm sure there would be a point. Of course, it does show how incredibly off your assumptions are from reality.

bdrasin says

Dan8267 says

I believe this is known as the "Lucky Pierre". Nice.

It's the Golden Rule.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Pi7gwX7rjOw

Dan8267 says

There are mechanisms in a woman's body whose sole function is to kill male babies. Didn't know that, did you?

True...

An adult female's body is constantly producing cervical fluid throughout her menstrual cycle. Cervical fluid is like an highly acidic mucus which is hostile to sperm.

However!...

As that same adult female nears ovulation, this fluid changes to become conducive to sperm and actually assists in keeping sperm alive.

I have read well the ways of the woman and her many marvelous fluids.

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

I suppose it could *possibly* be that most gays had cold fathers, virago mothers and even have been diddled between 4-13; but I don't think any or all of these things combined could effectuate homosexuality as a default setting in an otherwise straight person. It would probably scramble them, sure, but they were gay in the first place. It's readily obvious to me from the queers I've known over the years that they came out of the chute wired up that way. Sorry.

For what it is worth, I've known two different men over the years who openly professed to be gay, but who were also celibate. These were manly motherfuckers, too; desert survivalist types. They didn't put out with any of those trite Tinkerbell affectations, (I drive through Palm Springs a lot), or go around making lusty overtures to young Adonises. Point being, I don't think it's always about carnal vice. As I understood it, they simply preferred the company of a man to that of a woman. As a robustly straight male, even I must confess, there are times that this premise seems as natural to me as real maple syrup.

JodyChunder says

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

I suppose it could *possibly* be that most gays had cold fathers, virago mothers and even been diddled between 4-13; but I don't think any or all of these things combined could effectuate homosexuality as a default setting in an otherwise straight person.

The existence of people like Glendon make legitimate research into the causes of sexual orientation an ethical quagmire. If scientists do determine exact causes of homosexuality, assholes like Glendon will immediately try to force medical procedures to prevent homosexuality ignoring the rights of the patient. Because of such bigots, it's perhaps best if such research is not conducted in our lifetime.

Dan8267 says

Now before you get on a soap box about "what is an invalid reason", I'll give you some examples. "Gay sex is immoral because it is unnatural" is clearly a invalid reason because gay sex occurs frequently throughout nature across many species. "...because the ass was not made for sex" is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals. "...because gays can't procreate" is invalid because accepting this requires that we consider many other sexual relationships to be immoral that we absolutely consider to be moral such as an old married couple having sex.

And now you prove my initial assertion, that your OP is a loaded question built on an internal contradiction. As soon as anyone demonstrates a logical basis for the values judgment you shoot down the values judgment. Sodomy is immoral because it is contrary to nature, infecund - a biological dead end, and runs counter to the basic functions of the mouth and rectum, or in the case of women, the use of fingers or objects because they don't possess a penis to complete the act.

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs. Those terms are not interchangeable. As for "natural," the drive to reproduce is the basis for every life form on the planet, and there are means to achieve this end in each life form (seeds, procreation, division, etc), else the life form dies. It is fundamental to nature.

The rectum is the end of the digestive tract. It accumulates digestive waste until time to defecate in every species that has a digestive tract.

This random garbage you are spewing, like "is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals" is the prototypical form of the "ipse dixit." Because you have said it, well, it must be true. No, it doesn't. I'm not following into the ID trap. Purely on the natural realm natural selection has goals constantly - survival and competitive advantage. Even if it is purely natural with no divine origin, there are clear intents and design goals according to the nature and function of an organism in relation to its environment.

Your thought pattern is the negation of thought, and the absence of logic. The same "logic" that says the rectum has no purpose says that the heart has no purpose, nor the brain, nor any other body part. Its such a stupid argument there is no counter argument to it, except to state the obvious, and conclude that you are a complete and total fool, in this case an apt ad hominem.

The purpose of the reproductive system, like every other constituent part of a body, is reproduction. Just like the circulation system is for circulation, or the endocrine system for hormonal regulation. You just toss logical and function and purpose out the door because you don't like that it is a suitable and legitimate argument.

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

Something is what it is. People don't eat glass or rocks to live. We consume nutritive elements. People don't drink gasoline. We need water to live, and petrol products are poisonous. You don't try to fuel a car with molasses, unless it is perhaps biodiesel. That you reject the concept of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle means that everything you say has no basis. Your absence of logic and real thought is your own indictment.

That some other buffoon agrees with your absence of thought and said that you "totally demolished my arguments" is sheer idiocy as well. You're not very good at this. You just comment, and comment, and comment some more. It doesn't matter that your words have no logical or scientific validity. It's all just random verbiage, except when you toss some scientific observation in, and then, well, its law. It's the sun rising in the east. Idiocy it is.

And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

Dan8267 says

I'm afraid you have a very deep misunderstanding of nature and evolution. A body part, a trait, a gene does not "have a purpose" other than increasing the number of copies of such genes in the next generation. Evolution is not "intelligent design" by any means. A body part, a trait, a gene has zero or more effects and serve zero or more functions that may be useful, harmful, neither, or both. To say that the mouth exists for the purpose of eating is not correct. What is correct to say is the mouth evolve as a means of eating. This is a subtle, but extraordinarily important, distinction.

You have absolutely no understanding of biology or genetics. Genetics are the sum of the information needed to make an intact life form that can mature and replicate. Again, you don't like the argument on form and function, even though virtually everything around you has both natural or man-made form and function and identity, so you negate all of existence long enough to rebuke my argument, then go back to relying on science and logic again. You have a long page of random and arbitrary thoughts. It isn't argument, or logic, or scientific insight. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a monkey with a canvas and three cans of paint.

An infertile couple having coital relations isn't immoral.

AIDS has mainly been spread through heterosexual sex, man to woman, homosexual sex, man to man, and intravenous drug use. At this point, the main lines of transmission have nothing to do with gay men. Now that the AZT cocktail has now made HIV controllable, the new scourge will be TB, gonorrhea, and syphilis that are resistant to all known antibiotics.

So again, the fittest survive -- the bugs -- and those that engage in reckless and destructive sexual behavior will end up on the short end of the stick. As it is the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

That anyone contends it is a morally neutral and perfectly kosher variant of normal now that they've seen a couple of lions, deer, or beavers schtumping in the woods, has got to get a life.

And again, there is no frickin way you are "straight."

Have you heard of the adage, 'the exception doesn't prove the rule?'

Apparently not.

Dan8267 says

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Your counterargument ... isn't. A does not equal A isn't a counterargument.

Glendon says

the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

"We rate Marshall’s claim False." Glenda, is your last name Marshall?

Glendon says

And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,
But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

-Willie Nelson

bdrasin says

Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,

But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

-Willie Nelson

no willie nelson didnt write that... he did a cover from the original because he thought it was funny. but really ! even in SF, LA and NYC you see chic Gay running around dressed like cowboys. Are they real Cowboys .. of course not, but they are real Gay !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Are_Frequently,_Secretly_Fond_of_Each_Other

Dan8267 says

Why the hell is gay sex immoral?

it is one thing... a dead end to your family blood line and heritage.

in all cultures, the continuity of family blood line keeps the family unit viable
today and into the future. destroy the family blood line .. you destroy the fabric of any society.

why do we all have a Family name ?

this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.
what was the alternative ?

thomaswong.1986 says

why do we all have a Family name ?

It's really just an ages-old convention...we need something to put on your toe tag that differentiates your cadaver from the one on the next slab over.

thomaswong.1986 says

this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.

But we are neither strong or stable. We've gotten more & more fucked up over the last 100 years. We might have slicker consumer gadgets to distract from and palliate the pain of our imploding collective soul, but don't kid...we're fucking fucked.

As for society...it's just a concept for living, Tom -- an egalitarian blueprint designed to enable people of disparate creeds, race, gender and ability to cohabitate together in relative harmony. The finest iteration of this design is the meritocratic society, where one's basic pursuit of happiness is delimited only by one's effort. The only thing that could possibly disrupt society then is a corruption of this core framework. Sexuality doesn't even enter into the discussion.

Glendon says

And now you prove my initial assertion, that your OP is a loaded question built on an internal contradiction.

Honey, a proof is more than saying "I have a proof". You have to actually follow through as I will demonstrate now.

Glendon says

As soon as anyone demonstrates a logical basis for the values judgment you shoot down the values judgment. Sodomy is immoral because it is contrary to nature, infecund - a biological dead end, and runs counter to the basic functions of the mouth and rectum, or in the case of women, the use of fingers or objects because they don't possess a penis to complete the act.

To say that sodomy -- by whatever arbitrary definition you choose from among the thousands of different definitions -- is "contrary" to nature is clearly empirically false. That means it doesn't give with the historical facts.

Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

Oral sex?

Gay Anal sex?

Interspecies sex?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qVE60zwXx1k

It's not easy being green.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RcAQ3-cBsTs

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

Masturbation, group sex, interspecies oral sex, three-ways, jerk off exhibitionism, gay anal sex, …

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cka2tRMQMLY
It's Michael Jackson!

Sodomy is the norm in nature. Therefore, to say that gay sex is immoral because it "is contrary to nature" is clearly factually incorrect.

Glendon says

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs

What kind of oxymoron statement is this? I mean, you had to avoid using the phrase "occurs in nature", which is what we're talking about, because it's so obviously self-contradictory. I'm not giving you counter-examples from a courthouse in New York City. I'm giving you counter-examples from nature.

Just because something occurs universally in nature does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs throughout nature.

Yeah, that's a clearer rendering of the idea you want everyone to accept.

Glendon says

This random garbage you are spewing, like "is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals" is the prototypical form of the "ipse dixit." Because you have said it, well, it must be true.

1. Nothing I've written is random. Any person reading this thread can see exactly how I've gone from what you said to either empirically disproving it, providing a counter-example, or showing the logical flaw. You're not fooling anyone.

2. I've never made a claim that was "true just because I said so". Feel free to try to point out a specific example.

3. Every reason you gave for gay sex being immoral has been show to
a. Be based on false facts easily disproved by photographs and videos.
b. Result in a conclusion that rape or some other universally accept evil must be good.
c. Contain obvious self-contradictions.
d. Really be based solely on your own bigotry, i.e., "gay sex is immoral because I said so".

Glendon says

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs.

Scientists test hypotheses by observing what occurs, then draw conclusions based on those observations. In contrast, religious fundamentalists and Glenda do the opposite: they begin by asserting a false conclusion, then condemn what occurs whenever observation disproves their false conclusion. By Glenda's Alice in Wonderland illogic, kissing is unnatural and immoral if it doesn't lead to coitus, but the Vatican acted morally in requiring Galileo to renounce his observations of how planets move, because those observations contradicted the Vatican's geocentric solar system. Even the Vatican apologized for that, as it must eventually apologize for much else, but Glenda keeps her own self-invented faith. Scientists observe what happens in nature and use those observations to support conclusions about what is natural; Glenda repeats her false conclusion and, when it is disproved, condemns those who disprove it.

Glendon says

The purpose of the reproductive system, like every other constituent part of a body, is reproduction. Just like the circulation system is for circulation, or the endocrine system for hormonal regulation. You just toss logical and function and purpose out the door because you don't like that it is a suitable and legitimate argument.

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

Have you even read anything that I've written. I suggest reading the following bit very carefully as you keep demonstrating it.

Dan8267 says

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Bob: The sun is hot because it is made of burning coal.

Joe: Electromagnetic Spectroscopy proves that the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, not carbon. Furthermore, it is nuclear fusion, not chemical reactions, that power the sun.

Bob: Coal is hot when you burn it. The sun is hot because its burning coal.

Notice how Bob looks like an idiot? Why? Because he completely ignores Joe's argument and simply repeats his own, now debunked, idea.

You are not adding anything to the conversation by ignoring every point I made, each of which addresses specific statements you made. Saying something stupid like

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

does not further your position or address the counter-arguments I clearly laid out.

Ultimately, every counter-argument you drop, which so far is all of them, is a counter-argument that you concede is correct.

Glendon says

Your absence of logic and real thought is your own indictment.

Wow, you know someone is a sore loser when they flip over the chess board and shout "you're a poopy head and you cheated!".

To accuse me of being absence of logic and real thought is like accusing Katt Williams of never giving pot a chance, or Bill Clinton of being too picky regarding women, or George Bush of not eating enough paste.

Glendon says

That some other buffoon agrees with your absence of thought and said that you "totally demolished my arguments" is sheer idiocy as well.

Of course, the agreement of other people does not indicate a correct argument. However, calling those people who conclude that your arguments are weak and your opponent's are strong is simply a low blow and unfounded accusation and is indicative of your lack of confidence in your own position.

Glendon says

You're not very good at this. You just comment, and comment, and comment some more. It doesn't matter that your words have no logical or scientific validity.

Feel free to provide some details to support your assertions. Your only rebuttals are "you arguments are terrible". You never say say or show any reason or evidence to support such assertions.

In contrast, my so-called "illogical and scientifically invalid" arguments are based on verifiable facts, logic that can be confirmed, and plenty of empirical evidence.

If this were a court of law, you would be disbarred for incompetence and possibly held in contempt of court.

Glendon says

And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

Your wife can confirm my sexuality, not that it's important for the sake of this, for lack of a better word, debate.

curious2 says

Glendon says

the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

"We rate Marshall’s claim False." Glenda, is your last name Marshall?

There you go again, curious2, fact checking. Stuff like that will get you accused of being illogical, unscientific, and gay.

thomaswong.1986 says

it is one thing... a dead end to your family blood line and heritage.

As I have stated like a thousand times on this thread already, the argument that gay sex is immoral because it prevents you from passing on your genes is false because

1. Having gay sex does not prevent one from having straight sex. At best this would be an argument that chastity and celibacy are evil.

2. Numerous scientific studies have shown that nature selects for a certain percentage of purely homosexual organisms in various species because of evolutionary advantages in kin selection, social prestige and thus kin survival, and group selection, just to name a few.

For example, the female relatives of gay men have more children than do those of straight men. This suggests that genes for homosexuality, although disadvantageous for gay men and their male relatives, could have a reproductive benefit among straight women.

Again, I've made this points dozens of times. It's time the opposition either accepts or addresses them. If you ignore it, you concede it.

3. Strategies that maximize the offspring of individuals can and do cause the extinction of a species. On can even make the case that the human species may damn well go extinct by reproducing beyond the capacity of our global environment.

4. This argument implies that rape is a morally right choice.

Example: A teenage boy is at a party. He goes upstairs to use the bathroom. On the way he sees a teenage girl passed out on a bed. He could have sex with the passed out girl without getting caught or punished. Doing so would increase his chances or reproducing and/or increase the number of his offspring as well as decreasing the number of his sexual competitor's offspring by taking a potential mate off the market before his competitors can acquire her. According to the principle repeated by Tommy and Glenn, ad nauseum, it would be morally wrong for the teenage boy to not fuck the teenage girl.

5. This argument also implies that any girl turning down sex is being immoral.

6. This argument also implies that any person sacrificing his or her life for others is immoral. The dead can't reproduce or raise their existing offspring. So all soldiers and firefighters are immoral.

As you can see, this argument has been thoroughly discredited.

thomaswong.1986 says

in all cultures, the continuity of family blood line keeps the family unit viable

today and into the future. destroy the family blood line .. you destroy the fabric of any society.

Let's put that theory to the test.

thomaswong.1986 says

why do we all have a Family name ?

Throughout the vast majority of human existence, we didn't. Surnames became popular when populations expanded to the point where there were a dozen guys named John in a town. Surnames were made obsolete by ID numbers like the Social Security Number when the IRS decided to use SSNs to doggy tag everyone.

Today, your surname doesn't mean jack diddly shit. Your SSN is all that matters.

curious2 says

In contrast, religious fundamentalists and Glenda do the opposite: they begin by asserting a false conclusion, then condemn what occurs whenever observation disproves their false conclusion. By Glenda's Alice in Wonderland illogic, kissing is unnatural and immoral if it doesn't lead to coitus, but the Vatican acted morally in requiring Galileo to renounce his observations of how planets move, because those observations contradicted the Vatican's geocentric solar system.

I'm reminded of a bishop who once refused to look through Galileo's telescope lest he see proof that moons revolved around Jupiter rather than the Earth.

This may just be an allegorical tale, but it applies as much today as it did in the 1600s.

Dan8267 says

Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

Sodomy is certainly part of our human ecology; but I think what Glendon is suggesting is that it's an aberrant part.

JodyChunder says

I think what Glendon is suggesting is....

We can try to sharpen Glenda's false arguments for her, but her proffered arguments are not the point. Even with your effort to save her, she'd run in a circle right back to the original question: why object? Being left handed or exceptionally intelligent is aberrant, or even choosing Dr. Pepper instead of Coke, but Glenda does not object to those aberrations.

robertoaribas says

glendon has such a problem with gay sex, cause he is closeted... He doesn't want it out and "in his face" so to speak!

Exactly. That's the point.

Dan8267 says

Throughout the vast majority of human existence, we didn't. Surnames became popular when populations expanded to the point where there were a dozen guys named John in a town. Surnames were made obsolete by ID numbers like the Social Security Number when the IRS decided to use SSNs to doggy tag everyone.

Today, your surname doesn't mean jack diddly shit. Your SSN is all that matters.

Only stupid Socialist / Atheists like you wish to put a number on people like cattle...

Vast history has always shown, people do have a family name and culture/clan that dates back 1000s of years. They carry that culture with their name.

Dan8267 says

As I have stated like a thousand times on this thread already,

You stated nothing.. and wish to erase everything of humanity leaving a corpse with a number. Just like the Holocaust.

thomaswong.1986 says

stupid.... Just like the Holocaust.

Thomas, your comments are becoming more hostile and make little sense. Many gay couples have kids with one or both family names. Social Security is not "just like the Holocaust." Neither has anything to do with the morality of gay sex.

curious2 says

We can try to sharpen Glenda's false arguments for her, but her proffered arguments are not the point. Even with your effort to save her, she'd run in a circle right back to the original question: why object?

Nah, not a save -- I just think taking big drizzly shits in concert all over someone who, at least initially, seemed to present his opposing viewpoint with a modicum of clinical detachment is not exactly the most deft approach to any debate. You sure as hell don't open the phones on a hot button issue like this without the hope of inspiring someone like Glen who disagrees with you to pipe in. I just wanted to retrain the sites on the core of the issue, and away from commenters calling one another fagellas. That shit gets real boring.

curious2 says

Thomas, your comments are becoming more hostile and make little sense. Many gay couples have kids with one or both family names. Social Security is not "just like the Holocaust." Neither has anything to do with the morality of gay sex.

Our western tradition, along with many cultures, has a long history of family names and and family "blood line" continuity. My comments were not of gay morality, but end of that family blood line with gay couples. And as such it has been the family unit that has provided advancement of people and cultures through out history. Yes religion takes a big part. But of course you have your local Atheist and his hate of religion his desire to end it in favor of more progressive science based system, like Socialism. That will not happen! we are not cattle to be numbered as the Socialists crave.

Hostility ? LOL! like to see the Jack Ass Atheist tell a bunch of Scots their Clan name means nothing.... that should be fun!

JodyChunder says

I just wanted to retrain the sites on the core of the issue....

I respect that, but it seemed clear to me from the start that Roberto had pointed out the core issue. Maybe having seen so many of Bop69/Glenda/Larry Craig, my trigger finger is a bit quicker, but my aim is true: Glenda's agenda became obvious to everyone eventually.

thomaswong.1986 says

bdrasin says

Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,

But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

-Willie Nelson

no willie nelson didnt write that... he did a cover from the original because he thought it was funny. but really ! even in SF, LA and NYC you see chic Gay running around dressed like cowboys. Are they real Cowboys .. of course not, but they are real Gay !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Are_Frequently,_Secretly_Fond_of_Each_Other

Ok, I guess I credited the wrong songwriter, but I'm pretty sure the song isn't about gay leather fetishists; its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.