patrick.net

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.

bdrasin says

its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.

http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

You just never know with people. I've had friends over the years who were at least tacitly phobic toward the idea of male homosexuality (for whatever reason, lesbians -- not so much). I remember getting into a brief discussion once with a homophobic female coworker back in the day. It came up at breakfast one AM that she suspected a favorite cousin of hers of being homosexual, and she was visibly unnerved by it. I thought it was weird that she was so wound up, and so I asked her why it was she even gave a damn. Following much wrangling, what it all seemed to boil down to for her was an intense aversion to the fecal/septic. She didn't seem to care about the social element at all really, and empirically speaking, she was not surreptitiously gay herself.

JodyChunder says

what it all seemed to boil down to for her was....

I can't help suspecting her proffered "reason" was intended to manipulate your feelings on the subject and shut down the conversation. Although I hesitate to wade into it, consider a scale comparing Santorum to changing a diaper or walking a dog. If you believe her, then she would be both an unfit mother and an unfit dog owner, in addition to being a narrow minded wife.

curious2 says

I can't help suspecting her proffered "reason" was intended to manipulate your feelings on the subject and shut down the conversation. Although I hesitate to wade into it, consider a scale comparing Santorum to changing a diaper or walking a dog. If you believe her, then she would be both an unfit mother and an unfit dog owner, in addition to being a narrow minded wife.

I never kept up with her after she married an alpha asshole, so I don't know whether she had kids with him or not. She did have a dog. And a god. She also ate bacon.

Of course, she's one example only. Plenty of otherwise decent people have intense and even irrational aversions to things more benign than feces. I had a women break it off with me many years back because she saw me picking my nose in bed one night. I knew a grown man in charge of a team of employees who wouldn't eat his meal if the beans were touching the meat loaf on the same plate.

So, no, I have no real reason to doubt she was being sincere. In fact, if there's an overarching narrative here, it's that people are fucking peculiar when it comes to which grotesqueries they'll tolerate and which ones they won't. I suspect that sometimes, it's not any more deeply philosophical than eewww gross. Seriously.

JodyChunder says

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.

Glendon is asserting that sodomy, whatever he means by that, is immoral because it goes against nature, which is empirically false.

robertoaribas says

infanticide occurs throughout nature too; rape occurs throughout nature. So, I'm not going to say if something occurs in nature, it is therefore ok. Mind you, I'm on your side on this argument, but I'm not sure that is your strongest case you can make

Nor would I. I have never taken the position that what is natural must be good. However, if Glendon and others are going to argue that natural means good and unnatural means bad, then I'm most certainly going to hold it against them when they get which is which wrong.

But yes, the fact that many natural things are immoral is yet another counter-argument to Glendon's assertion, and one that I have made in this thread.