patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,251,747 comments by 14,930 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, DOGEWontAmountToShit, KgK one online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 832 - 871 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
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
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 ?
JodyChunder
2013 May 17, 6:29pm
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.
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:04am
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.
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:04am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:08am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:13am
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".
curious2
2013 May 18, 5:16am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:16am
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.
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:19am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:26am
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.
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:28am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:30am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:45am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:49am
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.
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 18, 5:57am
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.
JodyChunder
2013 May 18, 9:09am
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.
curious2
2013 May 18, 10:09am
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.
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.
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.
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.
curious2
2013 May 18, 10:56am
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.
JodyChunder
2013 May 18, 11:21am
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.
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!
curious2
2013 May 18, 2:11pm
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.
bdrasin
2013 May 18, 4:00pm
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.
JodyChunder
2013 May 18, 4:56pm
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.
curious2
2013 May 18, 5:39pm
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.
JodyChunder
2013 May 18, 7:47pm
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 19, 10:11am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 19, 10:14am
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.
Dan8267
2013 May 19, 10:15am
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.
Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.
Dan8267
2013 May 19, 10:22am
Only stupid Socialist / Atheists like you wish to put a number on people like cattle...
You mean only stupid capitalist Jesus freaks. After all, when was the last time an atheist was elected to Congress or the White House or chosen for the Supreme Court? Oh wait, that has never happened. So how the fuck am I responsible for the government issuing social security numbers, then using them as tax IDs to ensure that every citizen must have one from age 18, then insisting that babies be given social security numbers before their parents can take a tax deduction for them (thus assuring every citizen is literally tagged at birth). That was you assholes, not me. That was your evangelical Jesus freaks in government, not me.
Just because I point out the policies of our government does not mean I support or advocate them, dumb ass.
Oh, and I'm not a socialist either, you idiot.
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.
Not only do you pull the whole "humanity's corpse with a number" delusion out of your ass, but you state lies that are trivially easy to disprove by pressing [Page Up] or clicking on a link.
Do you ever get tired of looking like a moron and an asshole? It's people like you that give Earth a bad name to the rest of the universe.
Dan8267
2013 May 19, 10:23am
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.
Oh, so that's what he was going for. Couldn't tell from his piss poor writing. I think we can simply invoke Godwin's Law. I'm pretty sure that all my Jewish neighbors would kick Tommy boy's ass if he said something like that to them in person.
bdrasin
2013 May 19, 12:40pm
Dan,
what is "immoral"?
Dan can speak for himself, but I'd say a good place to start is to look at a dictionary:
im·mor·al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Sounds like a good definition to me - anyone think they can do better than that?
PeopleUnited
2013 May 19, 12:46pm
Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?
so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?
AD
2013 May 19, 12:47pm
so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?
He should stick to finance and economics on this board. If he can't get enough stimulation discussing them here, then he should go to another board.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 May 20, 2:15am
Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.
Closeted Cowardly Self-Hating Gays:
http://nyjtimes.com/Stories/2005/BoyScoutExec&ChildPorn.htm
BTW, Smith was charged just a few weeks after he fired another executive for going to a gay event. The guy was 2 years until retirement.
More examples:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/07/homoquotable-bob-allen.html
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/08/03/disgraced-ex-idaho-senator-larry-craig-my-toe-tapping-bathroom-trip-was-official-govt-business/
Exodus "Ex-Gay" Ministers caught soliciting man love:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/scandals-defections/
And of course:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/
And:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-caught-soliciting-prostitute-stunned-minn-church-remains-supportive-79358/
http://clergygonewild.com/sex-abuse/38-solicitation/851-arkansas-bentonville-pastor-arrested-during-prostitution-sting-resigns
I could go on and on and on.
I stand in awe of this kind of hypocrisy.
curious2
2013 May 20, 4:08am
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.
Although there are screwed up closeted homosexuals who bash gays, most gay bashers are just immoral assholes.
Dan, the data suggest that most homophobes are in fact secretly homosexual. That's the conclusion of the study that Jody linked to above:
its about how a macho, anti-gay bluster is often cover for insecurity about one's own sexuality. Duh.
It is also consistent with the many linked examples that thunderlips11 listed above. Bop69's pattern is similarly obvious.
I haven't figured out Vaticanus yet. Something about the campaign for marriage equality affected him so deeply that he changed his avatar from a photo of Cardinal Nazinger to a toilet sign. He says he isn't even Catholic, so I'm unsure why he chose the name Vaticanus, or the Nazi pope avatar, but obviously there must be some reason, and it seems related specifically to this issue. What kind of person sees millions of people supporting the equal protection of the laws by using an equality sign as their avatars, and then responds to that by changing his own avatar into a toilet sign? I've never seen that anywhere else. He might be merely an immoral asshole (to use your phrase above), but I can't help suspecting something existential motivates him to identify specifically with this issue.
Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?
PatNet began about housing prices, which were in a bubble and have since become a function of political manipulation. In order to understand the political manipulation, you need to have some awareness of the political process including the two major political parties. The Republican party in particular has campaigned on manipulating people into voting against their own self-interest: religious fanatics with little or no money voting tax cuts for the top 1% of income recipients, and homophobes who are secretly homosexual. If we had a free market economy, we could evaluate housing prices purely in terms of market forces: supply and demand, rental value, costs and wages, etc. Those market forces cannot explain current prices, however, which result from political manipulation wrought by the two strong factions grappling in the federal capitol. To understand those, we need to look at the coalitions driving each faction. Personally, I wonder if Obamacare might tip the electoral balance, or if the mandatory spending might produce a Weimar situation (familiar to Vaticanus' previous Nazi avatar). Anybody can look at past data and say when they should have bought or sold housing or any other asset; many people can look at present data and offer intelligent observations about current reality and how we got here; almost nobody can predict what the future holds, however, so we look at political forces for the same reason that meteorologists look at cloud formations to predict rain.
Dan8267
2013 May 20, 6:46am
Dan,
what is "immoral"?
Your question is a generalization of the question asked by the original post. This is worthy of discussion, but I would start a new thread for that more general subject.
im•mor•al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.Sounds like a good definition to me - anyone think they can do better than that?
The first part of that definition, "violating moral principles", is worthless as it says nothing; it merely pushes the question to "what constitutes moral principles".
The second part of the definition is fine, as long as you are willing to accept a few consequences including that morality is not absolute and what is moral and immoral may vary greatly from culture to culture. If you accept that definition, than morality isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. As such, I would argue that morality is more than arbitrary cultural preferences. In fact, I wouldn't include arbitrary cultural preferences in morality at all. However, this definition does cover b.s. morality like it's wrong to work on Sundays, eat meat on Fridays, for a woman to show her legs above the kneecap.
Or a better question is Why the hell is this thread on Patrick.net ?
Because Patrick.net has a religion topic.
so Dan can execute another self stimulating intellectual masturbation?
It's not masturbation if you are doing it with other people. So, by your analogy, this would be an intellectual orgy.
Dan, the data suggest that most homophobes are in fact secretly homosexual. That's the conclusion of the study that Jody linked to above:
Yeah, but I don't buy that. According to the Williams Institute report gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual persons make up slightly less than 4% of the U.S. population. Even if only half the GLBT were closeted such that they weren't included in the count done by the Williams Institute, that would make the GLBT community a mere 8% of the total population. And even if all of them were self-hating, that would not be sufficient. Clearly more than 8% of the U.S. population is anti-gay.
I would use more conservative figures in estimating. About 30% of the U.S. population is bigoted against gays. With maybe 4% being GLBT, including closeted ones, and about half being self-bigoted (which I think is pretty high), that leaves 2% out of 30% or 6.7% of the bigots are gay. The other 93.3% are straight assholes.
Also, take a look at the Middle East. About 100% of the population is anti-gay. I don't think that means 100% of the population is gay. I mean, really, just look at the lack of a fashion industry. Their clothes haven't changed in 700 years. There's no way they are all gay.
« First « Previous Comments 832 - 871 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.
Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.
Just saying...