patrick.net

Gay marriage is immoral? Only if you accept the idea that the right wing has the authority to define what IS immoral.

But it keeps a price floor for politcal contributions. And there's also that Freudian Reaction Formation thingy too.

An interesting anecdote concerning the bad example that gays may have on kids.

My boy has never expressed a desire to wear dresses, but it is quite common for little boys. Well...when we were at Disneyland he did want to get a similar set of sequined Minnie Mouse ears as his sister, but I was able to pretty easily steer him towards some Mickey ears.

Anyway, I have known several straight couples that have let their boys put on dresses, but only at home. I have never known anyone even close to that German father who wears a dress with his son around town. The only couple that I know who outright refuses to let their boy try on a dress, despite repeated requests, is a Lesbian couple.

leo707 says

My boy has never expressed a desire to wear dresses, but it is quite common for little boys. Well...when we were at Disneyland he did want to get a similar sequined Minnie Mouse ears as his sister, but I was able to pretty easily steer him towards some Mickey ears.

That's a strange diagnosis of your son. Are you saying that he is odd because he doesn't want to wear a dress? What would you then say if he did?

Never mind. I'll let you think about that and chase your own theories in circles.

upisdown says

Never mind.

OK.

leo707 says

upisdown says

Never mind.
OK

I so wanted to watch you take it to a whole other level. Thanks for cheating me out of that entertainment.

Quit wasting so much time and energy worrying about what is right and what is wrong, and just do what feels good

Have to figure the homophobes for some dead lays, because if you are a productive person with a healthy sex life of your own, no way would you have the time to fret about whatever the hell flamers are doing in their bedrooms.

I'm repulsed by people that poison their selves, and more importantly their children, who rely on their parents for proper nutrition, with copious amounts of sugars. Cereals, fruit juices, all that crap that makes people fat and chronically ill. Is poisoning your child with sugar immoral? Some of y'all got your priorities all the way fucked the hell up

Dan said, "Someone who is not a parent cannot possibly have a valid philosophy regarding parenthood."

That's not what I was claiming, and that's not what others are saying either. Not entirely. Intelligence and internal modeling (creative thinking) are a hallmark of humanity, but they're no match for experience. It's the difference between reading and thinking about Love and being in love. It's the difference between reading about how to swim and actually jumping into the water. How do you explain colors to a man blind from birth? Some things you won't "get" until they happen to you.

"Impartial judge though you imagine yourself, you're just not qualified to be anything but an observer in the matter of how to teach children about sex.

upisdown says

leo707 says

upisdown says

Never mind.

OK

I so wanted to watch you take it to a whole other level. Thanks for cheating me out of that entertainment.

You are welcome.

upisdown says

That's a strange diagnosis of your son.

It is not a diagnosis it is an observation.

upisdown says

Are you saying that he is odd because he doesn't want to wear a dress?

No, I am not sure how you can read that in what I wrote...

leo707 says

[The] desire to wear dresses...is quite common for little boys.

"Common" does not mean "majority", also it does not mean "everything else is 'odd' or abnormal." It means that it is normal for a little boy to have a desire to wear a dress.

upisdown says

What would you then say if he did?

I would try and dissuade him, but if he insisted I would let him wear one inside the house. I did let him try on the sequined mouse ears at Disneyland, but I was not going to buy them for him.

I hope you found my response satisfactory entertainment.

FYI, I am happy to respond to questions, but if you followup the question with a "never mind" then it is easier for me to not answer the question.

In so far as I can the people I see who have the biggest problems with homosexuality all seem to be parents.

leo707 says

I would try and dissuade him, but if he insisted I would let him wear one inside the house. I did let him try on the sequined mouse ears at Disneyland, but I was not going to buy them for him.

I can't blame you for not wanting to buy the overpriced ears from China. We didn't and never will. Walt Disney's "creative" genious came in the form of getting people to spend every dime that they bring in on useless junk that they don't need before they leave, not simple geometric renditions of animals.

zzyzzx says

In so far as I can the people I see who have the biggest problems with homosexuality all seem to be parents.

Parents who are afraid that their kids are going to catch the gay.

Does anyone here really think it is a choice whether you want to lick pussy or suck dick?

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/10287/20120613/homosexuality-gene-mother-reproduction-evolution.htm

Less respect for this site after this thread.

upisdown says

I can't blame you for not wanting to buy the overpriced ears from China.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I bought ears for my boy, just not Minnie mouse ears. My girl did get a set of pink sequined ears.

upisdown says

Walt Disney's "creative" genious came in the form of getting people to spend every dime that they bring in on useless junk that they don't need before they leave, not simple geometric renditions of animals.

Yeah, for the most part it is true. I try and avoid getting things that the kids will not appreciate after leaving the park. I think that the only thing that has been unused has been my boy's Mickey ears. My girl wears her Minnie Mouse ears quite often.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/china-challenges-one-child-brooks/index.html?iref=obnetwork

I think I found your answer to your question.

What's the difference in China breeding all Males, most of which will never get a chance to mate and leave their legacy offspring, or if the American male turns into Richard Simmons. The outcome would be the same.

David9 says

Less respect for this site after this thread.

I redact this statement I made.

As usual, learning is achieved, in this case astounding.

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

Citation?

CaptainShuddup says

What's the difference in China breeding all Males, most of which will never get a chance to mate and leave their legacy offspring, or if the American male turns into Richard Simmons. The outcome would be the same.

Nope, you can look deeper into other sociological studies on this. The problem is not so much having children, but having a steady sex partner. In societies where young men's access to sexual partners is limited violence ensues, when they have access peace is more common.

Situational homosexuality (think prison or ancient Greek army) will act as a "release valve" for this sexual tension (another evolutionary advantage). Yes, Shaddup if you find yourself in prison you may start having "strange" attractions to men (if you don't already).

So, keep heterosexual men from women = violence
Keep homosexual men from men = violence

It is quite possible that this is at the root of the homophobic man stereotype, where the most violently homophobic are actually gay themselves. When denying themselves an outlet for their true sexual passions, they become violent, hostile and lash out.

robertoaribas says

So, I have a capital idea for the idiots on here: If you find yourself bothered by gay sex, don't have gay sex.

I suspect that for some that is easier said than done.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

You seem fixated on male/male homosexuality. Does that mean that female/female homosexuality is more palatable in your narrow world view? Or do you only concern yourself with the half of same sex relations that get your dick hard?

FortWayne says

but seeing homosexual behave in their inappropriate manner is something totally different, it just might screw them up.

Sex is perfectly legal, but it's not shown on tv for a reason. Same with homosexuality, not in public, not where children can see it.

Even if every gay rights issue were passed, men would not be having gay sex in public. Yes, I'm fine with that being illegal. There are far bigger problems then legalizing public sex.

However, if that's all you mean by "setting a bad example", I don't think you have anything to worry about. No gay rights movement has ever proposed legalizing public sex, gay or straight.

If you mean you don't want your kids to see two adult men kissing in public, then that is just your own cultural and personal prejudices and the state should not act on them. Men do kiss in public in other countries and it doesn't screw up kids. Heck, heterosexual men kiss in public in some cultures.

Billybigrig says

Does a Mystro use a toilet plunger to lead an orchestra , does a carpenter use a saw for a hammer

Does a theatre troupe use garbage cans and brooms as instruments?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zu15Ou-jKM0

Oh, wait.

Dan8267 says

Even if every gay rights issue were passed, men would not be having gay sex in public. Yes, I'm fine with that being illegal. There are far bigger problems then legalizing public sex.

What is the philosophical basis of outlawing public sex?

I doubt it is worse than spitting on the street from a public health stand point. I would feel more threatened by people spewing germ-filled saliva in public.

rdm says

It is a question of understanding not impartial judgement, to which anyone's claim of is absurd.

I can understand the practice of teaching because I was a student. I can understand the practice of parenting because I was parented. I can understand the horrors of the Holocaust, not because I experienced it but because I have empathy. I can put myself in someone else's shoes without having to physically experience the exact same things. I don't understand why this skill is unique to me. Why the hell doesn't every other member of my species possess this skill? It's not that difficult.

But in any case, as I said above, if my opinion on parenting doesn't count for shit since I'm not a parent, then nobody's opinion on homosexuality counts if they are not homosexual. Same diff.

leo707 says

robertoaribas says

So, I have a capital idea for the idiots on here: If you find yourself bothered by gay sex, don't have gay sex.

I suspect that for some that is easier said than done.

Your right. I hate gay sex, but somehow I always end up sucking cock on a Friday night. What's up with that?

Kids are more screwed up by bad parenting than by anything else. People need to stop blaming the society. If we worry so much about having bad kids perhaps we should restrict procreation only to certain people.

robertoaribas says

The people who through time have proven themselves to be the least intelligent are the most against homosexuality. I'd love to see some study of the correlation of intelligence and intolerance, but if this thread is any example, I'd bet its pretty high.

It's the same inverse correlation as intelligence and religion. Yes, there's something fundamentally there.

I consider myself an intolerant person (I prefer exactly 69F or it is either too hot or too cold). I just happen to celebrate choices and differences.

Choice is the most sacred thing a human being can possess.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

The gay rights movement most certainly is not about exposing children to sexual images.

not correct. the male/male sodomite message has been forced into public schools by the PC police. Fact.

Citation?

You won't get any citation. The conservative right lives in a bubble and no facts can get through. The fact that Bap33 even made such a ludicrous statement demonstrates that he has no grasp on reality when it comes to the gay rights movement. It's like when McCarthy claimed that the army was full of communists.

I think such delusional perceptions of reality are clear proof that it is homophobia that is the mental disorder, not homosexuality.

CaptainShuddup says

What's the difference in China breeding all Males, most of which will never get a chance to mate and leave their legacy offspring, or if the American male turns into Richard Simmons. The outcome would be the same.

Wow, you are really grasping for straws. First off, that would be an issue of practicality, not morality. Second, unless every single man in the world turned into a flamer and refused to touch a woman, there would be no ill effects. Third, such an argument can't apply to polygamous bisexuals, who are also discriminated against. Fourth, anyone taking a vow of celibacy would be harming America by your assertion. Fifth, even waiting until marriage to have sex would be bad for America by your assertion.

Well, just over two full days and I have yet to hear a single, even remotely plausible justification for considering gay sex immoral. Does the religious right want to concede that they have always been wrong on this issue, or do they need more time to think something up?

Morality tends to be a loose meme based on volatile emotional reaction, tradition, paternal domination, hierarchy, attempts at enforcing social order, religion, evolved reactions designed to protect procreativity and health etc.

Sex is the ultimate territorial lynchpin, and since everybody tends to have some different variation of it, it becomes the biggest secret and the most emotional, irrational, personal and evocative secret.

My own opinion is that if you have a sense of justice, value ethics and fairness, do not act or react out of hatred or emotional volatility, and recognize when something hurts and endangers others, society, and yourself, then you don't have much need of morals per se. You are using a more precise and constructive instrument.

Dan8267 says

Does the religious right want to concede that they have always been wrong on this issue, or do they need more time to think something up

But the kooky right does love to hate though, and they're very good at it too.

Dan8267 says

Why the hell doesn't every other member of my species possess this skill? It's not that difficult.

Diversity is good for a species, right?

Dan8267 says

I can understand the practice of teaching because I was a student...

Yes, I agree that empathy (and logic) can bring someone a long way, but...without having the experience one will never fully understand because having an experience changes people. Without having fully gone through that change one will every truly "know" what any given experience is like. That said, all people that have children are not changed in the same ways, and cannot necessarily "understand" the others experience.

However, I still think that one can have a "valid" opinion on a matter that they have not personally experienced.

I am entering this conversation solely to engage in debate on the subject. I would be embarassed if someone thought I actually believed the following statement:

Gay sex is immoral because the bible says that it is.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Morality is defined as "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

I see a causation issue that I would like to address as respectfully as possible, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone by overlooking the limitations of typing on a screen.

zzyzzx says

the people I see who have the biggest problems with homosexuality all seem to be parents.

leo707 says

having an experience changes people.

Studies of voting patterns have shown that parents of public schoolchildren are not more likely to vote for more school funding than people who don't have children in public school. So, the experience of having children does not appear to change people in that respect. They may certainly feel different, and know more than they did, but their voting patterns don't seem to change as much as one might expect. Other threads on PatNet may explain why: both parents and teachers disagree sometimes with teachers' unions and how public school funding gets spent.

On the other hand, the likelihood of becoming parents varies significantly based on factors that have little to do with being right or even intelligent. For example, religion correlates inversely with intelligence (i.e., religious people tend to have a lower IQ), but correlates positively with having children (i.e. religious people are more likely to "be fruitful and multiply," as the Big Mormon Wagons illustrate so vividly). We had an earlier thread about a straight couple having sex on a table at a restaurant; they didn't seem very bright, which may actually increase the likelihood one of them might get pregnant.

So, I conclude that people who have children aren't more likely to become homophobic; they care very much about protecting their children, but they don't lose the ability to see that homosexuality isn't a threat. Meanwhile, people who are very religious, and parrot religious objections to homosexuality, are more likely to become parents. (And to tool around in SUVs that endanger their occupants and everyone else on the road, and to vote for holy wars all over the world, etc.) It doesn't mean that parents have necessarily more expertise on this particular subject, in fact they may have less.

jessica says

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

...and a responsibility to respect others' right to live by other principles not based on the Bible; furthermore:

curious2 says

msilenus says

If someone says...they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right.

But if they ignore most of what the book says, and fixate on certain points that they need for reasons of their own, then they aren't "right" objectively with reference to the book itself - they're merely illustrating something about themselves.

jessica says

As a part of American society, I have the right to choose my principles to be based on the teachings of the bible.

The problem is when you decide for others based upon bible teachings. It also takes more effort to hate than is does to actually not even think about it or not hate.

And, other people as part of American society have the right to decide that your principles are wrong and hateful, along with their primciples NOT based on the teachings of the bible. Your choice of freedom of religion is protected, but not your efforts to force it onto others.

curious2 says

So, I conclude that people who have children aren't more likely to become homophobic, even though they care very much about protecting their children.

Yes, people do want to protect their children, but someone who does not view homosexuality as a "threat" is not going to change their mind on the subject after having kids.

curious2 says

Meanwhile, people who are very religious, and parrot religious objections to homosexuality, are more likely to become parents.

I am not so sure about this. I think that the biological drive to procreate transcends religion. However, there are certain religious groups that encourage people to have more children that they probably would have had otherwise.

curious2 says

It doesn't mean that parents have necessarily more expertise on this particular subject, in fact they may have less.

Agreed.