patrick.net

Ugly people keep prisons full.

ALEC keeps prisons full, transferring your tax dollars to ALEC members.

Remarkably, ALEC's slogan is "Limited Government · Free Markets · Federalism." That is the exact opposite of the truth. ALEC expands the drug war, including national minimum sentencing.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You keep asserting this, but you never show any evidence or reasoning to that effect.

I tried, but nobody can change your opinion. If you refuse to see male/male coupling as deviant behavior, then so be it. God forgives you.

Bap, you still don't get it. Chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberrry is an opinion. Football is more exciting than baseball is an opinion. The Nicks suck is an -- ok, bad example.

But whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder, isn't an opinion. You shouldn't be trying to change my opinion on this, because I don't have one. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Either the statement is true or it is false, and determining which is based entirely on facts, not opinions.

The problem is that you insist on reaching conclusion X no matter what, and are looking for anything to justify X, and when you can't find anything, you still assert X. The right thing to do is to accept whatever conclusion the body of evidence in modern medicine implies.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

If you refuse to see male/male coupling as deviant behavior, then so be it. God forgives you.

How very kind of you to speak for God. I'm sure the omnipotent creator of the universe will appreciate that. Probably he/she/it was eating peanut butter, and couldn't say anything, so you really helped out.

Remember, curious2, what rejection of god really means to the faithful. When Bap33 says god forgives me, he really means that he forgives me.

Of course, what Bap33 doesn't get is that my "refusal" to believe that homosexual sex is deviant and unhealthy is based on facts not some irrational closed-mindedness. I'm more than willing to accept that breathing is an unhealthy deviant behavior if there was convincing evidence to that fact. Skepticism and closed-mindedness isn't the same thing. A closed-minded person cannot be convinced of a statement no matter the evidence. A skeptic demands to be convinced by evidence. I'm a skeptic; Bap's closed-minded.

Bap33 says

behavior variations keep prisons full

Thankfully, most countries don't arrest people for homosexuality any more. To do so would be a violation of human rights and would attract international condemnation.

Dan8267 says

Examples of unnatural behavior common in human beings... You know, shit that other animals don't do and that our Stone Age ancestors didn't either.

- Skydiving
- Flying in giant metal machines
- Boating
- Shooting guns (there's fucking nothing less natural than a gun)
- holding court
- Congress (ok, bad example, that is deviant behavior)
- surgery
- marriage (including the heterosexual type)
- imprisonment (oh, wait, I already mentioned marriage)
- driving
- NASCAR
- writing
- maintaining a police force

So, how exactly is unnatural behavior evil?

But Dan, no one is saying all unnatural behavior is evil. You can't take a single example and turn it into all or nothing every time. That's just not a good argument. Nor is any innovation is evil, though some can seem rather stupid.

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen. Homosexuals, are men or women who are disabled in certain ways. And physical or mental disorders should not be celebrated like the left wing media likes to pretend, merely accepted and hopefully cured.

FortWayne says

But Dan, no one is saying all unnatural behavior is evil

Actually, Bap's argument that homosexuality is evil because it's unnatural rests on the assumption that all natural behavior is good and all unnatural behavior is evil. As such, my counter-examples apply.

Of course a rational person would not associate "natural" with good or evil and "unnatural" with the opposite. Good/evil and natural/unnatural are clearly independent and unrelated concepts.

Bap's argument that homosexuality is evil because it's unnatural is also flawed because homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy, and he's not accepting that monogamy is evil. If a person's set of beliefs contradict themselves, they can't be right. Contradictions only exist in mistakes. In order for a philosophy or moral code to be valid, it must in the very least be self-consistent. That's not the only requirement, but it is a requisite.

Dan8267 says

Examples of unnatural behavior common in human beings... You know, shit that other animals don't do and that our Stone Age ancestors didn't either.

- marriage (including the heterosexual type)

* * * * *
- maintaining a police force

There are animals that go through relatively elaborate courtship rituals then become monogamous partners. "Natural" marriage?

As far a police go, don't soldier ants "protect and serve?"

FortWayne says

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.

Well, enjoy that while it lasts. Based on the trends I've seen in my own life its clear to me that in 20 years or so homosexuality will be totally accepted by all of mainstream society (at least in the first world), everyone will see that there are no negative repercussions, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

behavior variations keep prisons full

Thankfully, most countries don't arrest people for homosexuality any more. To do so would be a violation of human rights and would attract international condemnation.

it is impossible for someone to be arrested for being a male/male coupler in any country. Impossible. Those who suffer from the defects that result in male/male coupling can only be arrested for being "suspected" of performing male/male coupling, and if there is any legal system in place that requires proof, then they can only be convicted if they are found in a mounted condition. At that point they are guilty of performing an unnatural sex act, but even then there is no proof they are a "homosexual". The only proof is that they engage in male/male coupling. So, the laws "should" be against public/known activity, and not try to guess the motivation of the participants. Same with any other law such as theft, murder, rape, ext ext. The reason why a person does somthing should not apply. The fact a person commits any act (legal, moral, kind) indicates they were born with a pre-disposition. Being born with a pre-disposition is not an excuse for behavior.

leo707 says

There are animals that go through relatively elaborate courtship rituals then become monogamous partners. "Natural" marriage?

Courtship rituals are much more akin to dating than marriage. Marriage is essentially a legal contract and other animals don't have those. Nor do other animals have tax codes with deductions for marriage. Finally, courtship rituals don't typically involve monogamy, whereas marriage usually does. Notable exceptions include newts.

leo707 says

As far a police go, don't soldier ants "protect and serve?"

Armies and police forces serve different purposes. Warfare definitely is abundant in nature. Jane Goodall even recorded instances of chimps engaging in systematic warfare with weaker tribes (troops).

Bap33 says

At that point they are guilty of performing an unnatural sex act, but even then there is no proof they are a "homosexual". The only proof is that they engage in male/male coupling. So, the laws "should" be against public/known activity, and not try to guess the motivation of the participants. Same with any other law such as theft, murder, rape, ext ext

You're making no sense. Theft, murder, and rape are all natural events, they are common in nature. Marriage is not a natural event. It does not occur anywhere in nature. Arresting a person for committing an "unnatural" act makes no sense. For example, shitting on the ground in natural; shitting in a toilet is not. Would you arrest the person using the toilet or the sidewalk?

The most unnatural act by far is organized religion. No other species pays a subset of its members to hold forth about invisible beings and their purported will. The damage can be observed in Bop69, who is trapped in a cycle of abuse that was inflicted upon him and that he inflicts now upon himself and others.

An Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim child gashes his forehead with a sword during a ceremony marking Ashura in Baghdad

FortWayne says

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.

So were the pilgrims that fled Europe and founded the US. Then they became mainstream.

FortWayne says

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.

A sexual orientation isn't a "world view." Most Americans want to be seen as equal citizens, and a majority do support the equal protection of the laws, including for same-sex couples.

bdrasin says

everyone will see that there are no negative repercussions

I'd say the half-million or so US deaths from AIDS are a definite negative repercussion. And those deaths were mostly a direct result of unprotected promiscuous gay sex.

Which is all an excellent argument for gay marriage really.

those deaths were mostly a direct result of

The most frequent cause of HIV transmission is heterosexual sex. A majority of people with HIV are women, and typically they got it from their adulterous husbands, whom they trusted. The husbands typically got it from committing adultery with female prostitutes. Adultery and IV drug use are definitely risk factors for HIV. Same-sex marriage isn't. More than 20 million people have died of AIDS, and more than 30 million are living with HIV, mostly women.

This thread is about morality of "gay sex." If you want to use AIDS deaths as evidence of immorality, then you would have to conclude that gay sex between lesbians is the most moral sex of all, because it has the lowest rate of HIV transmission.

curious2 says

The most frequent cause is heterosexual transmission.

In Africa, not here.

curious2 says

Adultery and IV drug use are definitely risk factors for HIV. Same-sex marriage isn't.

Being a promiscous gay man is the highest risk factor of all.

But we agree that same-sex marriage is a good way to stop the spread of AIDS.

In America, IV drug use is probably the highest risk factor, and being black correlates with a 4x increase in risk, but I agree promiscuity is definitely a risk factor.

And yes, I agree same-sex marriage would help in reducing promiscuity, so it would help reduce the spread of HIV.

Another issue regarding HIV transmission in America is DTC advertising by drug companies. The ads are amazing. "I told my mother I got HIV, she told me that she loved me." DTC drug ads are probably a risk factor for HIV in the same way that Coke & Pepsi ads are a risk factor for obesity. The drug companies aren't interested in a vaccine. Some vaccines work retroactively, e.g. smallpox. Nobody cares what the risk factors for smallpox were, or attaches moral significance to them, because it's gone now.

bdrasin says

everyone will see that there are no negative repercussions

I'd say the half-million or so US deaths from AIDS are a definite negative repercussion. And those deaths were mostly a direct result of unprotected promiscuous gay sex.

Well, its probably true that not having women in the equation to slow down the male libido tends to lead to more promiscuous sex, but that's really nothing to do with marriage. Encouraging gays to stay closeted if anything will lead to more promiscuous sex with less forethought to possible repercussions.

Which is what I think you mean by:

Which is all an excellent argument for gay marriage really.

I agree. Encouraging long term, mutually supportive relationships is really the best thing for everyone.

And those deaths were mostly a direct result of unprotected promiscuous gay sex.
Which is all an excellent argument for gay marriage really.

Do you suggest that by getting publicly/legally married, the deviant couples will be better at not being promisuous, and stay chaste, vs normal married couples? I submit that there is nothing wrote or enforced in any State of America that keeps deviants (or normal people) from being committed, and true partners, for life .. not one thing .. and I also submit that there is no function of a public coupling/marriage that will increase the lifespan or dedication found in any partnership - deviant or normal.

Dan,
There is a "reason" society should not want people to crap in public access places, but the planet has many that do. There is a "reason" why society should not want people that suffer from a deviant mind, or defective glands, to be abused by unnatural coupling, but the planet has many that do.

bdrasin says

Encouraging long term, mutually supportive relationships is really the best thing for everyone.

amen!

True, but we should avoid policies that are against the grains of human nature.

mell says

FortWayne says

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.

So were the pilgrims that fled Europe and founded the US. Then they became mainstream.

I wouldn't compare pilgrims to homosexuals. The poor have always fled the tyranny. Homosexuals aren't living in tyranny, but they want all of us to accept them as normal and that won't happen... because they are not normal.

Bap33 says

Dan,
There is a "reason" society should not want people to crap in public access places, but the planet has many that do. There is a "reason" why society should not want people that suffer from a deviant mind, or defective glands, to be abused by unnatural coupling, but the planet has many that do.

Your analogy is wrong. There is no more reason to associate homosexual sex with "crapping in public" than to associate heterosexual sex with "crapping in public.

Secondly, the gay bashers of the word aren't acting out of concern for homosexuals. The assholes that murdered Mathew Shepard weren't trying to help him. The assholes holding up "God hate fags" signs aren't trying to help gays. The assholes opposing marriage equality aren't doing so for the benefit of gays.

As such, your argument that demonizing gays is for their own good is as hollow as the, once popular, argument that "the negro must be kept in check for his own good least his bestial nature take over his behavior". A lot of people in the 19th century advocated that philosophy and laws based on it, and justified that bigotry as "The White Man's Burden". What you are advocating is "The Straight Man's Burden", and it is just as ridiculous.

FortWayne says

I wouldn't compare pilgrims to homosexuals. The poor have always fled the tyranny. Homosexuals aren't living in tyranny, but they want all of us to accept them as normal and that won't happen... because they are not normal.

Why not? If it is tyranny for the Church of England to force its moral beliefs onto other Christian sects, then why isn't it tyranny for various Christian sects to force their moral beliefs onto homosexuals? Oh, because this time your group isn't the one being suppressed. I suspect that if you had a gay son or daughter, you'd be a lot more accepting of homosexuality, just like Dick Cheney is.

Homosexuals have been burned alive at the stake, lynched and hung from trees, imprisoned, forced to undergo chemical castration, unwarranted brain surgery, electroshock "therapy", and imposed medication. To say that homosexuals haven't been persecuted, including in the USA, is absolutely wrong.

I'm not forcing anything, homosexuality is not normal. And I leave it at that.

Maybe a dog or a cat doesn't like being called a dog or a cat, but it is what it is.

FortWayne says

I'm not forcing anything, homosexuality is not normal.

You might not be, but the state most certainly is forcing homosexuals to be deprived of many civil rights including:
- marriage
- paying higher taxes
- not getting spousal benefits including insurance, veterans, widowers
- not having the same visitation or power of attorney rights as straight married couples

I'm sure the list goes on and on. This is just what I remember off the top of my head.

As for homosexuality not being "normal", what exactly constitutes normal and why should "not normal" be considered socially, legally, or morally unacceptable? Heroism, by definition, is not normal.

FortWayne says

mell says

FortWayne says

Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.

So were the pilgrims that fled Europe and founded the US. Then they became mainstream.

I wouldn't compare pilgrims to homosexuals. The poor have always fled the tyranny. Homosexuals aren't living in tyranny, but they want all of us to accept them as normal and that won't happen... because they are not normal.

I somewhat agree with that in the way that they are not living in tyranny right now in most countries of the world (in some they do), but it's always a changing world. As with regards to normalcy I would say the distribution of homosexuality is normal throughout nature, but overall it is a minority. If you want to call the majority normal and the minority not normal, fine. But keep in mind that there are areas in the world right now where women and gays are stoned to death routinely, kids forced to marry whoever their parents choose and much more where those acts are considered - at least locally - "normal".

Usually opposition to this can be argued in sematics but it can get odd.

For example opposition to any sort of gay rights movement is usually not opposing people being together but rather identification.

Can it be argued to someone that is a religious conservative that simply the act of getting married does not play into anything of gender or sexual preference?

On the international stage this is where it gets really weird. In Iran the ayatollah khomeni believed that homosexual behavior and identification are wrong. However, he thought if you cannot change the mind then they can be free to change the body..huh? Basically Iran gives free sex changes under the idea of sweeping them under the rug socially.

To use any religious argument for any form of behavior or activity..sexuality, diet, exercise, religious law etc is wrong. Religions tell individuals how to act, not for people to govern. The 10 commandments state "Thou" NOT "Thy". Thou is the singular. Furthermore if the idea of influencing people is to "save" them what if they don't want to be saved? What if they have a different religion? What specifically states in any religion that you must do something to someone else as a commandment to change their views?

I'm in Mass. Yeah I might have been opposed to the marriage thing but my views changed. It's not the end of the world and besides the median wedding costs $25,000. Who in their right mind wants to block people from spending tens of thousands of dollars in the economy these days? Especially when the vast majority of religions do not pay PILOT's let alone actual taxes.

To go against same sex marriage (which technically is the real term since gays and lesbians can get married, just not to each other) does not make any real logical sense. Marriage provides various legal protections that make it far simpler in times of death or sickness vs trying to put everything in a trust and health care proxies etc. Think about it for a moment. If a gay couple has a kid and a house and say one dies and the house is in that persons name then what? Non recognition means the bank might try to take it or the state and thus creating more homelessness that taxes end up paying (and another empty house). What if there were funds set aside for the kid for college *poof* gone.

This isn't about "rights" per say but rather about freedoms. A marriage is a legal contract and to outright prevent a contract for no compelling reasons means that people will leave to where it is legal. Frankly this can be just like segregation. Like segregation no one in their right mind today would try it as why would anyone want to deny themselves customers? If businesses don't care if someone is white, black, gay, straight bi why should the government?

Same-Sex Marriage Laws Reduce Doctor Visits and Health Care Costs for Gay Men

What of the six hours of television that americans watch per day? Of the 250+ pounds of sugar that americans consume annually? Neither act is natural, they are both deleterious to society, so why doth thou not protest these immoral and unnatural acts? Why such focus on male/male coupling (while oddly ignoring female homosexual sex)?

The only reasoning I can figure, is because your thoughts are not organic. They were planted in your mind by outside forces looking to control you. To dumb you down thru malnutrition and poor health (mentally/physically/spiritually) that arise from all the sugar consumption, and fortified by the mind control you willingly subject yourself to, six hours a day, wastijg away staring mindlessly at the boob tube

This thread just goes on and on and on... Why oh why do we care so much about what goes on in the bedrooms of others?

There will always be very closed minded people who take comfort in believing that everything there is to know about the world can be found in a book written thousands of years ago. Many of these people (who supposedly support small government) want government that can compel people to the teachings of that book. I'm forever amazed that intelligent people will turn to the bible itself as proof that the teachings contained therein are the only possible truth. The bible is true because the bible says it's true. Really? Good thing people are superstitious enough not to subject these arguments to any kind of peer review.

As a card carrying republican, I detest what this mindset has done to my party. These absurd moral arguments are exactly why the democrats keep winning. All they have to say are the words "abortion" and "gays" and we just run off to chase the shiny object. So, while we're chasing the shiny object, we make a$$es of ourselves telling people that babies resulting from rape are God's will, sex can only be between a man and a woman, etc.... we have no one to blame but ourselves when we go the way of the Torries. The republicans will never make any gains until they divorce themselves from the religious right. When everything you earn above subsistence levels are taxed out of existance (see WWII period) then perhaps we'll realize that we're losing more than we're gaining from our religious-right mouthpieces -- who are nothing more than a bunch of narrow-minded, superstitious rubes.

If I had to choose between two acts, as to which one was gayer, I think that two men having anal sex, blowing one another and whatever else happens in a male/male coupling, would rank as less gay than a person fixating on, and repeatedly typing unto this forum, the term male\male coupling. Its probably the gayest thing I've ever encountered, and I once picked up what I thought was a fine young lady on duval st key west, before getting "her" into some better lighting, and realizing I was priming myself for what might have been, unknowingly, my first male/male coupling. Yuck

turtledove says

This thread just goes on and on and on...

Yeah, this thread was originally about the question of whether or not gay sex was immoral. But since those who believe that it is immoral can't justify that belief at all, it's morphed into a discussion about whether or not gays should have equal rights, and when the conservative side failed to justify that gays shouldn't, it's become an argument about whether or not "gay culture" is acceptable.

I'm willing to say the question in the original posting has been fully answered. "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?" It's not. There is no justification whatsoever for calling gay sex immoral. In fact, demonizing gay sex as immoral is itself immoral as it dehumanizes people and advocates violence against them. Gay sex is not immoral. Gay bashing is.

Having thoroughly explored this subject, welcoming all arguments before refuting them, I say this thread is done and if anyone wants to talk about the issue of gay marriage or social acceptance of gay culture, let's open a new thread.

It’s not that only gay sex is immoral, it’s that fornication, which involves any sex act outside of marriage, is immoral. In the Bible’s wonderful economy it dispenses with the matter in just two words, Corinthians 6:18, “Flee fornication”, then goes on to say “…Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

As for marriage, an atheist man and woman, married in a civil ceremony at the court house, with no acknowledgment of God or his existence, whatever their other problems with the God in whom they don’t believe, are still married in the eyes of God and are not committing fornication. In the other case, a same-sex couple, purporting even to be Christians, employing all the liturgies of the church administered by the attendant clergy still are not going to be married according to scriptural definition and will be committing fornication. But the same also applies to unmarried opposite sex couples.

Then in the last two verses of the chapter it puts the lie to another common conceit, that one’s body is their own to do with as they please:

19 – “What! Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God and you are not your own?

20 – For you are bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Here’s another thing that’s interesting to me: for more than a generation heterosexuals, especially those with a progressive outlook, have been avoiding marriage as though it were a plague or pestilence, in favor of simply “hooking up” for a time, perhaps even for several years and having children out of wedlock. Why, then, is it seen of the greatest importance that all of a sudden same sex couples and their heterosexual advocates would demand access to an institution that for over 40 years, beginning with the sexual revolution, millions have treated with contempt and indifference?

P N Dr Lo R says

It’s not that only gay sex is immoral, it’s that fornication, which involves any sex act outside of marriage, is immoral.

The what exactly constitutes a marriage for the purpose of your fictitious god? Does your god require that the state acknowledge the marriage? If so, which states does your god recognize and which does it not? If not, then why wouldn't a monogamous homosexual couple be considered married in the eyes of your false god?

Also, why should your god even give a rat's bottom as to whether or not humans are monogamous? The Christian Bible is loaded with polygamy.

Also, why should the arbitrary personal preferences of your god in any way determine what is moral and what is not. If your god advocated slavery, which he's gone on the record as doing, then is slavery moral?

The concept of good is a prior. The concept of god is not. Basing morality on what you think your god wants is putting the horse before the cart. It makes the statement "god is all good" meaningless.

P N Dr Lo R says

Here’s another thing that’s interesting to me

Your question is already answered in this thread, even though it's a digression as Dan noted. In any event, opinion and interests are not monolithic; different people want different things. As turtledove noted above, some people insist on finding all the answers in one book, and I suspect a reason is because they can't handle the complexity of different people relying on different sources and wanting different things for different reasons. It's like you're insisting on a mainframe mentality in an Internet world.

Also, your reading of the Bible is terribly selective, basically reading only Paul, who disagreed with the other disciples and in fact persecuted the early Christians. You might consider reading Proverbs:

"Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD."

I mentioned this before and someone whom I won't name insisted on returning to male/male coupling and argued that "wife" must be female. In fact even if you stipulate wife as female, "whoso" isn't necessarily male. Some recent revisions of the Bible say "He who" instead of the original King James Version, but they are deliberately changing the text to suit their own taste - which goes back to Dan's epiphany about what God really is. And if you read the complete NT, you may observe two things: (1) Paul never claims to quote Jesus at all; (2) those who do claim to quote Jesus are very clear that he condemned adultery including especially remarriage after divorce. He never condemned gay couples at all, to the contrary read Luke. All of which has nothing to do with morality, as Dan noted: the Bible condones many things that we consider immoral (including especially religious violence), while condemning things that we consider morally neutral (e.g. wearing clothing of mixed fiber).

Dan8267 says

Yeah, this thread was originally about the question of whether or not gay sex was immoral

To get back to that, I'd say that like many human activities, gay sex CAN be immoral in some situations:
Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Roberto Arango et al seeking out anonymous, unsafe gay sex, lying to their spouses and putting their health at risk was absolutely immoral. Of course all three of those are straight-identified right wingers...

bdrasin says

Larry Craig, Ted Haggard....

Their transgressions were hypocrisy, adultery, taking money under false pretenses, and baseless persecution of their fellow Americans. They aren't morally different from Jimmy Swaggart, who "sinned against you" in basically the same way.