patrick.net

Bap33 says

"why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

Easy question. It was very common less than a century ago, but then got bundled together with an identity. Previously, people who keep thinking about it (not to mention any names Bap) would simply have done it, but now they are afraid of being called gay, so instead of actually doing it they just keep thinking about it.

BTW, the hunky Captain America avatar reminds me of a certain WWE wrestler:

Please take care. Pills marketed as "anti-depressants" are no substitute for healthy living. Neither is religion - which wthrfrk/freak80 retreats into because he calls legal recognition for gay marriage equivalent to slitting his own throat. Although less common than previously, gay sex is pretty easy to find if you look around, and much healthier than pills and religious paranoia.

Bap33 says

Dan,

after seeing your position (no pun), and those of others, it seems to me you need to start a new thread asking, "why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

What is rare to you?

10% of men are "predominately" homosexual. 37% of men have had at least one same-sex orgasm.

curious2 says

immaculate conception is the only moral way.

Indeed. One should also only get married if they can't stay Celibate, according to Paul. This one gets glossed over big time.

Bap33 says

Dan,

after seeing your position (no pun), and those of others, it seems to me you need to start a new thread asking, "why the hell is gay sex so rare?"

6% is rare? Hell, if Romney got the gay vote, he'd be president by now. Hardly an insignificant minority.

leo707 says

37% of men have had at least one same-sex orgasm.

Maybe in San Francisco, but I think the percentages are a bit lower in most of the country. The statistic I read was that 6% of the adult U.S. population was gay or bisexual. Seems a bit more reasonable than 37% of men. Now, given what I've seen on Facebook, it could be argued that at least 80% of women are bisexual or at least pretending...

Why the hell of an atheist would care about what is moral or immoral.

What is immoral for you? Maximum it's whatever the society, not even the majority but those powerful enough to enforce their agenda, declare immoral.

Why would you care about what they think or say they think?

Dan8267 says

if Romney got the gay vote, he'd be president by now.

True:

Gay Vote Seen As Crucial In Obama's Victory

Exit polls found 5% of voters identified themselves as gay, including more than 6% of voters under 30, so that isn't exactly rare. For comparison, Asian Americans are fewer than 5%, Jewish Americans fewer than 3%.

But, the Kinsey surveys in the 1950s found more than 1/3 of men had done what would now be called "gay sex" at least once. They didn't call it that, and didn't usually talk about it. The paradox of recent decades has been, the love that dared not speak its name has become the thing that everybody talks about but fewer people are actually doing.

Dan8267 says

The statistic I read was that 6% of the adult U.S. population was gay or bisexual.

curious2 says

Exit polls found 5% of voters identified themselves as gay, including more than 6% of voters under 30, so that isn't exactly rare.

Yeah, about 5% is exclusively gay, or would identify as gay. Kinsey estimated that about 46% of men "engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or 'reacted to' persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives."

I believe that the 37% number is just the ones who actually reached orgasm with another man. The other 9% --before collapsing in a pile of shame--just furiously masturbate as they inform the internet how disgusting and deviant homosexuals are, but never "consummate" their desires.

One of the shocking things about the Kinsey report was how common it was for a man to have participated in man-on-man action at some point in his life.

For more reading:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html#homosexuality

michaelsch says

Why the hell of an atheist would care about what is moral or immoral.

Atheists obviously care more about morality than Christians. When we do good or avoid doing evil, it's not because we think some cosmic traffic cop is watching us waiting to punish or reward us.

If the only reason you behave in a moral manner is to avoid being punished or in order to be rewarded, you're not really being moral but just careful. A truly moral person does good and not evil simply because it is the right thing to do.

However, your statement does reveal yet another problem with religion. Religion prevents the honest discussion, understanding, and advancement of morality my hijacking the subject and turning it into blindly obeying the priest class.

michaelsch says

Why would you care about what they think or say they think?

Because Mathew Shepard died.

leo707 says

Yeah, about 5% is exclusively gay, or would identify as gay. Kinsey estimated that about 46% of men "engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or 'reacted to' persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives."

What a man does in college while pledging a fraternity is no indication of his sexual orientation, especially if I, er, he was drunk at the time.

In the words of Eric Massa,

They're saying I groped a male staffer. Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me - it's my 50th birthday - it was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/92V8yWLf1t0

And don't get me started on snorkeling. That's just what we straight guys do for fun when we're with the guys.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/snl-takes-on-eric-massa-v_n_498267.html

Also great... The gay vs. straight version of ads. The disclaimer "No Homo" in rap.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/zm5MgIAVhyk

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rCCRw2_3LbM

Another true classic ;)

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Why the hell of an atheist would care about what is moral or immoral.

Atheists obviously care more about morality than Christians. When we do good or avoid doing evil, it's not because we think some cosmic traffic cop is watching us waiting to punish or reward us.

Just a lot of totally empty words. Good and evil are just social concepts embedded in your mind by your social circumstances. Why would a high IQ set of electromagnetic waves care about this BS? May be stop kicking that beloved "Christian" straw man of yours and start being an atheist.

Dan8267 says

Atheists obviously care more about morality than Christians.

lets recap:
A long while ago you were very upset by me and others that called atheism a religion......
And now, here we are debating the "reason" for an (activity/person/fill-in-blank) to be concidered moral, or immoral, by human kind .... and we are doing it in the "religion" area of the site.....
And now you make a case that suggests that your group of fanatics has a better guide to good life than the other group of fanatics ..... (?)
And when pressed about it you suggest that your side is right because each and every position is based on the thought power of human kind, and nothing at all is based on feeling, faith, or belief.

So you put all of your faith in the thought power of self. You. If your thought power is wrong, and then your way of doing things is forced upon human kind, then all human kind suffers from your flawed reasoning. Right. You are not suggesting that each member of humankind has your ability to reason, but you are suggesting that each member of human use only reason to find morality. Right. Or, you are suggesting that the other members of human kind have faith in what you have reasoned, or what they have reasoned, but each member has to have faith in self, reason, the information gathered, and thier (or your) ability to reason. That, sir, is a religion. Atheism is a religion of self, and lacks the moral anchor of God's word because of the focus on self. That is why you see cutting in line as only being wrong because it harms the lone individual. Order, process, proper conduct, are all part of why waiting in line is a good thing and, for the record, waiting in line is ONLY needed for the good of the group. A singular person has no line. THere must be plural people to need the line. Waiting your turn is better for a moral society, just like shunning male/male coupling is. Only those that lack basic understanding, or moral anchor, refuse to see why some things are just a bad idea. Thank you, good night Atlanta, and God bess.

p.s. ... The Romans did not start out as a bunch of boy bangers in public baths ... they only got that way when life got easy and their focus was on "self". America is Rome 2.0

Dan8267 says

If the only reason you behave in a moral manner is to avoid being punished or in order to be rewarded, you're not really being moral but just careful. A truly moral person does good and not evil simply because it is the right thing to do.

I agree 100%. Doing right to avoid hell is a weak reason, but valid. Using your own mind and will to "reason" what is best to do, based on nothing more than your self-centered views, where the possiblity is there for you to be 180* out of phase with every other member of humanity, is better how? The only "reason" that there is even the concept of "right and wrong" is from ancient text. Each new generation that does as you do, thinking that they possess the power to understand all possible reasons for each action and outcome, do as you have done and name for themselves a new god ... your god is self, and your religion is Atheism. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, or in an adversarial manner, just as a fact.

leo707 says

OK, yes children do imitate, but the don't imitate everything they see, and when they do they don't imitate it exactly as it happened. Seeing gay is not going to give a child the gay. No more than seeing women in dresses is going to turn a little boy into a cross dresser. Lots of little boys experiment with wearing dresses, but very few become cross-dressers; it takes much more than seeing someone in a dress to make that happen.

I have to disagree there Leo. You don't really know that for sure either, you are just guessing.

When I see children imitate what they see, I'm not simply going to rely on any politically convenient biased short term research that says it doesn't matter.

robertoaribas says

total bs, my dogs know right from wrong, in how they treat each other,and I've yet to see a dog read a religious book.

If everyone knew right from wrong we wouldn't need laws, prisons, cops and courts. Morality is what we as society agree on. Slavery was completely moral at some point.

Bap33 says

p.s. ... The Romans did not start out as a bunch of boy bangers in public baths ... they only got that way when life got easy and their focus was on "self". America is Rome 2.0

You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Looks to me that boy banging was commonplace throughout the ancient world whether or not the focus of the society was on "self"

As for America being Rome 2.0 - hows that modern easy going attitude towards boy banging working out for you?

robertoaribas says

well, an intelligent person would look for some psychology papers that study prevalance of gay children among children raised by gays or straight parents...

hint: you'll find that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents.

I ain't taking chances. All these biased little researches are bogus. That's why Monsanto for so many years got away with dumping pollution, because they paid for research. Same here, it's all biased, and I got to look out for myself.

New Renter says

Looks to me that boy banging was commonplace throughout the ancient world whether or not the focus of the society was on "self"

As for America being Rome 2.0 - hows that modern easy going attitude towards boy banging working out for you?

It is always amusing to me when someone points to homosexuality and pederasty as the "cause" of the fall of the Roman Empire.

While homosexual behavior was pretty much a constant in the ancient world, belief in Christ did not start to become prevalent until the "end" of the Roman Empire...

...Hmmmmmm...

...hmmmm...

New Renter says

You sure about that?

Yeah, wasn't going to post, but I don't see any evidence this 'boy banging' was just at the tail end, pardon the pun.

"Same-sex attitudes and behaviors in ancient Rome often differ markedly from those of the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual." The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminized". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and those of his household (familia).

"Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older."

FortWayne says

You don't really know that for sure either, you are just guessing.

Well, yes but I am guess based on some logical assumptions, and as Robert points out some psychology papers that make sense to me.

In your earlier comments in this thread you seemed to indicate that you thought homosexuality was genetic. If this is your belief then no amount of viewing gays is going to turn a kid gay. Yes, it may make them think that being gay is OK, but it is not going to change their programmed sexual desires.

robertoaribas says

total bs, my dogs know right from wrong, in how they treat each other,and I've yet to see a dog read a religious book.

no, no, my good man, dogs are led by INSTINCT, and PACK MENTALITY. Dog's right and wrong are dictated by the leader of the pack, and at no time is the leader's choice based on morality, and should the leader's choice match a given morality it is by accident.. In today's America, the liberal voter mentality is very close to the pack mentality.

leo707 says

New Renter says

Looks to me that boy banging was commonplace throughout the ancient world whether or not the focus of the society was on "self"

As for America being Rome 2.0 - hows that modern easy going attitude towards boy banging working out for you?

It is always amusing to me when someone points to homosexuality and pederasty as the "cause" of the fall of the Roman Empire.

While homosexual behavior was pretty much a constant in the ancient world, belief in Christ did not start to become prevalent until the "end" of the Roman Empire...

...Hmmmmmm...

...hmmmm...

I cant figure out if you read what I wrote and just ignore it, or don't understand it, or what.
1) I said Roman's did not start out as boy raping sodomite maniacs. They didn't. THey were busy hunting, gathering, and conquering. They didn't start out with a parliment either.
2) I never mentioned that immoral behavior was why the empire failed, but it was. Or, at the very least it was an indicator.
3) The message of Christ was very much a key to the end of the Roman empire ... the message that said each person could access God, and have God in them, and that each person was free (even while bound), and that no man was worthy of worship ... yep, things that that, and others, made the empire erode. The is why the Roman-Catholic empire was created by the crown .... an effort to keep control. I think.
4) male/male sodomy is used in prison. Anyone care to elaborate? Would anyone from the pro-sodomite side vote in favor of having women and men prison's mixed? THis would remove alot of the reasons for sodmoy in prisons. So, pro-male/male coupling people on here, how do you feel about mixed prisons?

Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous

Bap33 says

Would anyone from the pro-sodomite side

And here, Bap, is your problem. You are committed to being on an 'anti-sodomite' side and playing a game. You can't allow yourself to learn from Dan, because that in your mind would allow him to score a point against your side. You exemplify the reason why the Republicans lost, and will probably lose again. You insist on treating people unfairly, and rationalize that by saying they're on the other side, when in fact they aren't different from you at all - except they base their opinions on evidence and reason rather than sticking to the wrong side.

Bap33 says

1) I said Roman's did not start out as boy raping sodomite maniacs. They didn't. THey were busy hunting, gathering, and conquering.

?why do you think that?

Homosexuality and a hunter/gatherer culture is not mutually exclusive. Do a little reading on the topic there are many examples of "primitive" cultures where Homosexuality is accepted--just as it was in the beginnings of the Roman Empire.

On the other-hand a spreading belief in Christ is highly correlated with the fall of the Empire.

Bap33 says

no man was worthy of worship ... yep, things that that, and others, made the empire erode.

? Every christian country that followed had divinely installed leadership that the populous would bow down to.

So are you saying the Pope is the cause of the fall of Rome?

Bap33 says

4) male/male sodomy is used in prison. Anyone care to elaborate?

Sorry, Bap but I am not going to titillate you with details.

Bap33 says

Would anyone from the pro-sodomite side vote in favor of having women and men prison's mixed?

Why?

Bap33 says

THis would remove alot of the reasons for sodmoy in prisons.

It would not, are you advocating replacing male rape victims with female ones so that your religious sensibilities are not offended by man-on-man prison rape?

Sorry, but men will still be raped. Look into man-on-man rape in the military. It happens there when there are also plenty of women to rape.

Bap33 says

I said Roman's did not start out as boy raping sodomite maniacs. They didn't. THey were busy hunting, gathering, and conquering.

And you know this how?

Bap33 says

I never mentioned that immoral behavior was why the empire failed, but it was. Or, at the very least it was an indicator.

Speaking of fail...

leo707 says

Well, yes but I am guess based on some logical assumptions, and as Robert points out some psychology papers that make sense to me.

In your earlier comments in this thread you seemed to indicate that you thought homosexuality was genetic. If this is your belief then no amount of viewing gays is going to turn a kid gay. Yes, it may make them think that being gay is OK, but it is not going to change their programmed sexual desires.

But what if it's also learned and many of us are wrong? Consequences of being wrong here are a heavy burden and shame to bear.

leo707 says

? Every christian country that followed had divinely installed leadership that the populous would bow down to.
So are you saying the Pope is the cause of the fall of Rome?

leo, the Roman Catholic church was not Christian in 95% of it's actions, in my opinion.

Christianity and God's message, not the pope, helped end the Roman empire because of how it changed man's idea of self and freedom, in my opinion.

New Renter says

Bap33 says

I never mentioned that immoral behavior was why the empire failed, but it was. Or, at the very least it was an indicator.

Speaking of fail...

excellant retort.
Do understand that the actions of the emperors were immoral, even when they were not sodomy with other males.

Also, the ancient text that said male/male, human/animal sex was not ok, is much older than any Roman anything.

New Renter says

Bap33 says

I said Roman's did not start out as boy raping sodomite maniacs. They didn't. THey were busy hunting, gathering, and conquering.

And you know this how?

very basic history of man. You are suggesting I am wrong? If so, based on what?

leo707 says

THis would remove alot of the reasons for sodmoy in prisons.
It would not, are you advocating replacing male rape victims with female ones so that your religious sensibilities are not offended by man-on-man prison rape?

why do you mention rape? surely you do not profess that all male/male sodomy in prison is by force. THat would be illogical. If you are able to suggest that 35% of all men enjoy some type of deviant same sex, then how can you come out with all prison sodomy being rape? Is all sodomy rape the first few times? You seem to have an intimate understanding of male/male sodomy tendancy details that I do not, so please elaborate. Why did you make the assumption of rape?

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Why the hell of an atheist would care about what is moral or immoral.

Atheists obviously care more about morality than Christians. When we do good or avoid doing evil, it's not because we think some cosmic traffic cop is watching us waiting to punish or reward us.

Just a lot of totally empty words. Good and evil are just social concepts embedded in your mind by your social circumstances. Why would a high IQ set of electromagnetic waves care about this BS? May be stop kicking that beloved "Christian" straw man of yours and start being an atheist.

Your bigotry is apparent if you think that atheists must act evil. History has shown that religion is what brings out the true evil in man.

Furthermore, your world view is completely fucked up if you think there is nothing inherently wrong about raping a six-year-old girl beyond violating "social concepts".

I have not presented any Straw Man arguments in this thread or any other. And I challenge you or anyone else to show that any of my arguments are Straw Man. Finally, I call hypocrisy on you for using Straw Men while accusing others of doing so.

Bap33 says

A long while ago you were very upset by me and others that called atheism a religion......

Just because I correct you on something, doesn't mean I'm upset.

And don't make me post that Bill Maher video again showing that atheism is clearly not a religion. Cause you know I'll do it. I know it embarrasses your side because you cannot respond to anything in it.

Bap33 says

And now, here we are debating the "reason" for an (activity/person/fill-in-blank) to be concidered moral, or immoral, by human kind .... and we are doing it in the "religion" area of the site.....

Yes, because it is only the religious who make the claim that gay sex is immoral. Naturally this forum is the place to question that assertion.

Bap33 says

very basic history of man. You are suggesting I am wrong? If so, based on what?

I am suggesting that your knowledge of the sex life of the early Latins is flawed.

Bap33 says

New Renter says

Bap33 says

I never mentioned that immoral behavior was why the empire failed, but it was. Or, at the very least it was an indicator.

Speaking of fail...

excellant retort.
Do understand that the actions of the emperors were immoral, even when they were not sodomy with other males.

Also, the ancient text that said male/male, human/animal sex was not ok, is much older than any Roman anything.

Thank you

To which ancient text do you refer? The Torah?

Because this is how Realtors are born.

Bap33 says

And now you make a case that suggests that your group of fanatics has a better guide to good life than the other group of fanatics ..... (?)

What fanatics? What group?

Bap33 says

And when pressed about it you suggest that your side is right because each and every position is based on the thought power of human kind, and nothing at all is based on feeling, faith, or belief.

Huh? What the fuck is "thought power"? Do you mean math, logic, reasoning, and facts?

Bap33 says

So you put all of your faith in the thought power of self. You. If your thought power is wrong, and then your way of doing things is forced upon human kind, then all human kind suffers from your flawed reasoning. Right.

First off, faith is the belief without proof. I have proof of the power of reasoning. Diseases cured, lifespan doubled, man walking on the moon, just to name a few things.

Second, I don't have to have faith in my "thought power" whatever the fuck that is, in order to know how to prove that the square root of two is irrational. I can write down the proof, check it, show it to others and see if they can find a mistake with it, run it through a proof-validation algorithm, etc. So I'm willing to bet my life that the square root of two is irrational. I can be that confident of that fact. Does anyone want to take the opposite side of that bet?

Bap33 says

That, sir, is a religion. Atheism is a religion of self, and lacks the moral anchor of God's word because of the focus on self.

1. The moral anchor of god? Is that the same god that said a man should sell his daughter into sex slavery and that if the daughter doesn't perform to the satisfaction of her new owner that owner can retain her for additional years? Is that the same god who said that slavery is good in both testaments? Is that the same god who said to bash babies against rocks and to slash open pregnant women with swords?

Your god is evil.

2. Christianity, not atheism, is ego-centric. According to your religion, the entire fucking universe was created for the sole purpose of man. According to science and reasoning, our existence is nothing more than an arbitrary and a very lucky sequence of events, and it could have easily been some other species that ruled the Earth. Which of these is the arrogant, self-center philosophy?

3. OK, you're making me post the video again. Don't say I didn't warn you. Of course, there is no way you can respond to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A41WZBcmnfc