patrick.net

I wouldn't say gay sex is immoral, but I think there is evidence that promiscuous unprotected anal sex does spread disease rapidly, faster than oral or vaginal sex.

And a lot of the old biblical rules seem to equate immorality with things that were likely to cause disease, like promiscuity in general, or eating pork or shellfish, or even eating without washing your hands first. So maybe the "immorality" of gay sex was just one more of those rules based on the observation that people who did certain things tended to get certain diseases.

evidence that promiscuous

There is evidence that promiscuity can spread disease, and the NT quotes Jesus saying repeatedly that adulterers will not be allowed into his kingdom. But, that doesn't explain why adulterous politicians (e.g. Newt Gingrich) campaign against gay couples getting married.

If the bible speaks about it, it means it existed back then too. It exists in all cultures and across most recorded timelines-way before jesus and his time. Perhaps it is just a way for some people to feel morally superior by crushing someone else?

lostand confused says

Perhaps it is just a way for some people to feel morally superior by crushing someone else?

That might sum up religion generally. Along with the whole denial of death thing, and rationalizing the extermination of outsiders to take their resources.

curious2 says

rationalizing the extermination of outsiders to take their resources

Pretty useful from an amoral evolutionary point of view, except that it's usually not the utter extermination of outsiders, but simply extermination of the men. Their women then become property of the new male overlords and bear their children. The women may even willingly go along with it because obviously the new guy is more powerful than the husband who could not protect her.

I read some paper about how the American Indian Y-chromosomes are actually pretty rare in Latin America now, because the Spanish men often took native women for wives.

Here's a related paper:

Admixture analysis suggests a pattern of directional mating that preferentially involved immigrant men and native women. Although it would be desirable to expand sample sizes, in order to have more accurate estimates of admixture, the same pattern has been detected in non-Amerind populations from Mexico (Merriwether et al. 1997; Green et al. 2000) and Colombia (Carvajal-Carmona et al. 2000). This observation agrees with historical records showing that during the colonial period (late 15th to early 19th centuries), most of the immigrants to Spanish America were male (Sanchez-Albornoz 1977). This trend is also likely to have been reinforced by the preferential incorporation of immigrant women and their descendants into criollo society rather than into native American populations. The analysis of uniparental genetic markers in a non-Amerind population from Colombia has shown that Amerind male lineages have almost entirely disappeared from that population but that, at the mtDNA level, Amerind lineages are by far predominant (Carvajal-Carmona et al. 2000). This suggests a marked pattern of directional mating in which native women and immigrant men established neo-American populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288567/

It's immoral because it is. Look up what morality means.

Oh, heck. I'll get you started.

If someone says homosexuality is immoral because they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right. Within the context of their moral system, of course. That doesn't mean there's anything unethical going on with homosexuality, under your moral system.

Ethics are philosophical consequences derived from value-based premises. They can be rooted in religious premises, but they can also be rooted in other premises. The value systems that ethics stem from matter a great deal in determining if common moral understanding can be reached. But those premises can be arbitrarily arbitrary, and vary from culture to culture and from person to person.

It's a little reductionist to say that all morality boils down to opinion, but it's essentially correct. And opinions are like assholes.

If you seek to debate morality of homosexuality, you need to stake out some rules of engagement. I'd recommend picking a secular (common-ground) ethical framework to circumscribe your debate. Otherwise, everyone is right, and everyone else is wrong.

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.

Wasn't it some combination of:

Jealousy: Gays = The original DINKS
Greed: Kill the DINKS and take their stuff (less chance of a blood feud with no kids in the picture)
Need: More kids = more taxpayers, tithers, serfs, cannon fodder, etc.

Well with 7 billion people on the planet and growing I think we should embrace homosexuality if for anything as an effective means to population control.

Its not for me but hey if its your thing be my guest.

New Renter says

Well with 7 billion people on the planet and growing I think we should embrace homosexuality if for anything as an effective means to population control.

Thank you. Doesn't anyone think Mother Nature, DNA, and the Planet itself might think of that?

For the record, in Europe they have shower attachments you won't find at Home Depot or Lowes for cleaning up before anal sex. Straight or Gay, anal sex without douching before hand is not only just plain nasty and stupid, yes, it's unhealthy.

I think the more interesting and possibly related question is why some/many/most? hetero males often find gay male sex so repugnant, to the point it can make them feel physically sick. I don't think this is a conditioned response. Of course, lesbian sex is just fine for most hetero men.

rdm says

Of course, lesbian sex is just fine for most hetero men.

It depends on the lesbians involved.

rdm says

...hetero males often find gay male sex so....

Maybe they're doing it wrong?

curious2 says

Maybe they're doing it wrong?

Also depends how horny they are. lol

IF
If you believe in right and wrong,
If you believe in moral and immoral,
and If you believe in the existance and application of proper behavior in society,
then you should undersatnd why public acceptance of male /male coupling is bad, immoral, and anti-society.

We went through this once already. Your(Dan) moral anchor is anything-but-God's-Word, and mine(Bap) is God's Word. That's what we came up with last time you did this. Right?

rdm says

why some/many/most? hetero males often find gay male sex so repugnant, to the point it can make them feel physically sick. I don't think this is a conditioned response.

That's because they know, after they had the digital prostate exam.

I wouldn't say gay sex is immoral, but I think there is evidence that promiscuous unprotected anal sex does spread disease rapidly, faster than oral or vaginal sex.

This thread was created for those who do believe gay sex is immoral to justify their belief.

If they choose to make an argument that the spread of STDs is quicker with gay sex than straight sex, I'll tear a new asshole in their arguments quicker than a priest at an altar boy convention. Morality and practicality are clearly not the same thing. Furthermore, if the immorality of gay sex were due to the practicality of spreading STDs then once science eliminates STDS, which is likely to happen within a century or two, then gay sex suddenly becomes completely moral.

Moral arguments based on pragmatism are tenuous at best.

curious2 says

lostand confused says

Perhaps it is just a way for some people to feel morally superior by crushing someone else?

More likely, rules regarding sexuality are a perversion of morality endorsed by those wanting to control the sexuality of others and reproductive resources to further their own genetic self-interests much in the same way that corporations lobby government to provide advantages that allow the lobbying corporation to control a market and crush competition.

I dunno about morals or whatever, but anyone who has endured the digital prostate exam knows that it's an abomination.

And let's not forget the banks or whoever had no problem fucking over tens of millions of 'moral' and 'decent' people in this housing bubble.

msilenus says

If someone says homosexuality is immoral because they get their morals from an old book, and that's what the book says, then they're right. Within the context of their moral system, of course. That doesn't mean there's anything unethical going on with homosexuality, under your moral system.

Your argument is that morality is arbitrary and meaningless. This is not the position that those who oppose gay sex take. The position of the religious is always that morality is absolute and universal. It cannot vary from person to person, from nation to nation, from century to century.

Those who oppose gay sex do not adopt a existential philosophy of morality.

But let us wait for those people to speak for themselves rather than guessing what they will say. The point of this thread is to get them to say why they believe gay sex is immoral. Once that happens, we can either say, "wow, that's an awesome reason; you've convinced me", or more likely, "that reason is flawed because of x, y, and z".

At least it gets everyone thinking about the morality of gay sex instead of just assuming one thing or another. Thinking is always good.

New Renter says

Well with 7 billion people on the planet and growing I think we should embrace homosexuality if for anything as an effective means to population control.

The smart thinking heterosexual man has always encouraged homosexuality in his fellow man. I would gladly have dropped the army's gay bomb on campus in college if that bomb had actually worked. Increasing the percentage of homosexuality within the male population would have been in my best interest.

The greater the rate of homosexuality in the male population, the less competition there is. That means more and better mates for the rest of us. It's all about supply and demand.

I suppose it might be unethical to drop the gay bomb for selfish reasons though...

rdm says

I think the more interesting and possibly related question is why some/many/most? hetero males often find gay male sex so repugnant, to the point it can make them feel physically sick.

I find old people having sex disgusting to the point of making me feel sick. That doesn't make it immoral.

Bap33 says

If you believe in right and wrong,
If you believe in moral and immoral,
and If you believe in the existance and application of proper behavior in society,
then you should undersatnd why public acceptance of male /male coupling is bad, immoral, and anti-society.

There is no logical flow in this argument.

If you believe in right and wrong,
I do believe in the existence and distinction of right and wrong, so I'm guessing this evaluates to true for me.

If you believe in moral and immoral
I do believe in morality and distinguish between moral and immoral choices, so it sounds like this also evaluates to true for me.

If you believe in the existance and application of proper behavior in society
I do believe proper behavior does exist, and I do believe in behaving property in society. Of course, what I consider proper and what I consider "in society" may not be the same as what you consider, but it still seems that this evaluates to true for me.

All the premises evaluate to true, so the conclusion should be true.

you should undersatnd why public acceptance of male /male coupling is bad, immoral, and anti-society

No, this does not follow from any of your premises. You have not provided any reason whatsoever as to why male/male coupling, as you call it, is bad, immoral, or anti-social. [I'm guessing that you meant anti-social when you wrote anti-society, but I'm not 100% sure on that.]

Please try again. This time just honestly and sincerely give the reason you think gay sex is immoral.

Well, a lot of people replied to this thread today. However, no one has presented a reason why he or she thinks gay sex is immoral.

Then again, Bap33 is the only one who has come out in stating that he believes gay sex is immoral, but he has yet to give any reason why.

Let's try again.

Anyone who actually believes that gay sex is immoral, now is your chance to convince the rest of the world. All you have to do is give your reasons and be prepared to defend them.

Yes I reserve the right to skeptically evaluate the reasons, but if they are logical, I will accept them. As a rationalist, I must always accept sound reasoning. The question is, does anyone actually have a good reason to believe that gay sex is immoral, or are such beliefs nothing more than despicable bigotry.

This is an open forum. Let the world hear this debate.

Dan8267 says

Please try again. This time just honestly and sincerely give the reason you think gay sex is immoral.

LOL, that would mean anything other than vaginal intercourse is immoral.

Dan8267 says

find old people having sex disgusting to the point of making me feel sick. That doesn't make it immoral.

Interesting, so both types of sex can make some men feel sick. Why is that? What is the correlation? Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

rdm says

Interesting, so both types of sex can make some men feel sick. Why is that? What is the correlation? Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

The correlation is that neither serves my selfish genetic interests. And no, that doesn't make it a moral issue.

rdm says

Does morality flow out of this sort of organic reaction?

I think you made an error when you excluded conditioning. In contemporary America, people have an "organic" reaction against the thought of their own parents having sex, even though they know it must have happened and they don't call it immoral. People in other places and times, with whole families living in one room, didn't have the same reaction. Most Muslim and some Judeo-Christian cultures have developed a very repressive code that they confuse with morality. Probably familiarity is a bigger factor, for example try reading the many alt boards and see how your reactions vary based on familiarity. Of course, familiarity isn't morality. Or maybe it is: even 2yo children can detect when something isn't the way they expect, and some call that a basis of morality. For some (e.g. Bap69), gay sex isn't what they've been taught to expect, yet they keep coming back to the topic, ostensibly to express their uninterest, yet at the same time unable to let go.

Then there is always this logic or lack thereof.

I'm less concerned about Gay sex as much as I am about those that constantly expect everyone to listen and watch the illicit details.
That and it's more natural for heterosexuals to feel uncomfortable about the topic, than it is for the gay community to constantly inject their lifestyle into modern culture. There has been great strides in acceptance over the last several decades. In spite of Liberals and the LBG movement would have you think.

Their nonstop constant advertisement campaign will be their own undoing.
The more they push, the more society will rile back, and it wont be pretty.
This isn't the first time in History when Gays had a good run, but didn't know when to say when.

Humans will never reach some Gay Nirvana where straight couples sit in a park with their kids, next to Gay couples groping each other on picnic blanket. I would expect a campaign of Gays being round up and sent of to Degaying camps, long before that ever happened.

Especially with the Anti Family campaign, and the all out war on families being waged on Families. That will be the biggest down fall of the Gay movement. And why in the hell is there even a movement. If you love someone, go home and love them, you're wasting your time wanting the whole worlds blessing, defeating your own cause really.

Dan8267 says

However, no one has presented a reason why he or she thinks gay sex is immoral.

That's because there isn't one. It's based purely on bigotry and nothing more.

CaptainShuddup says

Especially with the Anti Family campaign, and the all out war on families being waged on Families.

What nonsense. The only "anti-family" campaign out there is the Republican war on the middle-class.

I see it as a utilitarian, everything has a purpose

God made a womans vagina for the purpose of giving mans penis great pleasure
God made a womans mouth for the purpose of giving mans penis great pleasure
God made a mans butthole for the purpose of pooping

Seems pretty simple to me. However, you are asking from a morality stand point, to which I must admit to filing for chapter 7 moral bankruptcy, so this is probably the one issue where idan82457 invited the wrong expert to fact check his thread for him

CaptainShuddup says

I'm less concerned about Gay sex as much as I am about those that constantly expect everyone to listen and watch the illicit details.

If you are tired of the "gay agenda", pride parades, and homosexuals lobbying for legal equality, then there is a simple and effective solution. End bigotry and legal inequality. Once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and are not persecuted, all that "in-your-face" publicity goes away.

Think about it. No one rallies to support interracial or interclass marriage today because those things are accepted. The Abolitionist Movement totally died once slavery ended.

Don't want to be reminded of gays? Make sure none of them are ever killed again like Mathew Shepard or denied the right to marry or have consensual sex with others. When being gay is no longer a big deal or a basis of discrimination, you'll never hear about it again.

I think there is some truth in this humor:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

finehoe says

That's because there isn't one. It's based purely on bigotry and nothing more.

That certainly seems to be the reason. In that case, religion is to blame as it is precisely those who are most religious -- whether Christian, Islamic, or other -- that causes such bigotry. And religion prohibits questioning and examining beliefs, or faith as they call it.

That is precisely why I opened this thread. To give the religious the chance to prove they aren't just despicable bigots by justifying their beliefs, and to challenge those beliefs should they prove to be founded on falsehoods. Getting the religious to start thinking instead of asserting is a good first step.

Of course, if no religious person responds, if they coward from this subject, then we are left to conclude that anti-homosexuality is purely dishonorable and childish bigotry and that their religions are to blame.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but that means someone has to challenge this conclusion and the only way to do that is to answer the very simple and direct question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

Dan8267 invited Pope Benedict XVI to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

CaptainShuddup says

Humans will never reach some Gay Nirvana where straight couples sit in a park with their kids, next to Gay couples groping each other on picnic blanket. I would expect a campaign of Gays being round up and sent of to Degaying camps, long before that ever happened.

Oh I don't know. I'll bet there have been times in history that have been a lot more gay friendly than we have been lead to believe. How much of our history has been reburied because it went against the morality of those who discovered it?

Heck, some people still deny homosexuality in animals even though the evidence is all around them:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Dan8267 says

If they choose to make an argument that the spread of STDs is quicker with gay sex than straight sex, I'll tear a new asshole in their arguments quicker than a priest at an altar boy convention. Morality and practicality are clearly not the same thing. Furthermore, if the immorality of gay sex were due to the practicality of spreading STDs then once science eliminates STDS, which is likely to happen within a century or two, then gay sex suddenly becomes completely moral.

Unprotected sex without consequence of disease or pregnancy - That will be a truly great achievement for mankind.

Dan8267 says

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

Oh No! - he dropped the Pope bomb!

I tried to invite the American Family Association to this discussions, but those pussies don't have an email. Sure they'll spam you, but they don't want your email.