patrick.net

After numerous attempts to move the conversation from male gay sex to female gay sex, I can help but wonder what baps fascination is with male gay sex. Let's focus on female gay sex,,,id like to hear what the bloody hell is wrong with two hot, naked, sweaty and ready, dripping wet females getting it on with eachother in the privacy of my bedroom?

...i stand corrected and yield to errc, who has pointed out that there may be something further to see here.

curious2 says

Leo, you are arguing with a troll who is a total waste of time...Having given him enough rope to make a fool of himself, which he has amply done, there is nothing further to see here.

*Sigh* Yeah, you are right. OK, no more rope.

curious2 says

But color video did exist in the 1930s, see The Wizard of Oz (1939).

The Wizard of Oz (1939) was shot on film. Video technology was not invented until the 1950's. I probably should not have said color at all, just video.

michaelsch says

Dan! You are smarter than that. You don't need a hundred people with their "conclusion". You don't need even one. You just run a computer program that gives you your "one billionth prime number?"

You just completely missed the point of what I was saying. Hint: I wasn't talking about prime numbers.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

all gods including the Christian one was made up by assholes trying to gain power, wealth, and pussy.

Yea, sure, and Dan has a proof of this scientific statement.

Jesus was not a white guy. He was brown.

Jesus was not born on December 25th. This myth was created to trick pagans who celebrated the Winter Solstice into replacing it with Christmas.

Jesus was not born of a virgin. That myth was stolen from many pagan god-virgin-offspring myths.

The Christian patron saints were created as substitutes for Roman house gods.

There is as much reason to believe in Christian mythology as to believe in Islamic mythology or Hindu mythology. Anyone who says that one set of myths is more likely true than another is simply prejudice. They are all equally ridiculous and unsupported.

michaelsch says

Stop playing an idiot! Your "rational person" would simply call it a delusion. Would too many people witness such an evidence, he would try to isolate them, if necessary torture them to tell they've seen nothing, and kill those who would not agree.

Once again, you entirely miss the point. And it wasn't a hard point to understand.

michaelsch says

That's a very important difference between Dan and people like Sam Harris. Unlike them, Dan has no interest in science but only in social engineering.

Dude, you have no idea what interests I have, and your comments prove it. I suspect that Sam Harris and I agree on most things and that you disagree with most of what he believes.

leo707 says

You seem to be assuming that the atheist actually secretly believes in god, but is working for the devil and will do anything to undermine the work of gods.

Such a person would, of course, not be an atheist, but rather a monotheist.

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Bap33 says

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Perhaps you would find this thread more enlightening:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219196

leo707 says

So, you are saying that by the very nature of being a Nazi fills one with an irresistible desire for man-on-man action?

Leo, there are times when I think Bap is beyond hope. You, I, and the rest of the world sees this

And Bap sees this

A person using that kind of filtered view on history cannot be persuaded with facts.

Bap33 says

liberal intollerance rears it's ugly head again .... this time including name calling and sexual diviant references. Color me suprized.

Sorry, mom, didn't mean to offend you,,,,but you better not be calling me liberal or intollerant,,,,thems is fighting words.

Back to the matter at hand, what is wrong with two consenting, smoking hot, dripping wet females having their way with one another in the privacy of my bedroom? Try not to think about male+male gay butt sex coupling, because I agree with you, that sounds pretty gross. Let's focus on the other side of homosexuality. I'm interested to know what's so wrong with something that just feels so right?

Because if we were to attribute something to Gods work, id top the list with the beauty of a woman. Now times it by two and parlay it with multiple squirting orgasms, biting, clawing, moaning and licking,,,,,

Just to put the whole gay Nazi thing to rest, if anyone believes that crap, just read The History of the Gay Male and Lesbian Experience during World War II. There's a reason why the pink triangle is a symbol of the gay rights movement today. It's origins are much uglier.

I find that pretty girls kissing and doing stuff to each other is amazing. Like I can't stop watching and at that moment everything in the world is good and right.

I also find that when two men have sex with each other, one or the other is gonna wind up with a stinky pee pee.

That is all.

dodgerfanjohn says

I find that pretty girls kissing and doing stuff to each other is amazing. Like I can't stop watching and at that moment everything in the world is good and right.

I also find that when two men have sex with each other, one or the other is gonna wind up with a stinky pee pee.

That is all.

Oh, I'm right there with you. But I don't pretend my own tastes in "yummy" vs "ick" is the difference between moral and immoral.

There is something wholly unnatural about being turned off by hot lesbian sex, no?

Dan8267 says

Jesus was not a white guy. He was brown.

Jesus was not born on December 25th. This myth was created to trick pagans who celebrated the Winter Solstice into replacing it with Christmas.

Jesus was not born of a virgin. That myth was stolen from many pagan god-virgin-offspring myths.

I agreed with most of what you said within this thread, but when someone tries to convince others that they know so much about the details of Jesus, I need to second guess everything I've agreed with up to now, lol.

BayArea says

so much about the details....

The color surprised me too. There isn't proof of actual human existence, and there is considerable evidence against, so where did the color come from?

BayArea says

I agreed with most of what you said within this thread, but when someone tries to convince others that they know so much about the details of Jesus, I need to second guess everything I've agreed with up to now, lol.

There's nothing I've said that can't be confirmed with a simple Google search. Feel free to search for things like:

When was Jesus born?
Christmas and the Winter Solstice
pagan virgin birth myths

Just make sure to skip over Wikipedia crap.

As for why I know so much about Christian history despite being an atheist, I went to Christian schools for the first 18 years of my life and had to study that shit in great detail. There is no more boring course in the world than Church History.

errc says

After numerous attempts to move the conversation from male gay sex to female gay sex, I can help but wonder what baps fascination is with male gay sex. Let's focus on female gay sex,,,id like to hear what the bloody hell is wrong with two hot, naked, sweaty and ready, dripping wet females getting it on with eachother in the privacy of my bedroom?

The only thing that could be wrong with this is not being in the middle ;)

curious2 says

BayArea says

so much about the details....

The color surprised me too. There isn't proof of actual human existence, and there is considerable evidence against, so where did the color come from?

None of those comments surprised me. Yes, there is no proof of actual human existence, but! if he did exist then he was most likely brown. Just like everyone else from the area at that time.

It is widely known that the "true" birth date of Jesus is not in December, and the Christmas celebration is pagan in origin. It is one of the reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas.

Yes, the virgin birth is a common myth, and if Jesus was an actual person he was not born of a virgin.

I would not call any of Dan's comments "details", but rather assumptions based on general knowledge of middle eastern heritage 2000 years ago, origins of Christian holidays, and biology.

BayArea says

I agreed with most of what you said within this thread, but when someone tries to convince others that they know so much about the details of Jesus, I need to second guess everything I've agreed with up to now, lol.

All our sources for Jesus are not contemporaneous with his life, have biased authorship, and come from outside Palestine. Even the author's names are uncertain; the earliest Gospels do not say "Gospel by Mark", the are unsigned and remain unsigned for almost a century after the crucifixion. It's more likely that they are simply several Gospel narratives based on oral tradition and given names to differentiate them.

If we apply the same standards that we do for Caesar, Hercules, Justinian, Zeus, Romulus and Remus, Plato and Pythagoras, then Jesus is likely a mostly mythological figure. Whereas Caesar has authorship of books, reports by his friends AND his enemies, coinage, and tons of inscriptions, monuments, etc.

In fact the coinage of Caesar is amazing. He's reported to be in Asia at a given time, and sure enough! We have dozens of coins with his picture, name, and date on them, correlating to the written reports of his locations during his lifetime. Not so with Jewish Carpenter.

PS We have more evidence for Pontus Pilate and John the Baptist than we do for Jesus. For the former, inscriptions (Hallmark Card/1800 Flowers of the Day) in Israel attesting to his appointment. For the latter, Josephus. For the Jewish Carpenter, nothing.

thunderlips11 says

If we apply the same standards that we do for Caesar, Hercules, Justinian, Zeus, Romulus and Remus, Plato and Pythagoras, then Jesus is likely a mostly mythological figure.

That's true. And the myth was very loosely based on a real guy, but that man certainly wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. That cartoon was made to make Christianity more palatable to Europeans.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

thunderlips11 says

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm

New Living Translation (©2007)

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

One could argue that this is entirely consistent with Jesus' teachings...

Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

What better way to demonstrate your own self-loathing than to display your shame for all to see. Jesus was just teaching by example.

Dan8267 says

Dude, you have no idea what interests I have, and your comments prove it. I suspect that Sam Harris and I agree on most things and that you disagree with most of what he believes.

It does not matter what people agree or disagree, what matters is how they approach problems within their ideology and how they process new information. Based on his article I can definitely say that Sam Harris is able to see the problem that existence of the universal morality creates within his atheist ideology, or any other non-theist one, (i do not know much about what exactly it is). He tries to address it as a scientist and it is very interesting.

Based on your posts, and I've seen plenty of them, your method is ignoring the problem. There are many atheists I met in my live whom I appreciate very much. My father was an atheist for most of his life somehow softening to call himself agnostic only in his last 15 years, mostly because of atheist atrocities he has witnessed.

What I do not appreciate is your ostrich position and the dogmatism of your atheism.

Also, I despise your method of trying to offend your opponents, even though I understand that you may be just a product of the internet culture and in real life you know better how to interact with people.

Frankly, I do not want to put you on ignore, because many of your posts, especially on politics, seam interesting or at least informative.

michaelsch says

Based on your posts, and I've seen plenty of them, your method is ignoring the problem.

What method and what problem?

michaelsch says

What I do not appreciate is your ostrich position and the dogmatism of your atheism.

The only thing I'm "dogmatic" about is not accepting any argument that contradicts itself or facts. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a giant blue dick created the universe, if the facts supports that conclusion. Similarly, I'm willing to accept any god, even a giant blue dick god, if the facts support it.

The only assumption I make is that there are no contradictions in mathematics, and that is exactly what makes the universe intelligible. Feel free to disprove me on this one, and I'll gladly admit that I cannot know anything and that the entire universe is nonsensical. And there's an infinite number of ways you could prove that, if it were true.

Here's one. Prove that the square root of two can be represented as the ratio of two integers. I've already seen proofs that this is impossible. So, if you can provide a proof that it can be done, or if you can provide an example of two integers that do that, then everything I believe is wrong and my paradigm collapses. Till then, my way of thinking is superior to yours, and that has nothing to do with me.

P.S., don't even bother trying to use Russell's Paradox as an example. First off, it's not a paradox. Second, it's not a contradiction.

michaelsch says

Also, I despise your method of trying to offend your opponents, even though I understand that you may be just a product of the internet culture and in real life you know better how to interact with people.

That's a bad assumption on your part. I never try to offend my opponents until they turn into trolls. Then the gloves come off. But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer. The messenger is irrelevant -- I've said that before, right?

Dan8267 says

But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer.

would you agree that there are times when the subject matter is such that it is difficult to seperate/differentiate the arguement from the arguer?

WHY IMMORAL?
TRY ANSWERING THESE 3 QUESTIONS BELOW...
(so far no one has even attempted the 3rd one)

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?

ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?
To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

There is no reason why polygamy or incest should be illegal, pedophilia though is illegal because a child is deemed to be unable to give their consent while being fully aware of the consequences, so there has to be an age limit to draw the line between legal and illegal, in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

What mell said. Well, sort of...there is better reasoning (as opposed to gay marriage) as to why polygamy and incest should be illegal (i.e.- actual measurable negative consequences for society and the participants), but it should still probably be legal.

You may want to visit this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1218882

Ahc says

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

No.

Ahc says

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

No.

Ahc says

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"?

Yes, well usually...I have heard of those coming out as gay actually turning out to be merely bisexual not full gay.

Ahc says

Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Because of the treatment and attitude towards gays. It helps gays as a community accept their nature, and lets others know that they exist (more important decades ago).

Ahc says

Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia...

Because hate and homophobia leads to an environment where gays are discriminated against, attacked, rejected by family, killed, etc.

Anyway, it is not so much about shaming others as it is about letting other know that gays are also humans who deserve to be treated as such.

Ahc says

...when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?

Answered above.

Ahc says

Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yes.

Ahc says

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

I am not aware of anyone in the medical community who says this.

I am assuming that you are referring to santorum? A couple of points on that:
1. Not all gay couples engage in anal sex.
2. Straight couples also engage in anal sex.
3. Anal sex does not require one to sleep in santorum.

Ahc says

IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?

Perhaps, but then again incest actually has legitimate reasons for opposition. Also, there is a difference between being opposed to something and making it illegal for them to take part in the activities you oppose.

For example, I oppose a majority of christian organizations and though, but I am not trying to make (or should they be) them illegal.

Ahc says

To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

No (see answer above).

I hope my answers cleared up the issue for you.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

But before that, my counter-arguments always attack the argument, not the arguer.

would you agree that there are times when the subject matter is such that it is difficult to seperate/differentiate the arguement from the arguer?

Not based on the subject matter, but rather when the debate degrades into a personal grudge match.

Dan8267 says

The only assumption I make is that there are no contradictions in mathematics, and that is exactly what makes the universe intelligible.

That's funny, you give such nice examples. Have you ever heard about the Gilbert program?
It was all about the idea to mathematically prove there are no contradiction in mathematics. You know, it failed, thanks to Goedel.
Since than all classical mathematicians agreed they will just believe mathematics is consistent. The consistency of classical mathematics is a matter of faith. It proved to be very beneficial faith.

There still are some attempts to prove it using several limitations to logic.
I know one (very old) guy who (as he claims) has a proof based on the assumption there are no very large numbers, and the whole world of mathematics is actually finite. I've never found enough time and persistence to read the whole proof, which was at the time I looked at it 600 pages long. I know very small number of math logic specialists who tried to read it and apparently did not find any faults in his proof, but I'm not sure they've read the whole thing either.

BTW, the guy is an atheist, one I honor a lot. I remember an argument he had with another mathematician and philosopher, who became an Orthodox priest. Let's call them A and I, their first name initials (both spent their young years in Soviet labor camps).

I: But you should agree, dear A, it would be horrible would there be nothing above all this (they both agree that the human race is in very bad state).
A: Dear I, it would be even more horrible would there be someone on top of all this. ( = it is so horrible, that assuming there is someone who controls all of it makes it even worse)

The argument goes on forever.

Ahc says

WHY IMMORAL?
TRY ANSWERING THESE 3 QUESTIONS BELOW...
(so far no one has even attempted the 3rd one)

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

A bit off topic, since we're discussing the morality of homosexual sex, not the legality of same-sex marriages, but I'll indulge.

Same-sex marriage is analogous to interracial heterosexual marriage. It is not legally similar to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. But I'll go over all three after explaining why same-sex marriage must be legal in our country.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, passed on July 28, 1868, states in section 1,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The highlighted portion of that amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. This clause basically says that all citizens are equal under law and that the law cannot discriminate against any citizen. This is the single most important principle in our nation, and in fact, in western civilization. Because of the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment is actually more important than even the First Amendment. It is a more fundamental principle.

In Loving v. Virginia, decided June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited any law from preventing an interracial marriage. This case was brought about when a white man, Richard Loving, married a black woman, Mildred Jeter, and the marriage was not recognized by the state of Virginia where interracial marriage, or miscegenation as it was called back then, was illegal and punishable with up to five years in prison.

The couple in question were sentenced to a year imprisonment by a Virginian judge who stated

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Aside from the obvious violation of religious freedom and separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment, the laws prohibiting interracial marriage also violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses as stated by the Supreme Court

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

As any literate person can see, the Supreme Court's words apply to same-sex marriage just as much as they do to interracial marriages and for the exact same reasons. One only has to replace the words highlighted in red above as such: "racial" to "gender" and "another race" to "the same sex". The actual analysis is not changed at all. For this reason, the case of Loving vs. Virginia must also mean that discrimination against same-sex marriages are a violation of the 14th Amendment, and that is why same-sex marriage should be legal already.

Continuing from above...

So, what about make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia? First off, the fact that we made interracial marriage legal didn't have anything to do with making polygamy, incest, or pedophilia legal. In fact, the arguments you are making that these three things are equivalent to same-sex marriage or will happen if same-sex marriage is legalized is the exact same arguments that bigots made against interracial marriage. Those arguments were wrong fifty years ago, and they are wrong today for the exact same reasons.

But let's address them one by one anyway. First, polygamy.

Marriage is a contract as far as the state is concerned. Since more than two people can enter a contract, there is no legitimate reason why polygamy should be illegal. Whether or not your church recognizes the marriages is irrelevant. The state has no business outlawing polygamy.

Second, incest. Incest is disgusting to most people, but just because something is disgusting does not mean it should be illegal. Old people having sex is disgusting, but a couple married for 50 years shouldn't be arrested for making love. Put simply, incest and incestual marriages should be legal.

The only somewhat reasonable argument for outlawing incest is to prevent birth defects. However, by that logic, the state could prohibit any person with a genetic disorder from reproducing at all since the disorder could be passed on. Allowing the state to do this would not only violate the 14th Amendment, but would be outright evil.

In fact, one could argue that just about every person alive has some genetic disorder, if the state is allowed to interpret what constitutes a genetic disorder. Anything less than "perfect" genetic code could be considered a genetic disorder. Do you have the rare Apo A-I Milano gene that produces a mutant form of good cholesterol provides significantly better anti-plaque and anti-inflammation benefits than the more common gene? If not, then you have a genetic disorder and the state has the right to prevent you or your descendants from reproducing according to the argument in favor of outlawing incest.

Third, pedophilia. For this discussion, I'm going to define pedophilia as sex between someone over 18 and under 12. I'm not going to argue over 16-year-olds sending naked pictures of themselves to each other or the 16-year-old girl having sex with the 18-year-old guy.

The legal justification for outlawing pedophilia is that a child -- not an adolescent -- is not mentally developed enough to be able to consent to sex with an adult and that the adult would be coercing the child because the power asymmetry is so great, something that doesn't apply to say, two four year olds playing "doctor" and fondling each other.

Naturally, this should be illegal. It prevents adults from taking advantage of children. But this power asymmetry and lack of understanding of relationships clearly does not to consenting adults regardless of whether or not they are of the same gender. Therefore, the justification for laws against pedophilia do not, in any way, justify preventing interracial or same-sex marriages or sex.

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

As I have shown above, it is not "love" that justifies same-sex marriage, but the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment as the entire motivation for prohibiting same-sex marriages is religious just like it was for prohibiting interracial marriages.

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

Obviously no, and no one has argued that.

Ahc says

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Because of discriminatory laws and the murder of homosexual men.

Ahc says

ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

Hey, I find butt-sex icky, too, but that's not an argument to make it illegal. Furthermore, butt-sex and homosexual sex are not the same thing.

1. Homosexual can perform many sexual acts including oral sex.
2. Heterosexuals can just as easily have anal sex.

So even if your argument that butt-sex should be illegal for sanitation reasons were valid, it would be an argument against anal sex whether straight or gay, and not an argument against homosexual sex or marriage.

But it's not a valid argument anyway because of one word: condoms. That makes it sanitary.

Now I personally wouldn't have to have butt-sex even with Scarlett Johansson, but just because I find it appalling doesn't mean it's wrong.

Ahc says

IF I OPPOSE INCEST, DOES THAT MAKE ME A BIGOT?
To those who say that anti-gay marriage supporters are "bigots", would anyone opposing polygamy, incest or pedophilia also be bigots?

Being against polygamy, yes. Pedophilia, no. Incest, well, if you want it to be illegal because it violates your cultural preferences, yes. If the reason is preventing birth defects, no, but as I've shown that's still wrong.

But opposing gay marriage does make you a bigot because you are denying people equality under law and equal rights based solely on your own, arbitrary prejudices. It's no different than calling for an end to interracial marriages.

mell says

There is no reason why polygamy or incest should be illegal, pedophilia though is illegal because a child is deemed to be unable to give their consent while being fully aware of the consequences, so there has to be an age limit to draw the line between legal and illegal, in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

leo707 says

What mell said. Well, sort of...there is better reasoning (as opposed to gay marriage) as to why polygamy and incest should be illegal (i.e.- actual measurable negative consequences for society and the participants), but it should still probably be legal.

Glad to see that my line of reasoning isn't unique to me. Hopefully, Ahc will get it.

mell says

in the case of the US it is 18 where a human being is deemed to have reached adulthood.

or if they have a mental defect that hampers the ability of OTHERS to know they made up their minds free of any lack of basic reasoning. The person responsible for the wellbeing of someone lacking basic reasoning abilities makes the call. I submit that any male suffering from the mental condition that makes them desire to mount another male, or any male suffering from a glandular condition that makes them think/feel/act feminine, is also demonstrating a lack of basic reasoning ability, and their actions should be halted and their condition treated, as with any special needs person. We need to end the abuse of these special needs people.

Dan8267 says

My morality has nothing to do with me. It is entirely objective.

You can't possibly believe the second sentence. Can you see that the first sentence gives lie to to the second?

Being against Polygamy is extra-biblical. Polygamy abounds in the Old Testament, and is not mentioned in the New. The only thing the NT has to say about marriage is that if you need to abandon your family to follow Jesus, abandon your family; and in the Epistles, it is better not to marry at all, and only marry if there's no way you can keep the rocket in your pocket. In fact it's best to become a eunuch for the sake of Heaven with Marriage as second-best option. One of the weird things about the NT vs. OT is God's sexual attitude flip modes.

The NT has a lot of bizarre bits that are flat out ignored by Christians, not just modern Christians but way the hell back when it became the sole religion of the Roman Empire.

Like that everybody in Heaven is Single or Divorced, because apparently marriages don't last beyond the grave: Luke 20:27-20:40

When was the last time a Preacher or Priest told the congregation that they got divorced the moment they died?

And please, no painful apologetics. Few passages have a plainer meaning than this.