patrick.net

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.

bdrasin says

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...

makes a good point, and brings back up my question of what it takes for a male to be "gay". You see, you just called three people that did all the things one would expect a deviant male sodomite that is "gay" to do, and you called them straight. Is a gay a gay based on desire or deed? Is the masculine sodomite male called something different from the feminine sodomite male? This whole movement cant be based on just self profession, can it?

bdrasin says

gay sex CAN be immoral in some situations:

Obviously one can make an argument that cheating on a spouse is immoral as one is harming his or her spouse. Of course, extramarital affairs is not intrinsic to the issue of straight or gay sex, and as such is a red herring.

Bap33 says

Is a gay a gay based on desire or deed?

You are asking the wrong question. Why should either the desire or the deed be considered immoral? Just because you consider some behavior to be deviant doesn't make it immoral. Your opinion doesn't make gay sex or the desire for gay sex evil. You still have not shown any evilness in homosexual desire or homosexual sex.

In contrast, it's trivial for me to explain why rape, murder, robbery, and even calling someone a poopy-head is immoral. It really shouldn't be hard to show that something immoral is immoral. If it's too hard for you to explain why, it's because there is no reason. Morality ain't rocket science.

Dan8267 says

You are asking the wrong question.

lol .. classic Dan.

Old smart people say things like, "there are no wrong questions."

Dan8267 says

Just because you consider some behavior to be deviant doesn't make it immoral.

lol .. and just because you consider some behavior to be normal does not make it moral.

Personal opinion is not rocket science.

You suggest proving the immorality of male/male coupling should be easy, but I suggest we must first find the root cause of such behavior. If a male is born with a twisted mind that is arroused by the thought and/or deed of mounting another male, or being mounted and/or used as a woman by anyone else, then that mental illness is the cause for the behavior. If a male is born with a gland defect that results in feminine hormonal traits and unnatural desire for masculine, then that glad defect is the cause for the behavior. I asked how you know if the person commiting the act is gay, or if the act is all that is gay and people are not gay. And the two types of male deviants then become part of the answer because the masculine role is dominated by the mentally ill sodomite, while the feminine role is dominated by the male with a gland defect. You refuse to admit the obvious because it does not fit your world view.

Dan8267 says

Your opinion doesn't make gay sex or the desire for gay sex evil. You still have not shown any evilness in homosexual desire or homosexual sex.

If I said that, I was wrong.

I think if you go re-read this entire novel, you will find I want to protect these special-needs defective males from being victimized and abused. Abuse of afflicted males is evil. If you refuse to help these men, then you are evil, not me. The first step is realizing there is a birth defect at the root of the problem. The mental defect may not be treatable - perversion seldom is treated, only controlled - but should not be accepted by society any more than pedofilia should be. The gland defect is easily treated by any endocrinologist.

Endocrinologist cure homosexuality?

I learn something new here every day

I loathe bashing special needs folk (like religious nutjobs that won't question the in/organic nature of the thoughts residing in their own goddamn minds) for being born stupid, but this bap fella makes it hard to resist the temptation,,,,,

Bap33 says

Old smart people say things like, "there are no wrong questions."

Counterexample:

You are tied to a railroad track. A train is rapidly approaching.

Correct question: How do I get myself free of these ropes?
Wrong question: Do they serve biscuits on the train?

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Old smart people say things like, "there are no wrong questions."

Counterexample:

You are tied to a railroad track. A train is rapidly approaching.

Correct question: How do I get myself free of these ropes.

Wrong question: Do they serve biscuits on the train?

Another counter example:

You feel poor.

Right question: how do I get rich?
Wrong question: why aren't rich people sharing more wealth?

Dan8267 says

bdrasin says

gay sex CAN be immoral in some situations:

Obviously one can make an argument that cheating on a spouse is immoral as one is harming his or her spouse. Of course, extramarital affairs is not intrinsic to the issue of straight or gay sex, and as such is a red herring.

It is and it isn't. I was attempting to illustrate that closeted gay people are more likely to engage in behavior that could rationally be described as immoral, and therefore it behooves society to make peace with same-sex relationships (as seems to be happening). I don't imagine you disagree with this.

They should all aim to be at least as successful as Mitt.

Peter P says

They should all aim to be at least as successful as Mitt.

Yeah, they should shut their caviar holes, and start their own corporate raiding private equity firms.

Peter P says

They should all aim to be at least as successful as Mitt.

Define successful

I've never envyed anyone rich, nor do I waste time sweating that they aren't paying enough in taxes. I do often wonder, how it comes to pass, that some folk amass such great fortunes,,,,

Success is the triumph of the will.

Peter P says

Success is the triumph of the will.

By any means necessary?

errc says

Peter P says

Success is the triumph of the will.

By any means necessary?

One must be responsible for his own actions.

Dan8267 says

Counterexample:

Sorry, lunch break interruption... Wanted to throw out a more serious and historic counterexample.

Of course, there are wrong questions, and pursuing those questions has the material negative effect of going on a wild goose chase and preventing you from making a real discovery.

For example, the great Kepler asked the question, "How can the platonic solids be used to explain the distances of orbits for the various planets?". Turns out this was the wrong question to ask. After spending decades trying to explain planetary orbits with the platonic solids, he realized he should have been asking "Are the planetary orbits a function of the platonic solids?". The answer to that question is no.

Bap33 says

lol .. and just because you consider some behavior to be normal does not make it moral.

I never claimed that morality was based on my opinion or personal point of view. Furthermore, I never claimed that normalcy implies morality and abnormality implies immorality. In fact, I've given many contrary examples.

What I have stated is that if an action is immoral, then one should be able to justify that conclusion. For example, rape is immoral because it deliberately and greatly harms a person both physically and emotionally. Consensual homosexual sex does not.

Bap33 says

If a male is born with a twisted mind that is arroused by the thought

Prove to me that homosexual desire is "twisted". Hell, define what that even means. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it inherently icky. I could just as well say that people who like broccoli are "twisted" in their food orientation. I find broccoli disgusting, therefore, anyone who likes broccoli is a twisted, perverted, deviant.

robertoaribas says

To even write that line, BAP shows (for the thousandth time really) that first off, he simply put is homophobic, and second off he lacks the intelligence to really think about his beliefs.

For this entire thread, I've been trying to make robert's statement false. Unfortunately, I've failed. As much as I lead that horse to water, I can't make him think. Ok, it's not a perfect analogy.

bdrasin says

and therefore it behooves society to make peace with same-sex relationships (as seems to be happening). I don't imagine you disagree with this.

I concur.

Long-term relationships are inherently more beneficial than short-term ones. Game Theory illustrates why this is so very well.

Peter P says

They should all aim to be at least as successful as Mitt.

I'd prefer to be successful doing something moral and ethical for a living rather than becoming successful by screwing over other people and playing zero sum games that impoverish others as much as it enriches me.

A person can become well off, maybe even rich, performing ethical work, but America tends to reward the unethical much more. Most of the 0.1% are either very lucky or very evil.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

They should all aim to be at least as successful as Mitt.

I'd prefer to be successful doing something moral and ethical for a living rather than becoming successful by screwing over other people and playing zero sum games that impoverish others as much as it enriches me.

A person can become well off, maybe even rich, performing ethical work, but America tends to reward the unethical much more. Most of the 0.1% are either very lucky or very evil.

You decide for yourself what is moral and ethical. Then it all comes down to taking personal responsibility.

Many a time poor people are poor because they have bad meta-ethics.

Yep. Most people grew up hearing about those "unethical" rich people. No wonder they want to be poor subconsciously. Theair flawed worldview tend to be self-reinforcing.

Peter P says

You decide for yourself what is moral and ethical.

Can you decide that rape or slavery is ethical? I think not.

Tim Lee Berners should be a billionaire. He invented the World Wide Web. The Koch Brothers should not be billionaires. They siphoned wealth from their employees, from the tax payers, from society in general by polluting our environment, which is a form of public property theft.

How one makes money does matter, at least to some of us. How much money would it take for you to kill someone? What if you killed that person by polluting the food chain with mercury like coal power companies? If the way you murdered someone made it perfectly legal, how much money would it take for you to end someone's life knowing that you would never be punished for it?

Self-limiting thoughts.

Anything can be subjectively moral. This is why we have a market to arbitrate expectations and conflicts.

Blaming poverty on bad ethics is the oldest, most bullshit canard there ever was.

It's usually made by people who inherited their wealth and live off rents.

Do not confuse bad ethics with bad meta-ethics.

One has to do with not following a code. The other has to do with bad code.

I could sell bags of heroin to addicts until the sun burns out, reaping handsome profits

Would you suggest to another to emulate my actions, just because I am rich?

errc says

I could sell bags of heroin to addicts until the sun burns out, reaping handsome profits

Would you suggest to another to emulate my actions, just because I am rich?

But would you? It is perfectly valid that you consider that immoral. But it is possibly moral for someone else.

In either case there is law and other complications.

My point is, do not inherit a moral code. Think and create one that works for you. Never let people tell you what is right or wrong. Be a moral person crafted out of your individuality.