patrick.net

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.

Peter P says

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.

Hilarious coming from the same person that has posted numerous times that what is legal is ok, and what is illegal is not.

The best advice you've ever given, is not to take advice from anyone

Legality is part of taking responsibilities.

It may or may not be part of the moral system you build.

Peter P says

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.

Legality is other peoples construct

Your contradicting yourself left and right, here

Its damn near impossible to never let people tell you what is right or wrong, whilst simultaneously considering the legality of ones own actions

errc says

Endocrinologist cure homosexuality?

They cure/medicate gland defects.
Gland defects make males act/feel feminine.
So, if you are suggesting that having a gland disorder that makes a male act/feel feminine is called "homosexual", then that would be an obvious, "yes", Endrcrinologists "cure" gay males by the millions with gland therapy.

They are not the choice for trying to treat the mental conditions that surround male/male coupling. The mental disorders found in the population, that is active in the male/male coupling world, are not all part of their perversion.

Dan8267 says

Prove to me that homosexual desire is "twisted". Hell, define what that even means.

I should have used "deviant"? Queer? Perverted? Tainted? Sick? Unnatural? We both know that any word I use would be pointed at and scoffed at by you. Right? Right. These poor folks need help.

errc says

Peter P says

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.

Legality is other peoples construct

Your contradicting yourself left and right, here

Its damn near impossible to never let people tell you what is right or wrong, whilst simultaneously considering the legality of ones own actions

But the respect of such is your own.

Peter P, are you a relativist conservative? No sarcasm, that's pretty damn interesting.

I am a subjectivist. Relativism is still external, just not absolute.