patrick.net

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.

Bap33 says

Endrcrinologists "cure" gay males by the millions with gland therapy.

So, Bop69, which endocrinologist "cured" you by turning you into a troll that types obsessively about gay male sex instead of just going out and getting some?

curious2 says

Bap33 says

Endrcrinologists "cure" gay males by the millions with gland therapy.

So, Bop69, which endocrinologist "cured" you by turning you into a troll that types obsessively about gay male sex instead of just going out and getting some?

Hey... There's a tea for that.

To answer the question, gay sex is immoral because the mere thought of male/male coupling gives me a raging hard on, and I'm afraid to find out why. Does anyone know of a good endocronologist? Preferably male,,,tall, muscular, with long hair,,,,

It's just plain dirty, but my gay neighbor sure does know how to make me feel like I'm really something else, my ass is great, face, skin, legs, heck I'm just plain beautiful, take great care of myself, and look ten years younger than my age. Pretty crazy feminist world we live in when a man is getting more compliments and looks from the men than the women. Women, they don't seem to care what you look like as long as you got the money. Times they are a changing.

robertoaribas says

Bap33 says

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.

actually the pointing and scoffing is at you. I thought you set your stupid worthless trash bar as high as you could, years ago, when you posted how mexicans where inferior, but you are topping even yourself on this thread. You are the most disgusting person ever to come on this blog, and a gross person in every way.

1) your mama
2) I never said mexicans were inferior.
3) I know you are, but what am I? You freaky cerchino marrano.
4) Haven't been called gross since 2nd grade. wow.

Yes, gay sex is immoral. It's immoral today for the same reason it was immoral 100, even 10,000 years ago. That is, because it's an absolute violation of both natural reason and human dignity (yes, that includes your dignity -- even though, understandably -- you're likely unwilling to recognize that).

Your suggestion about the practice "not hurting anyone" has no bearing on its otherwise intrinsically incomplete status. Nonetheless, the practice -- even when confined privately -- does in fact hurt others -- albeit, indirectly.

But the more intriguing question here, is, why do you care about what strangers think about where you engender your penis? I'd much rather learn (alternatively) about how you're joining queers and non-queers alike in contributing to a better society and how you're bringing people of various backgrounds and beliefs together, rather than creating politically polarized silos of fear.

Warsaw Legend says

Yes, gay sex is immoral. It's immoral today for the same reason it was immoral 100, even 10,000 years ago. That is, because it's an absolute violation of both natural reason and human dignity (yes, that includes your dignity -- even though, understandably -- you're likely unwilling to recognize that).

So gay penguins, dogs, and parakeets are immoral?

Warsaw Legend says

Your suggestion about the practice "not hurting anyone" has no bearing on its otherwise intrinsically incomplete status. Nonetheless, the practice -- even when confined privately -- does in fact hurt others -- albeit, indirectly.

Heterosexuality hurts people too: Jealous lovers killing their partner, acrimonious divorces and child custody fights, Stalkers, Spousal Abuse, spreads STDs, etc.

We'd all love to hear HOW homosexuality is immoral, in objective terms relevant to the modern world that does not reference the philosophy of Bronze Age goatroasters.

thunderlips11 says

in objective terms relevant to the modern world

I see this as a bad idea, and I think most sober-minded conservative adults agree. I think it takes a "shades of gray" mind-set to want to move the measure of acceptability as society's mind-set changes. Maybe it is because I beleive in absolutes, and that includes right and wrong, black and white. It could be that this very thing you bring up is where the division between people such as myself and , say Dan, comes in?

One thing that you may agree with is how the general population's gene pool, and mental competence, is going to continue to slide down hill in America - on average - because the most prolific breeders in the nation do not exibit strong skill sets for education or any other building blocks of society, other than hyper-breeding. So, in the near future, if the line of moral/immoral is allowed to be moved "relevant to the modern world", then the line may end up in a very very bad place due to the degragation of the general populous -- who is who you suggest be able to set their own line for morality, without regard to the view you defend and express today, in much the same way you do not want to use the view that Jesus defended and expressed 2,000 years ago.

Man, I sure hope I wrote that well enough for you to understand my point so you will respond. If it makes no sense, read it again please. It's me, it's not you.! lol

Warsaw Legend says

Yes, gay sex is immoral. It's immoral today for the same reason it was immoral 100, even 10,000 years ago. That is, because it's an absolute violation of both natural reason and human dignity (yes, that includes your dignity -- even though, understandably -- you're likely unwilling to recognize that).

Assertion 1: Homosexual sex violates natural reason.
Assertion 2: Homosexual sex violates human dignity.

I understand what assertion 2 means, but how exactly does homosexual sex violate human dignity? If Bob and Joe deeply love each other, how are they suffering an indignation when making love?

There are certainly many things in our society that do violate human dignity every single day including prisons, strip searches, virtual strip searches at TSA scanners, and TSA pat downs just to name a few. I'd consider all those things to be immoral. And since they are forced on people, I'd consider them all to be illegal as violating basic human rights. But how exactly does consensual gay sex dehumanize a person?

Regarding assertion 1, exactly what do you mean by natural reason and exactly how does gay sex violate this?

Warsaw Legend says

Your suggestion about the practice "not hurting anyone" has no bearing on its otherwise intrinsically incomplete status

WTF does that mean?

Warsaw Legend says

Nonetheless, the practice -- even when confined privately -- does in fact hurt others -- albeit, indirectly.

Precisely who is being hurt and how?

Warsaw Legend says

I'd much rather learn (alternatively) about how you're joining queers and non-queers alike in contributing to a better society and how you're bringing people of various backgrounds and beliefs together, rather than creating politically polarized silos of fear.

By asking those who believe that homosexual sex is immoral to state why they believe this, I am getting them to question that belief. If the belief is correct, then it should be easy to answer why it is correct. If the belief is not correct, then it is best to demonstrate this by showing there is no justification for that belief.

So far, no one has come up with anything that remotely held up to even light scrutiny, deferring analysis of your submission until its clarified.

Warsaw Legend says

Yes, gay sex is immoral. It's immoral today for the same reason it was immoral 100, even 10,000 years ago. That is, because it's an absolute violation of both natural reason and human dignity (yes, that includes your dignity -- even though, understandably -- you're likely unwilling to recognize that).

Your suggestion about the practice "not hurting anyone" has no bearing on its otherwise intrinsically incomplete status. Nonetheless, the practice -- even when confined privately -- does in fact hurt others -- albeit, indirectly.

But the more intriguing question here, is, why do you care about what strangers think about where you engender your penis? I'd much rather learn (alternatively) about how you're joining queers and non-queers alike in contributing to a better society and how you're bringing people of various backgrounds and beliefs together, rather than creating politically polarized silos of fear.

The very existence of humanity is artificial and therefore unnatural.

Bap33 says

think it takes a "shades of gray" mind-set to want to move the measure of acceptability as society's mind-set changes.

Morality is gray. There are degrees of goodness and evilness. Certainly, it is far more evil to rape someone than to slap him/her in the face. Certainly, it is far more selfless to sacrifice one's life for another than to give a bum a dollar. Both acts are good, but one is far more so.

So, if by shades of gray, you mean there are degrees of good and evil, then certainly this is so.

There are also trade-offs in life. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or one of two options each with a mixture of good and evil consequences. For example, do you increase the food supply of a country preventing thousands from starving knowing that the population will grow as a result and eventually tens of thousands of people will be starving, or do you let the people starving now continue to do so in order to prevent the population rise? Sometimes, there are no options that contain only good.

Dan8267 says

If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here.

Dan8267 says

Morality is gray.

Does this mean your original question had no possible right answer?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here.

Dan8267 says

Morality is gray.

Does this mean your original question had no possible right answer?

No. In some situations, the morally correct choice is clear. You don't drown the puppy in the river. In other situations, the morally correct choice is not clear. Do you save the people currently starving at the cost of increasing starvation in the future?

The application of moral principles in a chaotic and messy environment, i.e. life, can and does create dilemmas, situations where you can't get a wholly desirable outcome regardless of which choice you make. Life is full of these dilemmas. That is why applying morality in a black-and-white fashion is always doomed to fail.

Dan8267 says

No. In some situations, the morally correct choice is clear. You don't drown the puppy in the river

Dan8267 says

That is why applying morality in a black-and-white fashion is always doomed to fail.

I am having trouble following your point.

Bap33 says

I am having trouble following your point.

What liberals and leftists and most academics call "moral gray areas" really refers to the application of morality in complex situations where some moral prerogatives conflict with others rather than the morals themselves being gray.

For example, we want to save the lives of babies. That's a good moral prerogative that no one could argue with. We also are morally appalled at eugenics and the idea of forcing medical procedures on people against their consent especially if such procedures create a permanent material change.

So what if there is a way to save babies from a variety of diseases, but doing so requires altering their DNA while they are still embryos. Is it morally acceptable to force all mothers to undergo a procedure that many would not want, a procedure that would alter their baby's DNA, if doing so would reduce infant mortality by 90%? What about for other percentages?

This is what is meant by moral gray areas. It's the area, not the morals, that are gray. I.e., the application of the morals is not straight forward and requires considerable reflection. Life isn't black and white so simple kindergarten mindsets are not adequate for determining right and wrong.

and that is pretty much why we disagree on the basics of life. But, no worries. Merry Christmas.

Bap33 says

Merry Christmas.

Would that be "Merry" as in happy and Gay, or Ho Ho Ho?

as in gay

Finally an answer to this question.

"When freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God," Benedict said.

Finally it's about time, the man in the silly hat has been silent on this for far too long.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/pope-anti-gay-speech_n_2344870.html

Dan8267 says

What liberals and leftists and most academics call "moral gray areas" really refers to the application of morality in complex situations where some moral prerogatives conflict with others rather than the morals themselves being gray.

Or I think "morality" has been over-used. For example, homosexuality has nothing to do with morality.

(It is as morally-relevant as making a painting. Some may find it beautiful. Some may call it rubbish.)

Dan8267 says

For example, we want to save the lives of babies. That's a good moral prerogative that no one could argue with. We also are morally appalled at eugenics and the idea of forcing medical procedures on people against their consent especially if such procedures create a permanent material change.

This is just a fallacy of deontological ethics.

two consenting adults having sex is nobody's business

two consenting adults want to get married, it's nobody's business

for the government to limit the rights of some ,so it makes others feel more comfortable is unconstitutional.

121212 says

for the government to limit the rights of some ,so it makes others feel more comfortable is unconstitutional.

there is a RIGHT to carry a weapon as a legal citizen in America .... you are the same turd-slinger that is all over this site suggesting that the 2nd Ammendment be removed, and/or, that the RIGHT to carry a weapon be removed, or "limited" to a point that it makes anti-freedom libtards like you "feel more comfotable"..... would you please make it more difficult to cyber-slap you? this is like shooting rare white tigers in a small caged. (yes, that reference was puntificated for you and your menions on the libtarded left). Merry Christmas.

There are no sex based rights in the Bill of Rights. none. same with race, creed, color. All men are EQUAL in the eyes of GOD.

As for your point about "consenting adults". LOL
Brothers and Sisters, or mothers and sons and daughter, can all be adult, and consenting, and you have no issue with it? What about an adult horse and an adult male human? Still no issue with it? What about prisoners?? If male/male coupling is to be viewed as acceptable and normal and healthy and "ok", than you are allowing deviant prisoners to enjoy the fruits of a relationship while in prison, but you deny those same fruits to non-deviant prisoners. Equal protection comes to mind.

Two dudes wanting to boink in private is not something anyone would know about if not for the efforts of the Militant Diviant Army to keep that junk in the face of all normal people. I don't see any big push by the conservative good people to go house to house in search of male/male coupling. So, you first point is silly.

Marrige has a "reason" and "pupose" in the history of man, and in the future of man. It is based in tradition, and need. More so the need to keep track of blood lines to avoid inbreeding and having a whole pile of stupid members of the tribe, due to inbreeding. A public announced coupling allows the rest of the group to know who is coupling with who and at the very end of the event there is a part where anyone who knows a reason for the two folks to not make babies to speak up .. again, this is about inbreeding. As for the State (big S) supporting historical coupling, it is because the State is in the same position as the clan or tribe, they want good heathly babies born to keep the State strong and safe and healthy. There is a benefit to the State to support normal coupling between unrealated healthy males and females. There is no reason to support abnormal, unhealthy, coupling between the males that are suffering from a defective mind or defective glands. That's just not in the State's best interest. Relgion, and it's anti-sexual-deviant view, is another building block used for making a better, free, society, but it gets kinda tuff to discuss with most pro-deviant army members, due to their mandatory membership in the atheist church, so maybe it should be avoided? At any rate, your second point would require the reason and purpose for marrige to be changed to make a few deviants in society "feel more comfortable". No thanks.

Wow Bap33, your a nasty piece of work!

B I G O T! Look it up. You are a classic case.

I could rip apart every word, but I will not.

I fundamentally disagree and so I suggest you go live at the Vatican.

BAP33, You come off as morally superior like the Pope, are you a Catholic?

That would explain your delusions of grandeur. Your moral superiority complex to think gays and lesbians should not be treated equally under the law just as the Constitution suggests all people are in the USA.

For you to speak against that proves your no American.

Truely go live in the Middle East, they embrace all the value you cherish.

Would you take us back to slavery, not allowing mixed marriages, how fucking stupid are you?

Your morality is inferior and not in step to the rest of humanity.

You disgust me with your painful bigoted rhetoric.

Bap33 says

you are the same turd-slinger that is all over this site suggesting that the 2nd Ammendment be removed,

No. Evidence. As usual you throw shit at people and have no clue or evidence to suggest. I am an advocate for the 2nd amendment. However I do believe that drum, assault rifles have no place in the hands of the public and that much stricter gun ownership laws are necessary to protect the public. According to you we should do nothing.
.

Bapp33 your suffering with homophobia, you can write a 1000 word essay it would not change the fact.

Gay marriage is no big deal. Let them marry and allow them equality.

If you don't like it and your a minority , move to the middle east, where ultra orthodox conservatism is all the rage.

We are not the middle east, we are the most advanced western nation on earth and will not be taken backwards by these simpletons.

Wow, there realty are bastards out there who hate for the sake of hating. Your not a very loving Catholic are you BAP33?

Homosexual behavior occurs in all of the Animal Kingdom, especially Penguins!!! Do you know if GOD made all that and he made all this, this is what he watned. Even if it was some kind of mistake(IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD), we are a loving species and include all people, not divide like ultra-Orthodox conservatives religious ZEALOTS!!!

I really feel for LGBT who BAP33 has wronged and continue to do wrong too.

121212 says

I really feel for LGBT who BAP33 has wronged and continue to do wrong too

I'll sleep like a fucking ROCK tonight, knowing that 121212 is so bent out of shape because Bap33 personally thinks gays shouldn't get married.

I think I'll snore extry hard.

http://gawker.com/5969003/westboro-baptist-church-plans-to-picket-sandy-hook-elementary-school-incurs-wrath-of-anonymous

It is understandably unthinkable to have a group blame gay marriage for the terrible shootings that took place at Sandy Hook elementary school on Friday. Do you think that the move by Westboro Baptist Church to picket the site of the elementary school shooting and praise God for the deaths of children is worse than the decisions they have made in the past? Should there be a law preventing groups like this from picketing funerals with arguably hateful messages?
Read more at