patrick.net

Sex is coital relations. Sucking on a dick is masturbation with your mouth. Taking in the anus is masturbation with your rectum. It isn't sex.

Sounds like you've got this human sexuality thing all figured out. Your partner is extremely lucky to have someone so in touch with their needs and free of any hangups. Your pillow talk must be fantastic.

Glendon says

Sex is coital relations. Sucking on a dick is masturbation with your mouth. Taking in the anus is masturbation with your rectum. It isn't sex.

Please don't tell me you say that to all the boys - I'd die of jealousy!

What about allowing a gay couple to adopt a child????( not ther biological children).
Not talking about a mother or father with children that now live a gay life.
I would say a gay male couple can live their life but allow them to adopt a kid ...IMO is no no way.... For a gay female couple HMMMM i got my doubts but maybe

Dan8267 says

If two people cannot agree whether to accept or reject a principle

why would somebody agree to not having slaves ?
why would two people agree on a principle ?

Glendon says

You do realize your question has an internal contradiction, correct? If anyone answers why sodomy is immoral, you will simply harangue them for making a relative values judgment.

Hardly. Why is rape immoral? Rape is immoral because it inflicts physical and emotional harm onto a sentient being. Why is drowning puppies in a river immoral? Drowning puppies in a river is immoral because doing so takes away their right to live and all the experiences of life they would have while inflicting pain upon them. Why is theft immoral? Stealing things is immoral because you are financially and possibly emotionally harming other people. Why is having an adulterous affair with a married person immoral? Adultery is immoral because it damages the relationship of the married couple, inflicting direct harm on them and any children and in-laws they have.

It's damn easy to explain why things are immoral, if they are indeed immoral. There is no trap here. It's not a trick question. If no one can come up with a valid reason why gay sex is immoral, then it is quite reasonable to conclude that gay sex is not immoral and that those who say it is are doing so simply out of bigotry and, ironically, acting quite immoral by doing so.

Now before you get on a soap box about "what is an invalid reason", I'll give you some examples. "Gay sex is immoral because it is unnatural" is clearly a invalid reason because gay sex occurs frequently throughout nature across many species. "...because the ass was not made for sex" is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals. "...because gays can't procreate" is invalid because accepting this requires that we consider many other sexual relationships to be immoral that we absolutely consider to be moral such as an old married couple having sex.

The question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?", is a perfectly fair and reasonable question to ask. The fact that no one has yet come up with any reason that isn't easily shown to be self-contradicting, contradicting facts, or contradicting other, more fundamental and universally accepted moral statements simply proves that the premise is wrong, that gay sex is not immoral in any way, shape, or form.

Glendon says

You don't need to respond to me.

Is that your way of expressing fear at a rebuttal? Sorry, I responded already just based on the first paragraph of your post, which contained an incorrect thesis. However, there are some factually incorrect statements in your post that need to be addressed as well. There are also meaningless statement masquerading as questions.

Glendon says

can anyone tell me why sodomitic conduct is intrinsically defective?

Sodomy is a nonsensical notion, like profanity. Why some words or actions are considered "filthy" and others are not is purely an arbitrary and meaningless distinction. Why should shit be profane but crap not? What inherent property of the sounds \ˈshē-ət\ make it more offensive than \ˈkrap\? The very concept of profanity is utterly meaningless and childish, as is the very concept of sodomy.

Glendon says

The purpose of your mouth is generally to take in food and liquids, and breath. Oh, and talk. It is true that people derive sexual excitement from kissing or oral "sex" but kissing is generally part of sexual foreplay towards completing the coital act, and oral "sex" isn't sex.

I'm afraid you have a very deep misunderstanding of nature and evolution. A body part, a trait, a gene does not "have a purpose" other than increasing the number of copies of such genes in the next generation. Evolution is not "intelligent design" by any means. A body part, a trait, a gene has zero or more effects and serve zero or more functions that may be useful, harmful, neither, or both. To say that the mouth exists for the purpose of eating is not correct. What is correct to say is the mouth evolve as a means of eating. This is a subtle, but extraordinarily important, distinction.

To illustrate further… Wings did not evolve for the purpose of flying. Some feathered dinosaurs gained a random mutation that make their forearms more wing-like. This gave those dinosaurs an advantage in running faster. Further mutation and selection refined the wing-like features of the forearms giving those dinos even more advantage in running and jumping long distances. Slowly jumping phased into gliding which phased into flying. There was never an intention behind any of the mutations or natural selection other than passing on genes.

So the mouth evolved and started to get used for multiple things including eating, attacking, defending, exploring the world, talking, courting, and even mate selection. Yes, Virginia, oral sex does an evolutionary purpose, perhaps many. Oral sex can be used to determine if a mate's immune system is different from you and thus would result in a more diverse immune system in offspring, a great advantage in defending against a wide variety of diseases. Oral sex may be used as a means of detecting infidelity. Oral sex is most certainly used for pair bonding, and that is damn important in species with high paternal input.

Glendon says

Pointing out irrelevant straw man arguments like other species is only a distraction.

In order to understand human behavior, including human sexuality, one must compare and contrast it with non-human counterparts. This is academically obvious.

Glendon says

Homosexuality is a biological dead end, and directly contradicts the fundamental purpose of any species' body.

1. Homosexuality is not a biological dead end. At best, you could argue that exclusively having homosexual relationships prevents reproduction. That is not an argument that gay sex is immoral. It is an argument that not having straight sex is immoral. Essentially, you are stating that chastity is immoral. Hmmm, most religions would disagree with you.

In any case, even with your premise that "good is whatever serves our genes and evil is whatever doesn't", having buttloads of gay butt sex is perfectly morally fine as long as it doesn't interfere with you also having unprotected sex with the opposite gender to produce as many babies as possible. I'm not sure that most people will agree with you about the moral imperative to produce as many babies as possible, but even if we accept that, you still have not shown any reason for gay sex to be immoral.

2. As already stated, your premise contradicts the universally accepted idea that chastity is not immoral. Hell, most religions promote chastity as being moral, many even requiring celibacy in the priest caste. But who believes that turning down sex is immoral? By your premise, every time a 16-year-old girl turns down a guy for sex, she's being immoral because she's not procreating.

3. Numerous scientific studies have shown there are great advantages in social species for having some homosexual members. Such gay aunts and uncles help ensure the safety and upbringing of offspring.

4. Your premise, "what increase reproduction is good, what doesn't is evil", quite frankly makes no sense. By that premise, rape is moral and family planning is immoral. Why should maximizing procreation be a moral imperative? In a world populated by 7 billion, soon to be 10 billion, people that is currently only capable of supporting and sustaining 2 billion, it makes far more sense that decreasing procreation is a moral imperative.

5. Maximizing populations is most certainly not an optimal survival strategy. Many species drive themselves to extinction due to over procreation. It is a common theme in nature. A species finds an abundant food supply, reproduces rapidly, exhausts the food supply while destroying the ecosystem supporting it, only to result in mass starvation and death. The predator-prey relationship does not always reach a stable ratio. Such stability requires negative feedbacks, without them, a species can destroy its habitat and render itself extinct.

For example… Humans are food to many parasites that kill them. In the Stone Age, really nasty parasites would so quickly destroy a tribe that they end up dying with their hosts before reaching the next tribe. This placed an evolutionary cap on how nasty a parasite could be. As a result, we didn't have plagues like the Black Death in the Stone Age. Such plagues could only evolve and survive when human populations reached a level and a density that the parasites could rampage without regard and still have enough hosts left to take refuge.

In conclusion, strategies to maximize populations are not necessary good for survival and certainly are not justifiable as being inherently moral. As a corollary, strategies that do not maximize populations cannot simply be labeled as immoral.

Glendon says

Everything about a man, penis and testicles, and a woman, clitoris, vagina, uterus, and ovaries, are "made" for one another. They have a well functioning design and purpose. You can argue with... whoever, about the design of things - God, mother nature, the universe - if you want. I had nothing to do with it.

"Made for one another"? Not quite that simple.

There are mechanisms in a woman's body whose sole function is to kill male babies. Didn't know that, did you? Yep, the mother's body actively tries to kill off her own baby, and that's in our species. More specifically, genes inside our mitochondria do things that increase the likelihood that male babies will die before being born, and the another part of the mother fight back with nuclear genes that prevent this.

But why should this even be the case? Is god just a sick fuck? Or is he just a very inefficient engineer?

This situation, of course, makes perfect sense if you accept a purely naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for life. Mitochondria DNA is passed asexually from mother to child. Male babies do not pass on mitochondria DNA. Therefore, it is advantageous to mitochondria to do things that kill off male babies and cause the host (the mother) to be ready to bear another (hopefully, female) child.

Think about what this means. A part of the mother is actively working against the rest of the mother's self-interest. It sure as hell isn't in the mother's interests to bear only daughters! If she did, she'd have less of a chance of having descendants in the distant future. Nature heavily penalizes sex ratio disparities in species with reproductive strategies like us humans!

So not even the mother's own self is "made for itself", nonetheless, made for a man.

The fact is that genes can and do fuck each other over all the time. Genes can and do fuck over their hosts (that's you) all the time. Basing morality on the best interests of genes is as ludicrous as basing morality on the best interests of a rampaging homicidal maniac!

Glendon says

Only a man and a woman can copulate as designed, and "mate" possibly furthering the race by having children.

Arguing that this implies that gay sex is immoral is logically identical to arguing that an old married couple having sex is immoral, that an infertile couple having sex is immoral, or that a couple using contraceptive having sex is immoral.

A few people might agree that contraceptive use is immoral, but who the hell is going to call grandma and grandpa sexual deviants for having sex on their 50th anniversary? If you don't, then it's just pure hypocrisy.

And quite frankly, the many infertile couples out there should take great offense at anyone who implies that they are immoral for enjoying sex with their spouse even though they cannot conceive.

Glendon says

If you have a problem with my arguments, curse mother nature and shout at the dirt.

It is your reasoning, not mother nature, that is incorrect. Mother nature has no problem with homosexuality.

http://intentblog.com/catholic-leader-claims-homosexuality-is-unnatural-5-pictures-to-prove-him-wrong/

Nope, I have no problem with nature. Now that you have learned how common gay sex is in nature, will you change your position as reasoning and knowledge demands?

snmREDDY says

Dan8267 says

If two people cannot agree whether to accept or reject a principle

why would somebody agree to not having slaves ?

why would two people agree on a principle ?

- Why would somebody agree to not having slaves?

Two people each have an equal claim to a pie. How does one ensure that neither party takes advantage of the other? I.e., what is the optimal strategy for ensuring social justice?

Let one person cut the pie in half. The other person choose who gets which slice.

I'll let you choose whether or not slavery is practice. Once you make that decision, I'll decide who gets to be the slave and who gets to be the master if it's legal. I'm willing to bet that you and most people would choose to make slavery illegal.

- Why would two people agree on a principle?

Many reasons from self-interest, to kin-interests, to fear or hope of reciprocity. Think about all the principles we do agree upon almost universally in our society. For example,
- murder is unacceptable
- rape is unacceptable
- theft is unacceptable
- self-sacrifice is noble
- victims should be compensated by their assailants

Wow, "Dan." How pathetic is this that you have to justify your abominable behavior to the extent of shouting down all opposition? Response after response after response of rambling, semi-coherent dreck.

Sodomy is immoral because it contradicts the basic function of the body, and because, traditionally, the Judeo-Christian ethic states that God is a creator, and gave us the ability to beget, and in fact, in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic, God's first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply. The deliberate thwarting of that idea for your own self-centered pleasure, is immoral. Sodomy is the same defect as pulling out. "God" struck Onan dead for pulling out. No matter how much a guy talks himself into liking sodomy, taking it in the ass is physical abuse. Your rectum isn't made to have a dick jammed up it. Your penis exists, as I said, to ejaculate semen, and the semen has a purpose, but you just ignore that. You randomly fall back on atheism when you want, then pull out theism and morality when you want. Its the worse kind of duplicitous flip-flopping. But as I said, I don't involve God or morals because sodomy is defective as a fact, on its face, biologically.

You race around in circles trying to serve your own perverted logic. No matter what anyone says to you, it will simply be spun up in a mess so that you can't be argued with. Example? Going from sodomy being a biological dead to chastity being immoral. From atheism to theism in the same sentence, in great, confused leaps in logic and subjects. What crap.

Your ear hears. Your heart beats to push blood. Your brain processes. Your marrow exists to make blood cells. Your eyes see. Your stomach and intestines process food and eliminate waste, amongst other things. And your rectum exists to hold shat until you allow it to open and push out the shat.

"Has no purpose." What a fundamental denial of basic scientific fact. How do we take this stuff seriously? How can we possibly take the homosexual loon telling us black is white and 1+1=5, unless it equals 4, and sometimes 1 seriously? "Oh, some scientist says ears developed originally to suck nectar from flowers but then mouths developed and the ears evolved to hear sounds when sounds got softer." "Scientists now know for sure that people had twelve fingers and toes to better climb the backs of dinosaurs, but after the dinosarus died, the fingers and toes fell off."

As I said, how about you do something constructive like shout at the dirt, dood. You suck dick and take or give it up the ass for your sexual gratification. It isn't sex. It isn't love. It isn't normal. It isn't on the spectrum of normal. It is what it is. Naked lust, or a cry for help.

Two old or infertile people still copulate according to the functions of their body. That a woman doesn't have eggs to ovulate anymore, or never had them, or the male has no sperm, doesn't detract from the basic purpose of the reproductive system of both genders. And actually contraception is also "immoral" since it makes sex masturbation, just like sodomy. That whole response of yours is an epic fail.

That other animals do these things is irrelevant. Their bodies still have the same constituent purposes as ours do... and their behavior is just as much a biological anomaly or defect as yours is. Outside of that, you are just rambling semi-coherently, which is the sole purpose of your original post. To hear yourself scream down the world that you are "normal." You're not. You abuse yourself with others. You aren't a whole person, nor normal. A man that grows up, takes a wife, has children, and raises them to be constructive decent people is a whole, real man. You can't do that. If you want children, you have to pay a woman to carry the child, or adopt. Does it not dawn on you the fundamental silliness of your arguments?

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

Dan8267 says

I believe this is known as the "Lucky Pierre". Nice.

Glendon says

How pathetic is this that you have to justify your abominable behavior to the extent of shouting down all opposition?...And actually contraception is also "immoral" since it makes sex masturbation, just like sodomy.

Dan has posted thousands of comments on many different topics, because he likes to debate. Glendon, on the other hand, registered solely to spew nonsense on this one topic. This particular topic brings closet cases out of the woodwork, either homosexual (Bop69) or bisexual (FortHood). Their fear of their own desires motivates them to build walls of sophistry around themselves, higher than they can climb over, but they fool no one else. In America, Larry Craig and his fellow closet cases (and their scared wives) set the agenda for the Republican party, so that party can't even have a rational policy discussion anymore and the whole country suffers for it.

Which are you, Glendon or Glenda? Dan demolished all of your arguments, yet you repeat your initial position. Your refusal to understand nature reflects solely on you, not on nature itself; you are the one shouting at the dirt, and the animals, including humans, and who knows what else. Go shout at the reindeer and call them defective and immoral, see what they say, maybe they'll gore you.

This thread has unwittingly demonstrated that the anti-gay "family values" folks are the worst bigots in the world. Although I have repeatedly attempted to engage in fruitful debate on this subject matter, those who oppose homosexuality have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated the most vile aspects of human behavior once their poorly thought out arguments have been thoroughly demolished. Instead of exhibiting the rational adult response of, "gee, I don't have an answer to that, maybe I need to rethink my position on this matter", they universally take the position of "gee, I don't have an answer to that, you must be an evil sodomite".

And ultimately, they all resort to religious doctrine as the justification for their bigotry. Although this thread is about the morality of gay sex, it is absolutely relevant to point out that the anti-gay bigotry -- and that's really what it comes down to if you cannot honestly justify your beliefs -- is always based on religion and superstitious beliefs about there being a god and what that god wants. This demonstrates exactly why I have stated many times that religion, and the belief in the spiritual/supernatural, is inherently bad and causes great harm. Some, like Marcus, would say that all such people are "by definition" extremists and therefore not true Scotsman, but they make up a significant, if not majority, of the religious and therefore cannot be ignored.

No rational, objective person has used scientific knowledge and reasoning to reach the conclusion that gay sex is immoral. Plenty of religious people have used pseudo-science, incorrect facts regarding nature, and misrepresentation of evolution along with easily discredit false logic to argue that gay sex is immoral, but they always start out with the conclusion and then search for a reason. And the conclusion is always dictated by their Bronze/Iron Age religion and its false morality.

Glendon says

Wow, "Dan." How pathetic is this that you have to justify your abominable behavior to the extent of shouting down all opposition?

1. I am straight. I have never engage in homosexual behavior, not that there's anything wrong with that. If you have even bothered to read this thread, you will have seen that I have repeated stated that I find man on man butt sex repugnant, but that doesn't make it immoral. So your entire premise that I'm justifying "my abominable behavior" is blow away.

2. Even if I were gay, that would not invalidate any of the counter-arguments I made to your posts. Suggesting otherwise is a logical fallacy called Poisoning the Well and it is a sign of a weak intellect defending a weak position.

3. Rational debate based on facts and reasoning is not "shouting down all opposition". The fact that your arguments are flawed is your own fault, not mine. They were always flawed, even before I revealed their flaws. They were flawed even before you conceived them. This is self-evident.

4. I would argue that your behavior in calling homosexuality "abominable behavior" is, in fact, the real abominable behavior being demonstrated here. It is one thing to reach a flawed conclusion that gay sex is immoral. It is quite another to be shown the flaws in you facts and reasoning and to still consider gay sex immoral and anyone who questions that premise to be abominable. At this point, you are being willfully ignorant, and that I could argue is truly immoral.

Glendon says

Sodomy is immoral because it contradicts the basic function of the body,

1. There is no such thing as "the basic function of the body".

2. What constitutes sodomy is arbitrary and varies greatly from culture to culture. Sex in any position other than missionary is considered sodomy in some cultures. So, that married couple having sex with the woman on top is being immoral? But only if they do it in Kansas, in New Jersey, it's ok.

Glendon says

Sodomy is immoral because..., traditionally, the Judeo-Christian ethic states that God is a creator, and gave us the ability to beget, and in fact, in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic, God's first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply.

1. Tradition is a shitty basis for any moral concept. Slavery was tradition for a damn long time in this country. I can think of hundreds of traditions that would be considered down right evil by today's standards.

2. Judeo-Christian culture does not have any bearing on morality. Remember, both the Old Testament and the New Testament is pro-slavery, a point well pointed out by Baptist ministers before and during the American Civil War. A book that cannot answer the easiest moral question correctly is not a book with any moral credibility. Oh, and don't get me started on all the things in the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture that are down right evil. I think I'll let Penn and Teller take this one.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZaLaTMaKjdY&t=25m30s
Relevant parts from 25:30 to 27:00 and Penn's closing remarks.

Glendon says

God's first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply.

Have you even read the counterarguments I made? I already addressed this. According to this principle, chastity is evil and any 16-year-old girl who says no is being immoral. What's the derogatory term for not being a slut?

Glendon says

"God" struck Onan dead for pulling out.

Really? You want to go there? Your false god's law is that a man has to fuck his dead brother's wife and impregnate her. What if she doesn't want to be fucked by her brother-in-law like most women wouldn't? Your fictitious god, or more accurately the Bronze Age misogynistic men writing in his name, gives the woman no choice. That's right, your god is pro-rape.

In fact, your god is quite the fucking sicko when it comes to raping women and having sex slaves.

I never get tired of posting this image.

Glendon says

No matter how much a guy talks himself into liking sodomy, taking it in the ass is physical abuse.

To equate consensual anal sex -- which, I hate to break it to you, most heterosexual married couples try at some point to "spice things up" after 15 years -- with abuse is utterly despicable and insulting both to the millions of homosexual and heterosexual couples who engage in consensual anal sex, and to the people who have suffered actual physical abuse.

Glendon says

You race around in circles trying to serve your own perverted logic.

There is nothing circular about my logic. Nor are there any flaws. Everything I have stated has been written down such that the entire world can examine it for flaws. Any flaws can easily be pointed out in a transparent system such as a written debate on the Internet. The fact that you have not even addressed any of my counterarguments demonstrates that you have not found any flaw in them. If you had, you would cheerfully point such flaws out, repeatedly.

And race? Honey, my debating style is very systematic and consistent. I do not jump from point to point, but simply address each argument my opponent makes in the order it appears in the graph of the argument. If you would be more cooperative, I could illustrate the proper techniques of debate including how to build a graph of the argument to make sure all points are covered. But I doubt you have the rationality or patience to learn. Bigotry and impatience seem to go hand in hand. I wonder if there is an underlying principle in that correlation like the Marshmallow Test.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QX_oy9614HQ

http://www.youtube.com/embed/amsqeYOk--w

You know there's a high correlation between kids having the self-control to not eat the marshmallow and later academic and career achievement. I bet the same correlation exists between eating the marshmallow and becoming a bigot.

Using rational thought rather than taking things on faith because the arbitrary culture you were born into says so is a form of self-discipline.

Glendon says

Your ear hears. Your heart beats to push blood. Your brain processes. Your marrow exists to make blood cells. Your eyes see. Your stomach and intestines process food and eliminate waste, amongst other things. And your rectum exists to hold shat until you allow it to open and push out the shat.

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Bob: The sun is hot because it is made of burning coal.
Joe: Electromagnetic Spectroscopy proves that the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, not carbon. Furthermore, it is nuclear fusion, not chemical reactions, that power the sun.
Bob: Coal is hot when you burn it. The sun is hot because its burning coal.

Notice how Bob looks like an idiot? Why? Because he completely ignores Joe's argument and simply repeats his own, now debunked, idea.

As with the mouth, the ear serves multiple purposes. Yes, it's used for hearing. It's also used for pair bonding. Ever nibble on a lover's ear? To say that the ear isn't an erogenous zone is to reveal how clumsy and inexperience of a lover you are. And if the ear can be an erogenous zone, than so too can the ass.

Glendon says

"Has no purpose." What a fundamental denial of basic scientific fact. How do we take this stuff seriously? How can we possibly take the homosexual loon telling us black is white and 1+1=5, unless it equals 4, and sometimes 1 seriously?

Once again, you write as if you haven't actually read the entire text. Did you not understand the example of the development of the wing in dinosaurs? Did you fail to comprehend its relevance? I really need to know where your brain failed in order to explain my counterarguments better to you.

Oh, and exactly where did I, the "homosexual loon" with no homosexual experience or desires, ever state anything remotely contradicting mathematics like 1 + 1 = 5?

Although... ironically, 1 + 1 = 5 is a true statement in Z3 and, in fact, all groups of cardinality 3 since they are all isomorphic to Z3. Oh, I love Group Theory. I used to draw 3D representations of the finite groups and point out subgroups, but that's another story. I wouldn't expect someone like Glendon to comprehend "math" stuff. After all, he probably things math is so gay, just like logic and reasoning.

Glendon says

Two old or infertile people still copulate according to the functions of their body.

Not if she's menopausal and he's on Viagra. In any case, it still disproves your argument that sex for reason other than procreation is immoral.

Tell me, are you incapable of understanding that sex serves a psychological function as well as a biological one? Homosexual couples have the psychological needs as heterosexual ones, and that alone is ample justification for homosexual sex. If homosexual sex promotes pair bonding and strengthens a relationship, then it clearly has an important psychological function, and since human beings are more than just animals -- we're animals with big brains -- psychological functions are every bit as important as biological ones.

Glendon says

And actually contraception is also "immoral" since it makes sex masturbation, just like sodomy.

[2000] began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected.

World Watch Issue Alert, 31 October 2000

I would argue that it is immoral for people such as you to try to persuade people that contraception, including condom use, is immoral when there is an epidemic of AIDS rampaging Africa, killing millions, and the spread of this plague is heavily influence by such nonsensical statements.

Glendon says

That other animals do these things is irrelevant.

If you are going to make the argument that gay sex is "unnatural", what animals do in nature is most certainly relevant.

Glendon says

Outside of that, you are just rambling semi-coherently, which is the sole purpose of your original post.

If there is anything I have written that your feeble mind cannot understand, simply point it out and I will do my best to dumb it down to your level. I'm quite sure that most people with a literacy level beyond the fourth grade will have no trouble comprehending my writing.

Glendon says

To hear yourself scream down the world that you are "normal." You're not. You abuse yourself with others. You aren't a whole person, nor normal.

So, now that I've come out of the closet as being straight, you'll retract all the above statements, right?

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

Wow, I'm offended by that and I'm not even gay. The only time I've ever felt molested was while reading your posts.

I'd argue against those "buckets" you have, but I'm straight anyway, so I'm sure there would be a point. Of course, it does show how incredibly off your assumptions are from reality.

bdrasin says

Dan8267 says

I believe this is known as the "Lucky Pierre". Nice.

It's the Golden Rule.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Pi7gwX7rjOw

Dan8267 says

There are mechanisms in a woman's body whose sole function is to kill male babies. Didn't know that, did you?

True...

An adult female's body is constantly producing cervical fluid throughout her menstrual cycle. Cervical fluid is like an highly acidic mucus which is hostile to sperm.

However!...

As that same adult female nears ovulation, this fluid changes to become conducive to sperm and actually assists in keeping sperm alive.

I have read well the ways of the woman and her many marvelous fluids.

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

I suppose it could *possibly* be that most gays had cold fathers, virago mothers and even have been diddled between 4-13; but I don't think any or all of these things combined could effectuate homosexuality as a default setting in an otherwise straight person. It would probably scramble them, sure, but they were gay in the first place. It's readily obvious to me from the queers I've known over the years that they came out of the chute wired up that way. Sorry.

For what it is worth, I've known two different men over the years who openly professed to be gay, but who were also celibate. These were manly motherfuckers, too; desert survivalist types. They didn't put out with any of those trite Tinkerbell affectations, (I drive through Palm Springs a lot), or go around making lusty overtures to young Adonises. Point being, I don't think it's always about carnal vice. As I understood it, they simply preferred the company of a man to that of a woman. As a robustly straight male, even I must confess, there are times that this premise seems as natural to me as real maple syrup.

JodyChunder says

Glendon says

As with most other gays, you probably either: had a cold or absent father, domineering mother, or were molested sometime between the ages of 4-13. I've known a lot of homosexuals over the course of my life, and they all fall into one of those buckets. Which are you?

I suppose it could *possibly* be that most gays had cold fathers, virago mothers and even been diddled between 4-13; but I don't think any or all of these things combined could effectuate homosexuality as a default setting in an otherwise straight person.

The existence of people like Glendon make legitimate research into the causes of sexual orientation an ethical quagmire. If scientists do determine exact causes of homosexuality, assholes like Glendon will immediately try to force medical procedures to prevent homosexuality ignoring the rights of the patient. Because of such bigots, it's perhaps best if such research is not conducted in our lifetime.

Dan8267 says

Now before you get on a soap box about "what is an invalid reason", I'll give you some examples. "Gay sex is immoral because it is unnatural" is clearly a invalid reason because gay sex occurs frequently throughout nature across many species. "...because the ass was not made for sex" is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals. "...because gays can't procreate" is invalid because accepting this requires that we consider many other sexual relationships to be immoral that we absolutely consider to be moral such as an old married couple having sex.

And now you prove my initial assertion, that your OP is a loaded question built on an internal contradiction. As soon as anyone demonstrates a logical basis for the values judgment you shoot down the values judgment. Sodomy is immoral because it is contrary to nature, infecund - a biological dead end, and runs counter to the basic functions of the mouth and rectum, or in the case of women, the use of fingers or objects because they don't possess a penis to complete the act.

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs. Those terms are not interchangeable. As for "natural," the drive to reproduce is the basis for every life form on the planet, and there are means to achieve this end in each life form (seeds, procreation, division, etc), else the life form dies. It is fundamental to nature.

The rectum is the end of the digestive tract. It accumulates digestive waste until time to defecate in every species that has a digestive tract.

This random garbage you are spewing, like "is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals" is the prototypical form of the "ipse dixit." Because you have said it, well, it must be true. No, it doesn't. I'm not following into the ID trap. Purely on the natural realm natural selection has goals constantly - survival and competitive advantage. Even if it is purely natural with no divine origin, there are clear intents and design goals according to the nature and function of an organism in relation to its environment.

Your thought pattern is the negation of thought, and the absence of logic. The same "logic" that says the rectum has no purpose says that the heart has no purpose, nor the brain, nor any other body part. Its such a stupid argument there is no counter argument to it, except to state the obvious, and conclude that you are a complete and total fool, in this case an apt ad hominem.

The purpose of the reproductive system, like every other constituent part of a body, is reproduction. Just like the circulation system is for circulation, or the endocrine system for hormonal regulation. You just toss logical and function and purpose out the door because you don't like that it is a suitable and legitimate argument.

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

Something is what it is. People don't eat glass or rocks to live. We consume nutritive elements. People don't drink gasoline. We need water to live, and petrol products are poisonous. You don't try to fuel a car with molasses, unless it is perhaps biodiesel. That you reject the concept of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle means that everything you say has no basis. Your absence of logic and real thought is your own indictment.

That some other buffoon agrees with your absence of thought and said that you "totally demolished my arguments" is sheer idiocy as well. You're not very good at this. You just comment, and comment, and comment some more. It doesn't matter that your words have no logical or scientific validity. It's all just random verbiage, except when you toss some scientific observation in, and then, well, its law. It's the sun rising in the east. Idiocy it is.

And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

Dan8267 says

I'm afraid you have a very deep misunderstanding of nature and evolution. A body part, a trait, a gene does not "have a purpose" other than increasing the number of copies of such genes in the next generation. Evolution is not "intelligent design" by any means. A body part, a trait, a gene has zero or more effects and serve zero or more functions that may be useful, harmful, neither, or both. To say that the mouth exists for the purpose of eating is not correct. What is correct to say is the mouth evolve as a means of eating. This is a subtle, but extraordinarily important, distinction.

You have absolutely no understanding of biology or genetics. Genetics are the sum of the information needed to make an intact life form that can mature and replicate. Again, you don't like the argument on form and function, even though virtually everything around you has both natural or man-made form and function and identity, so you negate all of existence long enough to rebuke my argument, then go back to relying on science and logic again. You have a long page of random and arbitrary thoughts. It isn't argument, or logic, or scientific insight. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a monkey with a canvas and three cans of paint.

An infertile couple having coital relations isn't immoral.

AIDS has mainly been spread through heterosexual sex, man to woman, homosexual sex, man to man, and intravenous drug use. At this point, the main lines of transmission have nothing to do with gay men. Now that the AZT cocktail has now made HIV controllable, the new scourge will be TB, gonorrhea, and syphilis that are resistant to all known antibiotics.

So again, the fittest survive -- the bugs -- and those that engage in reckless and destructive sexual behavior will end up on the short end of the stick. As it is the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

That anyone contends it is a morally neutral and perfectly kosher variant of normal now that they've seen a couple of lions, deer, or beavers schtumping in the woods, has got to get a life.

And again, there is no frickin way you are "straight."

Have you heard of the adage, 'the exception doesn't prove the rule?'

Apparently not.

Dan8267 says

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Your counterargument ... isn't. A does not equal A isn't a counterargument.

Glendon says

the life expectancy for homosexuals is drastically shorter than heterosexuals, both male and female.

"We rate Marshall’s claim False." Glenda, is your last name Marshall?

Glendon says

And, by the way, you are most assuredly a homosexual, and a damned liar if you say you aren't.

Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,
But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

-Willie Nelson

bdrasin says

Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,

But the ones who yell loudest are the ones who are most likely queer

-Willie Nelson

no willie nelson didnt write that... he did a cover from the original because he thought it was funny. but really ! even in SF, LA and NYC you see chic Gay running around dressed like cowboys. Are they real Cowboys .. of course not, but they are real Gay !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Are_Frequently,_Secretly_Fond_of_Each_Other

Dan8267 says

Why the hell is gay sex immoral?

it is one thing... a dead end to your family blood line and heritage.

in all cultures, the continuity of family blood line keeps the family unit viable
today and into the future. destroy the family blood line .. you destroy the fabric of any society.

why do we all have a Family name ?

this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.
what was the alternative ?

thomaswong.1986 says

why do we all have a Family name ?

It's really just an ages-old convention...we need something to put on your toe tag that differentiates your cadaver from the one on the next slab over.

thomaswong.1986 says

this certainly had a huge impact in creating a strong stable society.

But we are neither strong or stable. We've gotten more & more fucked up over the last 100 years. We might have slicker consumer gadgets to distract from and palliate the pain of our imploding collective soul, but don't kid...we're fucking fucked.

As for society...it's just a concept for living, Tom -- an egalitarian blueprint designed to enable people of disparate creeds, race, gender and ability to cohabitate together in relative harmony. The finest iteration of this design is the meritocratic society, where one's basic pursuit of happiness is delimited only by one's effort. The only thing that could possibly disrupt society then is a corruption of this core framework. Sexuality doesn't even enter into the discussion.

Glendon says

And now you prove my initial assertion, that your OP is a loaded question built on an internal contradiction.

Honey, a proof is more than saying "I have a proof". You have to actually follow through as I will demonstrate now.

Glendon says

As soon as anyone demonstrates a logical basis for the values judgment you shoot down the values judgment. Sodomy is immoral because it is contrary to nature, infecund - a biological dead end, and runs counter to the basic functions of the mouth and rectum, or in the case of women, the use of fingers or objects because they don't possess a penis to complete the act.

To say that sodomy -- by whatever arbitrary definition you choose from among the thousands of different definitions -- is "contrary" to nature is clearly empirically false. That means it doesn't give with the historical facts.

Sodomy, by any of the myriad of definitions, occurs throughout nature and therefore cannot be contrary to nature.

Oral sex?

Gay Anal sex?

Interspecies sex?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qVE60zwXx1k

It's not easy being green.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RcAQ3-cBsTs

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GlKFBaVzJuM

Masturbation, group sex, interspecies oral sex, three-ways, jerk off exhibitionism, gay anal sex, …

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cka2tRMQMLY
It's Michael Jackson!

Sodomy is the norm in nature. Therefore, to say that gay sex is immoral because it "is contrary to nature" is clearly factually incorrect.

Glendon says

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs

What kind of oxymoron statement is this? I mean, you had to avoid using the phrase "occurs in nature", which is what we're talking about, because it's so obviously self-contradictory. I'm not giving you counter-examples from a courthouse in New York City. I'm giving you counter-examples from nature.

Just because something occurs universally in nature does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs throughout nature.

Yeah, that's a clearer rendering of the idea you want everyone to accept.

Glendon says

This random garbage you are spewing, like "is clearly invalid because evolution does not have intent or design goals" is the prototypical form of the "ipse dixit." Because you have said it, well, it must be true.

1. Nothing I've written is random. Any person reading this thread can see exactly how I've gone from what you said to either empirically disproving it, providing a counter-example, or showing the logical flaw. You're not fooling anyone.

2. I've never made a claim that was "true just because I said so". Feel free to try to point out a specific example.

3. Every reason you gave for gay sex being immoral has been show to
a. Be based on false facts easily disproved by photographs and videos.
b. Result in a conclusion that rape or some other universally accept evil must be good.
c. Contain obvious self-contradictions.
d. Really be based solely on your own bigotry, i.e., "gay sex is immoral because I said so".

Glendon says

Just because something occurs does not make it "natural" because you are equating natural with occurs.

Scientists test hypotheses by observing what occurs, then draw conclusions based on those observations. In contrast, religious fundamentalists and Glenda do the opposite: they begin by asserting a false conclusion, then condemn what occurs whenever observation disproves their false conclusion. By Glenda's Alice in Wonderland illogic, kissing is unnatural and immoral if it doesn't lead to coitus, but the Vatican acted morally in requiring Galileo to renounce his observations of how planets move, because those observations contradicted the Vatican's geocentric solar system. Even the Vatican apologized for that, as it must eventually apologize for much else, but Glenda keeps her own self-invented faith. Scientists observe what happens in nature and use those observations to support conclusions about what is natural; Glenda repeats her false conclusion and, when it is disproved, condemns those who disprove it.

Glendon says

The purpose of the reproductive system, like every other constituent part of a body, is reproduction. Just like the circulation system is for circulation, or the endocrine system for hormonal regulation. You just toss logical and function and purpose out the door because you don't like that it is a suitable and legitimate argument.

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

Have you even read anything that I've written. I suggest reading the following bit very carefully as you keep demonstrating it.

Dan8267 says

Again you are repeating an argument you already made but without addressing the counterargument I have made against it. This does not reinforce your position. Allow me to illustrate...

Bob: The sun is hot because it is made of burning coal.

Joe: Electromagnetic Spectroscopy proves that the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, not carbon. Furthermore, it is nuclear fusion, not chemical reactions, that power the sun.

Bob: Coal is hot when you burn it. The sun is hot because its burning coal.

Notice how Bob looks like an idiot? Why? Because he completely ignores Joe's argument and simply repeats his own, now debunked, idea.

You are not adding anything to the conversation by ignoring every point I made, each of which addresses specific statements you made. Saying something stupid like

"Hah! Your argument is invalid. I WIN! I WIN!"

Idiocy.

does not further your position or address the counter-arguments I clearly laid out.

Ultimately, every counter-argument you drop, which so far is all of them, is a counter-argument that you concede is correct.

Glendon says

Your absence of logic and real thought is your own indictment.

Wow, you know someone is a sore loser when they flip over the chess board and shout "you're a poopy head and you cheated!".

To accuse me of being absence of logic and real thought is like accusing Katt Williams of never giving pot a chance, or Bill Clinton of being too picky regarding women, or George Bush of not eating enough paste.