patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,201,332 comments by 14,244 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 767 - 806 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
Bap33
2012 Dec 17, 1:36pm
If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here.
Morality is gray.
Does this mean your original question had no possible right answer?
Dan8267
2012 Dec 18, 12:05am
If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here.
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.
Bap33
2012 Dec 18, 6:31am
No. In some situations, the morally correct choice is clear. You don't drown the puppy in the river
That is why applying morality in a black-and-white fashion is always doomed to fail.
I am having trouble following your point.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 18, 7:11am
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.
Bap33
2012 Dec 19, 11:55am
and that is pretty much why we disagree on the basics of life. But, no worries. Merry Christmas.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Dec 21, 4:12am
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
Peter P
2012 Dec 21, 6:34am
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.)
Peter P
2012 Dec 21, 6:41am
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.
121212
2012 Dec 21, 7:44am
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.
Bap33
2012 Dec 22, 2:35am
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.
121212
2012 Dec 22, 3:45am
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.
121212
2012 Dec 22, 3:56am
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.
.
121212
2012 Dec 22, 4:07am
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!!!
121212
2012 Dec 22, 4:10am
I really feel for LGBT who BAP33 has wronged and continue to do wrong too.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Dec 23, 1:44am
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.
121212
2012 Dec 25, 3:51am
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
An interesting point about the true agenda of the same sex marriage advocates:
An act is immoral when it is performed on someone against his/her own will. In other words, there is no victim when two people engage in an activity voluntarily, irrespective of their genders.
Patrick rightly mentions about the historical reasons of those religious laws. But I do not see any moral, or at least legal ground for this.
Of course, not everyone has to like or approve activities of everyone else. Someone may find this act repugnant. But this is no different from drinking raw milk. Religious people have the right to disapprove it if they choose to. Laws, on the other hand, should be oblivious to this.
Anyone that posts on this thread is obviously a closeted gay... oh wait, never mind.
I bet the religious people that think being gay is immoral would admit that they are gay for Jesus.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 May 8, 7:49am
An interesting point about the true agenda of the same sex marriage advocates:
One RadFem does not a whole movement make. Many RadFems think that all non-lesbian relationships are exploitation, including gay male ones.
Dan8267
2013 May 8, 8:27am
An interesting point about the true agenda of the same sex marriage advocates:
1. Never trust any organization with the word "family" in it. "Family values" is code for bigotry. All people have families, even gay people. To say that homosexuality is an affront to family values is to demonstrate why the very term is bullshit.
2. The entire purpose of marriage equality is equality under law. Either you believe in equality under law, and thus that the laws cannot discriminate in any way against same-sex marriages, or you do not believe in the principles of America. The 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court of Loving v. Virginia illustrate this point perfectly.
3. The entire quagmire the state has gotten itself in is because the state is doing something that it should not have the right nor the responsibility to do: to decide which personal relationships are legitimate and which are not. Marriage should be a social and a religious institution, not a secular one.
4. Masha Gessen's personal opinions about whether or not she would be happy in a marriage are irrelevant to the debate and obviously do not reflect the opinions of gays who want to be married.
5. This thread is about the morality of gay sex, not the legality of gay marriage. The two issues are independent of each other.
JodyChunder
2013 May 8, 8:31am
But, that doesn't explain why adulterous politicians (e.g. Newt Gingrich) campaign against gay couples getting married.
It gets votes.
Well, a lot of people replied to this thread today. However, no one has presented a reason why he or she thinks gay sex is immoral.
You cannot reason out morality.
when you keep asking why there is a certain moral code and you keep doing that till you reach something. you will find that whatever you reach will be something which cannot be explained.It is something that most people agree on instinctively if thier mind is left un corrupted by other crap ( beliefs/religion/rationale) from society .
lets take the example of slavery. If you keep asking why slavery is wrong, you will finally reach to something that cannot be explained and that would be " its wrong to cause suffering to another human being". you cannot go beyond that.
can you explain why its wrong to cause suffering to another human being ? No .
Most people will agree that its wrong to cause suffering to another human being if they are allowed to listen to their heart.you can confuse them easily by corrupting that process by introducing rules,religion,rationalizations, status quo...etc.
In most cases, people are OK to cause suffering to others when they can be convinced that the other people are different than you.
So the questions is : If you didn't have any religion,bias,prior access to moral code,belief system of a society and you were living on an island with your family with no prior contact with civilization. Suddenly you see male coupling, what would you think./do ?
will you be disgusted. will it be something than you don't want your children to see ?
will you be ok to let them do whatever they want but not publicly ?
bdrasin
2013 May 8, 9:00am
For shame, Dan - are you so far gone that images like this do not fill you with revulsion?
JodyChunder
2013 May 8, 4:17pm
She's got some good muscle memory, that one. Could use that kinda thing around the ranch.
Dan8267
2013 May 14, 7:58am
You cannot reason out morality.
when you keep asking why there is a certain moral code and you keep doing that till you reach something. you will find that whatever you reach will be something which cannot be explained.
Absolutely incorrect. Morality has a rational and natural explanation as has been confirmed many times by biologists.
All moral arguments are essentially logical arguments based on assumptions of principle. As long as two people agree on the principle, then moral codes can be constructed according to logical laws and game theory. This is precisely what nature does through evolution. It can and has also been modeled in computer simulations using genetic algorithms.
If two people cannot agree whether to accept or reject a principle, then that indicates a fundamental disagreement in opinion. Furthermore, if I reject a principle you propose, such as eating green foods is inherently evil, then I most certainly should reject any moral codes you based on that assumption.
Morality, like anything else worth doing, should be done as an engineering discipline.
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.
Skipping morality, let's restate this thread as "can anyone tell me why sodomitic conduct is intrinsically defective?"
Why yes... yes I can. 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. It's masturbation of another with your mouth. You could use your hand to the same effect, which I believe is called a "handjob."
The purpose of a man's rectum is to hold shat until you are ready to excrete it. Its purpose isn't to receive an erect penis until the penis ejaculates. That isn't its purpose... it's reason for existing. It is designed to be the end of your digestive tract, not a receptacle for semen.
Lastly, the purpose of a penis is to engorge with blood and be stimulated until it ejaculates semen. It's other purpose is to empty the bladder.
Semen has a single purpose: it is the portable mechanism to move 23 chromosomes to the egg of a female, who has a complementary ovary that releases an egg holding a complementary set of 23 chromosomes, and the cycle repeats roughly every 28 days or so.
This is why nothing related to same sex attraction is either sex, or love. It's masturbation, in concert, typically by a dominant male abusing the rectum of a passive male until the dominant male ejaculates. This is typically accompanied by a "blowjob" or "handjob" to complete the ejaculation of totally wasted semen of the passive male. Love has a purpose. As John Mayer says, so it has to be true, love is a verb. The nature end of love is attraction, and attraction brings about coitus, normally. That, ignoring modern pharmacology, usually begets children, furthering the race.
Pointing out irrelevant straw man arguments like other species is only a distraction. Homosexuality is a biological dead end, and directly contradicts the fundamental purpose of any species' body.
For women, it is largely the same. Two women waste their eggs in menstruation each month because all they do is orally or physically stimulate one another's clitori until they ejaculate. That isn't sex. It's masturbation. If you can do it alone, it isn't sex. Only a man and a woman can copulate as designed, and "mate" possibly furthering the race by having children.
Whether you care about this fact, or want to go off on some overpopulation diversion, is irrelevant.
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.
Perfect (male) and imperfect (female) sodomy is "immoral" for traditional religion as much as anything because it runs directly counter to the "natural law" and the basic biological function of a human male. It isn't normal, nor a variation of normal. It simply is what it is -- a deviant perversion of a basic human behavior.
You don't need to respond to me. This is basic science and anatomy. There doesn't need to be subjective values judgments or empty emotional appeals to "love." If you have a problem with my arguments, curse mother nature and shout at the dirt.
bdrasin
2013 May 14, 2:00pm
Um...yes, Oral Sex is Sex. Sex is Oral Sex's last name.
Unless you want to get into Bill Clinton/Kenneth Star word wrangling...
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.
bdrasin
2013 May 14, 11:41pm
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.
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
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 ?
Dan8267
2013 May 15, 11:02am
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.
« First « Previous Comments 767 - 806 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.
Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.
Just saying...