Politics of homosexuality

[Moonbeam]

When has liberalism ever spported ass backward religiousness?

They were diametric from conception.

You are not a liberal. You are an egotistical asshole. You are as filled with bigoted pride in your atheism as any full blown religious bigot. You are a self hating arrogant little prick.

 

[BeauJangles]

How so? There is only love. What was is or will be love is all the same. Love is the ground of our being. What changes is how near or how far people are from feeling love as the ultimate reality. Once you found your faith on what is disgust and bigotry calling and naming evil and thus bringing the very thing you hate into existence, there will be change because your limited notion of the absolute will dissolve away. The human soul can't escape the gravity of love and will be pulled there for eternity.

/ thread

 

[Moonbeam]

Animals and dead things cannot consent to having sex.

Hence.

No sexy-time with animals or dead things.


How is this idea so complicated?

You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much.

 

[jhu]

LOL Great response. I've largely overcome my fear that some homosexual will sneak up and impale me with his enormous erection, although I do still refuse to turn my back on body builders and men with manicures or with "product" in their hair. You can't be too safe.

BTW my buddy provided lighting for a building built by two homosexuals who made their money in gay porn. Definitely a weird journey from making gay porn in California to making buildings in Tennessee, but there's evidently big money n gay porn. The profits on televangelists and Republican politicians alone would no doubt exceed my income.

Gay porn stars make 3-10x more than their hetero counterparts. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean those people doing gay porn are actually gay. The economics are such that there's quite a few hetero men doing gay porn.

 

[MJinZ]

When a Republican president went to war against them.

When conservatives cried out against the mosque near ground zero.

In other words, whenever politics demanded it.

Ur saying libs supported the christians against muslims? No we covering our ass from bombers.

We cryin out cuz we against muslims next to ground zero cuz its only natural to be sensitive?

 

[MJinZ]

You are not a liberal. You are an egotistical asshole. You are as filled with bigoted pride in your atheism as any full blown religious bigot. You are a self hating arrogant little prick.

Moonie, u are not a liberal. U r are an egotistical asshat that idealizes love above all yet can't love egotistical assholes like me. Basically ur a hippo and didn't get enough love as a child. I love myself, thus my own egoism oh wait maybe u should check up those definitions.

Now I dsre you to go love men like you can love women. No you can't and thus your life theory is debunked and you become sad panda.

 

[shira]

yllus, I already addressed the "consent" issue a few posts ago. We eat animals. They dont consent.

Hence, their perspective is irrelevant. The perspective of human behavior is relevant.

There's a trade-off between the benefits and costs of exploiting animals. To the extent to which a particular exploitation of animals is considered beneficial to humans, that is the extent to which the exploitation will be allowed. So, because meat is considered highly beneficial to humans, the killing of animals is allowed, despite the lack of consent on the part of the animal.

Using animals in medical research is another area where the benefits are broadly perceived to outweigh the cost to the animals.

Note, however, that unnecessary cruelty to animals is illegal, and slaughterhouses and animal researchers can be charged criminally if they engage in unnecessarily cruel practices.

Because other forms of exploitation of animals don't result in nearly as great a perceived benefit as using animals for food or medical research, those other forms of exploitation are much more restricted. So dog- and cock-fighting - and sex between humans and animals - are all illegal.

 

[Patranus]

Homosexuality was considered deviant behavior, not too long ago. It is now an accepted sexual orientation. The explanation given for this sexual orientation is that homosexuality is biological.

Not sure if that claim is 100% accurate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie, u are not a liberal. U r are an egotistical asshat that idealizes love above all yet can't love egotistical assholes like me. Basically ur a hippo and didn't get enough love as a child. I love myself, thus my own egoism oh wait maybe u should check up those definitions.

Now I dsre you to go love men like you can love women. No you can't and thus your life theory is debunked and you become sad panda.

The first thing we need to do is diagnose the probable origins of your mental illness. Basically what you do is project a hatred toward people you consider stupid and those folk seem to be those you think are religious, these outrageous fools who haven't outgrown the Easter Bunny.

This would tell us that you used to believe in something and were deeply put down for having such a naive and childish faith?

Can you recall anything along those lines? The faith in something is iffy. That you were put down as being stupid is clear. Your gifts were simply misunderstood, no?

So work on this: Bright little child is hurt and harbors resentment that he was not allowed to feel and which is now leaking out all over the place.

 

[MJinZ]

The first thing we need to do is diagnose the probable origins of your mental illness. Basically what you do is project a hatred toward people you consider stupid and those folk seem to be those you think are religious, these outrageous fools who haven't outgrown the Easter Bunny.

This would tell us that you used to believe in something and were deeply put down for having such a naive and childish faith?

Can you recall anything along those lines? The faith in something is iffy. That you were put down as being stupid is clear. Your gifts were simply misunderstood, no?

So work on this: Bright little child is hurt and harbors resentment that he was not allowed to feel and which is now leaking out all over the place.

Wait... wut?

I was raised an elitist intellectual and my parents never taught me any morals, religions etc and basically left me to figure it out for myself.

That's about it. I'm agnostic by the way. I am a staunch defender of agnosticism. Atheists are retards and they should just kill themselves if they are so sure of nihilism. OH but they are too pussies to do so, or really just deluding themselves into thinking they are Atheists.

I'm not saying intelligence is most noble trait in life (that's what Capitalism has determined), but when you throw out semblance of being a reasonable person (religion) by being skeared of the death, while persecuting others in the shadows of your own stupidity, humanity has no hope, and God should just flood the world and start again. He has obviously failed utterly - look at OP as proof.

Routan: "OMG I'm so skeared of death and hellfire, like God's gonna rape me if I don't slap my bitches and hoes and kick the faggots on the ground!!"

Yea, your God's a fucking retard. Mine is much smarter.

 

[woolfe9999]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11528661

The army no longer has to observe the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.

With respect to this, I would like to ask a question... and please, I am just simply inquiring.

Homosexuality was considered deviant behavior, not too long ago. It is now an accepted sexual orientation. The explanation given for this sexual orientation is that homosexuality is biological.

We are aware that some people like to indulge in other forms of sexual behavior, such as engaging with the animal species. Do AT members think that at some point in the future, such "deviant" behavior would also be considered acceptable?

This isn't really a question. It's an implied argument in the form of a slippery slope fallacy. Your logic runs like this:

1. a causes b.
2. Therefore, if a, then b.

"a" is acceptance homosexuality. "b" is acceptance of sex with animals. Although proposition 2 does logically follow from proposition 1, proposition 1 is unproven, and is arbitrary.

To illustrate its arbitrariness, consider the following possible progression of moral acceptance:

hetero sex within marriage for purposes of procreation only ---> hetero sex within marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment -----> hetero sex outside of marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment ------> hetero oral sex for fun and pleasure ----> hetero anal sex for fun and pleasure -------> gay sex------>sex with animals.

I'm not accepting any of these progressions as proven, just taking your logic at face value. By your logic, acceptance of a given category of sexual behavior must lead further down a path to acceptance of additional behaviors, i.e. a progression. But you've arbitrarily drawn the line at acceptance of gay sex, which I've bolded to illustrate the point. Why not draw the moral acceptance line further back? All sex outsider of marriage bad (many religious people believe this.) Or better yet: all sex must be procreative. Enjoying it is dirty and immoral and if we accept that people can enjoy it even with a spouse the next logical thing is accepting it outside marriage.

Or how about this as a total solution: every male jacks off 15 times at age 18 and has his sperm frozen in multiple samples. He is then castrated. Because accepting ANY kind of sex will lead down the path of moral acceptance for everything. So why not just irradiate our nuts from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.

Ok I'm being facetious with that last assertion. But my point is, you are drawing an arbitrary line at homosexuality. You can draw it earlier or later if you want to just be arbitrary about it.

Here are two non-arbitrary criteria that I use: CONSENT and ADULTS. Both of those criteria are logically defensible and hence non-abritrary. So if it's consenting adults, it's nobody's business but the people involved and not our place to judge.

Now, if what you are on about is your own religious code, that is not really a topic of "debate" because those rules are set in stone for you so why bother even discussing them. In my view, religions set arbitrary moral standards for sexual behavior which could just as easily have been determined by throwing a dart at a board. But that is another discussion.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Well, we've finally learned how to turn liberals against muslims.

No, idiot bigot, liberals are for human beings - for them getting rid of their errors, like many Muslims on their gay bigotry, or you on many issues.

Liberals can oppose the bigotry by Muslims about gays, and other things about Muslims, without signing on to your hate-filled bigotry against Muslims.

Perhaps it's more correct to mention how to appeal to you:

Well, we've finally learned how to turn a right-winger against gay bigotry.

 

[routan]

There's a trade-off between the benefits and costs of exploiting animals. To the extent to which a particular exploitation of animals is considered beneficial to humans, that is the extent to which the exploitation will be allowed. So, because meat is considered highly beneficial to humans, the killing of animals is allowed, despite the lack of consent on the part of the animal.

Using animals in medical research is another area where the benefits are broadly perceived to outweigh the cost to the animals.

Note, however, that unnecessary cruelty to animals is illegal, and slaughterhouses and animal researchers can be charged criminally if they engage in unnecessarily cruel practices.

Because other forms of exploitation of animals don't result in nearly as great a perceived benefit as using animals for food or medical research, those other forms of exploitation are much more restricted. So dog- and cock-fighting - and sex between humans and animals - are all illegal.

shira, this was a very good post and a good read. I accept all your points as correct. Thank you for contributing (and educating me).

 

[Moonbeam]

Wait... wut?

I was raised an elitist intellectual and my parents never taught me any morals, religions etc and basically left me to figure it out for myself.

That's about it. I'm agnostic by the way. I am a staunch defender of agnosticism. Atheists are retards and they should just kill themselves if they are so sure of nihilism. OH but they are too pussies to do so, or really just deluding themselves into thinking they are Atheists.

I'm not saying intelligence is most noble trait in life (that's what Capitalism has determined), but when you throw out semblance of being a reasonable person (religion) by being skeared of the death, while persecuting others in the shadows of your own stupidity, humanity has no hope, and God should just flood the world and start again. He has obviously failed utterly - look at OP as proof.

Routan: "OMG I'm so skeared of death and hellfire, like God's gonna rape me if I don't slap my bitches and hoes and kick the faggots on the ground!!"

Yea, your God's a fucking retard. Mine is much smarter.

What you have failed to notice is that everything is fail, you are fail, I am fail, religion is fail, agnosticism is fail, government is fail because people are fail and people fail because they hate themselves. You may have noticed that the real message of every religion that's a real religion is love. Love is the cure for hate but hate doesn't want to be cured. Hate wants to hate and subverts everything. You blame what teaches love and is subverted by hate because you have been subverted too. If you're as smart as you say you are you will see that, no?

 

[routan]

This isn't really a question. It's an implied argument in the form of a slippery slope fallacy. Your logic runs like this:

1. a causes b.
2. Therefore, if a, then b.

"a" is acceptance homosexuality. "b" is acceptance of sex with animals. Although proposition 2 does logically follow from proposition 1, proposition 1 is unproven, and is arbitrary.

To illustrate its arbitrariness, consider the following possible progression of moral acceptance:

hetero sex within marriage for purposes of procreation only ---> hetero sex within marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment -----> hetero sex outside of marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment ------> hetero oral sex for fun and pleasure ----> hetero anal sex for fun and pleasure -------> gay sex------>sex with animals.

I'm not accepting any of these progressions as proven, just taking your logic at face value. By your logic, acceptance of a given category of sexual behavior must lead further down a path to acceptance of additional behaviors, i.e. a progression. But you've arbitrarily drawn the line at acceptance of gay sex, which I've bolded to illustrate the point. Why not draw the moral acceptance line further back? All sex outsider of marriage bad (many religious people believe this.) Or better yet: all sex must be procreative. Enjoying it is dirty and immoral and if we accept that people can enjoy it even with a spouse the next logical thing is accepting it outside marriage.

Or how about this as a total solution: every male jacks off 15 times at age 18 and has his sperm frozen in multiple samples. He is then castrated. Because accepting ANY kind of sex will lead down the path of moral acceptance for everything. So why not just irradiate our nuts from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.

Ok I'm being facetious with that last assertion. But my point is, you are drawing an arbitrary line at homosexuality. You can draw it earlier or later if you want to just be arbitrary about it.

Here are two non-arbitrary criteria that I use: CONSENT and ADULTS. Both of those criteria are logically defensible and hence non-abritrary. So if it's consenting adults, it's nobody's business but the people involved and not our place to judge.

Now, if what you are on about is your own religious code, that is not really a topic of "debate" because those rules are set in stone for you so why bother even discussing them. In my view, religions set arbitrary moral standards for sexual behavior which could just as easily have been determined by throwing a dart at a board. But that is another discussion.

- wolf

woolfe9999, this was not meant to be a religious debate. I was not surprised that some members took the thread down that road because of my open display of being Muslim. However, I am surprised you are taking it down that road.

As to your comments, I am not "drawing" any line. If you disagree that homosexuality was not considered deviant behavior not long ago, please elaborate. I took this as a baseline because the prevailing thought about homosexuals turned in my lifetime. No other behavior in the same category has turned in public perception.

The interesting thing to observe in this thread is how people are jumping into the gay-bash bandwagon. I made it distinctly clear that I was inquiring about future moral acceptance by a society.

 

[Craig234]

How is eating something the same as sticking your dick in it?

Actually, it's an interesting argument. He's not saying they're the same thing, he's saying that if we're against hurting animals who can't consent, why not on eating them too?

Some vegetarians would applaud his point and say we're wrong to do either.

Others though, view that eating is morally justified.

His point is stronger when you consider the suffering in some industrial animal raising.

And really, some of these issues are more about the 'ew' factor than some people may like to realize. Is it really a rational claim that the suffering of a farm animal that is sexually used by a man is morally worse for the animal than the suffering in some things like the cramped chicken cages in a big corporate chicken farm? Not really - it comes down to our saying our desire to eat the chicken justifies the suffering, but the sex motive does not, because of our 'ew' reaction.

And that same 'ew' factor is a major issue behind a lot of anti-gay bigotry, too. It was somewhat an issue behind laws against inter-racial marriage, too.

We can say we are willing to allow the farming but not the sex, but we do need to admit there's an amount of abandoning the 'poor animal' argument to do so.

It does come down more to 'we don't allow the sex and use the reason of animal cruelty, but do allow the animal farming, because we're disgusted by the sex and not the eating.'

We aren't even consistent there, really, when you consider our treating cats and dogs (and horses) one way, and cows and pigs (and chickens) another.

And isn't that reason more about just our culturally 'being used to' treating them differently, more than a logical reason - 'ew, eat a dog?' 'Mmm bacon'.

 

[routan]

Actually, it's an interesting argument. He's not saying they're the same thing, he's saying that if we're against hurting animals who can't consent, why not on eating them too?

Some vegetarians would applaud his point and say we're wrong to do either.

Others though, view that eating is morally justified.

His point is stronger when you consider the suffering in some industrial animal raising.

And really, some of these issues are more about the 'ew' factor than some people may like to realize. Is it really a rational claim that the suffering of a farm animal that is sexually used by a man is morally worse for the animal than the suffering in some things like the cramped chicken cages in a big corporate chicken farm? Not really - it comes down to our saying our desire to eat the chicken justifies the suffering, but the sex motive does not, because of our 'ew' reaction.

And that same 'ew' factor is a major issue behind a lot of anti-gay bigotry, too. It was somewhat an issue behind laws against inter-racial marriage, too.

We can say we are willing to allow the farming but not the sex, but we do need to admit there's an amount of abandoning the 'poor animal' argument to do so.

It does come down more to 'we don't allow the sex and use the reason of animal cruelty, but do allow the animal farming, because we're disgusted by the sex and not the eating.'

We aren't even consistent there, really, when you consider our treating cats and dogs (and horses) one way, and cows and pigs (and chickens) another.

And isn't that reason more about just our culturally 'being used to' treating them differently, more than a logical reason - 'ew, eat a dog?' 'Mmm bacon'.

Craig234, thank you for actually reading and comprehending what I was saying!

edit: I dont know why there are double quotes. I tried removing them as well.

 

[Craig234]

The inevitable consequence of accepting homosexuality as normal - sex with ducks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

I don't give a flying fart why someone wants to do some dude's hairy ass, as long as it's not MY hairy ass. (On the other hand, I totally get lesbians - not that I particularly care about them either, lessen I get t' watch.) I have read though that only 10 percent of male homosexuals are born that way, the others just got sucked in. <Rim shot!> (Hmm, maybe not a good thread to use a joke with a rim shot . . .) When it comes to others' behavior, it's a damn short list.
1. Does it directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
2. Does it reasonably promise to directly harm me or other people not directly involved?
3. Can I make money on it?
4. Is there anything good in the refrigerator?

Homosexuality is so far pretty neutral on all four, at least to me.

Somewhat the right result, for the wrong reasons.

Also, I get sick and tired of gay bigots who use the 'cute' point of 'hey, but lesbians are another matter' to hide the ugliness of their bigotry.

"Sure, I'm here defending ruining the lives of gay people denying them equal rights, but if I put something funny in about my lecherous pleasure watching women, it softens it."

At least this post wasn't actually defending discrimination - just not repudiating it.

 

[BeauJangles]

Actually, it's an interesting argument. He's not saying they're the same thing, he's saying that if we're against hurting animals who can't consent, why not on eating them too?

Sorry, but I don't buy that we need permission to kill and eat animals. It's part of our survival. Banging them isn't (not say that people haven't had sex with animals with regularity throughout history).

I think the corporate farming industry is awful, but that is separate from the issue of whether we have a 'right' to kill and eat them. Animals should be treated with a certain degree of dignity that they most clearly aren't in corporate farming.

Yeah, dying sucks, but it's part of life.

Maybe I'm really missing the boat here, but, again, I fail to see how sticking your dick in a goat is anything like raising and killing a goat. For me, the distinction is clear: One action is taken for survival, the other for pleasure.

 

[werepossum]

This isn't really a question. It's an implied argument in the form of a slippery slope fallacy. Your logic runs like this:

1. a causes b.
2. Therefore, if a, then b.

"a" is acceptance homosexuality. "b" is acceptance of sex with animals. Although proposition 2 does logically follow from proposition 1, proposition 1 is unproven, and is arbitrary.

To illustrate its arbitrariness, consider the following possible progression of moral acceptance:

hetero sex within marriage for purposes of procreation only ---> hetero sex within marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment -----> hetero sex outside of marriage for purposes of recreation and enjoyment ------> hetero oral sex for fun and pleasure ----> hetero anal sex for fun and pleasure -------> gay sex------>sex with animals.

I'm not accepting any of these progressions as proven, just taking your logic at face value. By your logic, acceptance of a given category of sexual behavior must lead further down a path to acceptance of additional behaviors, i.e. a progression. But you've arbitrarily drawn the line at acceptance of gay sex, which I've bolded to illustrate the point. Why not draw the moral acceptance line further back? All sex outsider of marriage bad (many religious people believe this.) Or better yet: all sex must be procreative. Enjoying it is dirty and immoral and if we accept that people can enjoy it even with a spouse the next logical thing is accepting it outside marriage.

Or how about this as a total solution: every male jacks off 15 times at age 18 and has his sperm frozen in multiple samples. He is then castrated. Because accepting ANY kind of sex will lead down the path of moral acceptance for everything. So why not just irradiate our nuts from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.

Ok I'm being facetious with that last assertion. But my point is, you are drawing an arbitrary line at homosexuality. You can draw it earlier or later if you want to just be arbitrary about it.

Here are two non-arbitrary criteria that I use: CONSENT and ADULTS. Both of those criteria are logically defensible and hence non-abritrary. So if it's consenting adults, it's nobody's business but the people involved and not our place to judge.

Now, if what you are on about is your own religious code, that is not really a topic of "debate" because those rules are set in stone for you so why bother even discussing them. In my view, religions set arbitrary moral standards for sexual behavior which could just as easily have been determined by throwing a dart at a board. But that is another discussion.

- wolf

I remember that day; it ruled. Sure glad now that I didn't freeze my sperm!

 

[MJinZ]

Actually, it's an interesting argument. He's not saying they're the same thing, he's saying that if we're against hurting animals who can't consent, why not on eating them too?

Some vegetarians would applaud his point and say we're wrong to do either.

Others though, view that eating is morally justified.

His point is stronger when you consider the suffering in some industrial animal raising.

And really, some of these issues are more about the 'ew' factor than some people may like to realize. Is it really a rational claim that the suffering of a farm animal that is sexually used by a man is morally worse for the animal than the suffering in some things like the cramped chicken cages in a big corporate chicken farm? Not really - it comes down to our saying our desire to eat the chicken justifies the suffering, but the sex motive does not, because of our 'ew' reaction.

And that same 'ew' factor is a major issue behind a lot of anti-gay bigotry, too. It was somewhat an issue behind laws against inter-racial marriage, too.

We can say we are willing to allow the farming but not the sex, but we do need to admit there's an amount of abandoning the 'poor animal' argument to do so.

It does come down more to 'we don't allow the sex and use the reason of animal cruelty, but do allow the animal farming, because we're disgusted by the sex and not the eating.'

We aren't even consistent there, really, when you consider our treating cats and dogs (and horses) one way, and cows and pigs (and chickens) another.

And isn't that reason more about just our culturally 'being used to' treating them differently, more than a logical reason - 'ew, eat a dog?' 'Mmm bacon'.

The debate is only about mutual consent when you arbitrarily deem it so. It really ain't.

A human being's age of consent is set by the State arbitrary. We were never evolved to be children until Age 18. No, evolutionarily, we become adults at age 13 when we can fuck and bear children.

With THAT in mind, the argument for allowing gays to um... have sex with each other... is not based on ability to give mutual consent, it is more like freedom to do whatever the fuck we want with each other (for the most part), if both parties are in agreement. Just like anything else we do, you know, like talking, eating, or seeing a movie together.

As for the Animals, we are actually very consistent. At its core, the issue is "humanity".

Humanity means that the cuter the animal and more closer we mutually provide for the animals as pets and humanize the animals, the less tolerant we are for any sort violence towards them.

Domesticated animals are not cute, thus we differentiate them and are able to eat them. In order to remain "Humane", we treat them in a uncruel fashion. Whether the industry or people in general fight for greater regulations or not is rather irrelevant - the fact that we as a people don't make a real stint about Chickens is that we - aren't - that - humane. Or we're just ignorant.

Consent doesn't play into it. Animals are not humans. Viruses and Bacteria are not humans. We do not require consent from non-humans to ensure the survival of our species.

Where it really matters is where Vegetarians believe that Animals like Chickens are somehow on the same level as Humans in the divine order of all that is holy.

That's fine and all, and they are probably holier than us, but sorry mang, the human mammal was evolved by God (or not, whatever), to be OMNIvores.

 

[MJinZ]

Craig234, thank you for actually reading and comprehending what I was saying!

edit: I dont know why there are double quotes. I tried removing them as well.

We comprehend what you're saying just, you're just too stupid to realize how stupid what you're saying actually is.

 

[routan]

We comprehend what you're saying just, you're just too stupid to realize how stupid what you're saying actually is.

MJinZ, I like how you feel the need to consistently respond to me, while I ignore you. Carry on. :biggrin:

 

[MJinZ]

MJinZ, I like how you feel the need to consistently respond to me, while I ignore you. Carry on. :biggrin:

LOL, my response isn't for you, it's for others. Even this simple mechanic of a forum you fail to understand.

 

[routan]

LOL, my response isn't for you, it's for others. Even this simple mechanic of a forum you fail to understand.

MJinZ, lol, i see, so you are trying hard to cement your image as a right idiot with all the forum members. Dont worry, its already cemented