The Amazing Meeting 2014

Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Martin Ssempa Spares Not The Rod PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Sean Sturgeon   

Martin Ssempa is a pastor from Uganda and the force behind a bill that would cause a lot of homosexuals to become dead precisely and only because they are homosexuals. This hateful excuse for an argument says that privacy extends no further than god’s right hand — or more accurately, the influence of a pastor with dreams of being parochial and small-minded on a continental scale.

When the story hit the MSM, it caused problems for some American Evangelical Christians and their “Church First” method of nation building. Never known as enthusiastic supporters of the LGBT community, American Evangelicals still abandoned Ssempa — at a leisurely pace, and indignant about being expected to choose between a carried-away pastor and sodomites. Though historically uninterested in extending the right of privacy to same-sex sex, as a group they tend not to want to kill people over it.

With his American backers gone, Ssempa’s fortunes seemed to have taken a turn for the worse. Like so many of us, the Pastor found respite in the arms of pornography.

I don’t mean that the Pastor became a consumer of porn. I mean that the Pastor decided to use hot man-on-man action as a tool for ministering to his flock. Pastor Ssempa chose the Ugandan capitol for his frenzy of porn, blame and salvation. There, he is reported to have said:

The major argument homosexuals have is that what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is nobody's business…

I think we can all agree that the universal recognition of the human right to privacy is in fact a “major argument.” The pastor continued:

…but do you know what they do in their bedrooms?

Faster than you can say “Marty missed the point,” precisely the kind of acts that are none of your business were projected across the walls of that church in Kampala so that every person present could truly understand the aberration they were trying to kill and jail.

Apparently mistaking himself for Sean Hannity, pastor Ssempa then inexplicably aimed his remarks at President Obama. He continued:

Is this what Obama wants to bring to Africa?

Even though “Axelrod” would make a great name for a gay porn star, there is no evidence that the Administration has ever proposed using gay porn as a form of foreign aid.

I imagine the need for church-based pornography likely came from the fact that the real-life homosexuals haven’t followed the Ssempa Plan of annihilating society and bringing down divine wrath; there are no gay Ugandan terrorists threatening to slap on suicide vests if straight Ugandans don’t become sufficiently fabulous. Gays have not sullied the public world they share with heterosexuals, so Ssempa needed to replace their public, neighborly behavior with their private kinks in the minds of his congregation.

Inarguably, there is a great plague of inoffensive people who have never personally wronged Ssempa who are in need of imprisonment and capital harm. They must be alienated from their humanity; their personhood knocked from the mind by images of unspeakably hot perverse sodomy. Flashing images of anyone's carnal two-step  across a big, public wall can probably accomplish that alienation in a hurry. The demonstration allows the hoopleheads to revile the private actions of others without having to consider the potential liability of their own nasty, and still private, junk.

But everyone’s junk is nasty to someone, and if this tactic works, expect the Pastor to arrange viewings of the private acts of the next group he deems offensive to his god of peepshows.

Trackback(0)
Comments (109)Add Comment
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 05, 2010
Me: Yes, The right to privacy in what they do in bed is important but...*shows girl on girl porn* Do you know what they do in their bedrooms?
Audience:....more.


What a silly argument to use.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
@ SonicGamer
written by bkthorp, March 05, 2010
...yes, it's a stupid argument. But an awesome way to increase church attendance!

- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Oh my
written by ClareZ, March 05, 2010
Does he have any idea what married couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Clue - it isn't just sleep. A few hair raising pictures there and he will definitely bring in the crowds. And they will likely be too busy in their own bedrooms to bother anyone else.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 05, 2010
@popsaw

That you group homosexuals with bestiality is disturbing and....well, obviously you're reading from the bible.

Care to explain to me why, without mentioning bestiality or incest or the bible, since, come on, we're not gonna buy that, why homosexuality is so wrong?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
@popsaw
written by bkthorp, March 05, 2010
Sorry to keep butting in here, but I'm curious: What do you mean by "immoral"? Can you define that without using any synonyms?

- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by pxatkins, March 05, 2010
But shurely ... there would be no sodomy without god's sanction? He's the boss of everything y'know ...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
@ popsaw
written by Ravenclaw60, March 05, 2010
That isn't the definition of moral, guy. The definition of moral is "implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong." I got that from miriam webster and in no place is the sky fairy or his book of mythology mentioned. In fact your "good book" in places advocates doing some things that most folks would agree are pretty wrong.

Also being homosexual regardless of what you (and your limited understanding)think is not usually conducted via incest. Most dating in the gay communtiy is done the same way heterosexual people do and they engage in sexual acts much the same way as well, except that the partners involved in the sexual acts are the same gender.
I have lived and work around homosexuals most of my adult life and I have never ever heard any of my gay friends discuss their weekend sexual exploits with...thier brother or dad. Your argument is silly.

In our country the laws regarding sodomy in mosts states are no longer on the books because the sexual relations between 2 consenting adults engaged in private are none of the states business.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 05, 2010
@popsaw
Ravenclaw is right. Also, homosexuality occurs in nature as well, in over 500 species, and those are just the well documented ones.
I think the whole thing about it being "unnatural" is their biggest argument against it, and that particular fact makes it obsolete.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
@Ravenclaw60, Lowly rated comment [Show]
@popsaw
written by Ravenclaw60, March 05, 2010
Using the bible for a moral code. Well then you must then think that its ok to sell your daughter into slavery or stone to death unruly children because the bible thinks that is pretty moral.

Also last I checked animals cannot consent as we humans do unless you are suggesting that dogs as well as other animals talk.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
@popsaw
written by marineboy, March 05, 2010
Consenting animals!?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
@marineboy
written by Ravenclaw60, March 05, 2010
Yeah I got a huge laugh at that too
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by Willy K, March 05, 2010
My money is on this Ssempa character ending up doing a Ted Haggard.

Anybody willing to take that bet? smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by Steel Rat, March 05, 2010
Contrary to Gods moral code as stated in the the bible


Do you sacrifice animals to God? It's written as a law "for all time". If you don't, you are immoral and a sinner.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
...
written by Steel Rat, March 05, 2010
and incest(with consenting adults in private). The bible condemns all three as immoral but why do some that consider incest or bestiality immoral,


Yet there HAD to be incest between Cain, Abel, and Eve.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +18
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
@Steel Rat
written by popsaw, March 05, 2010
The law to which you refer is a covenant between God and the Israelites nation only. In any case, the law ceased at Christs death since his was a propitiatory sacrifice..
Hebrews 9:13-14 (New American Bible)...
13
For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes 11 can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit 12 offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
Biblical Immorality
written by StarTrekLivz, March 06, 2010
Dear Popsaw, if you are going to claim "Biblical Morality" you will be on VERY thin ice.

There is, for example, the famous lists on Biblical methods to obtain a wife -- some lists are as high as 11, and at least 8 of them are illegal in the state of Michigan (where I live) -- for example, abduction, incest, seising as booty in battle, rape as courtship, purchasing a child or purchasing a prostitute's contract, etc. As far back as compilations of the Talmud Jewish sages found reasons NOT to enforce these odious laws and traditions in spite of their Biblical source.

Which tells me right off the bat that morality can and does come from a source outside the bible and revealed religion (and have you noticed how god's opinions agree with the particular speaker? During the American Civil War both pro and anti slavery people and Union and Confederate armies invoked god.)

And may I point out that it is Christians who inveigh against these Biblical practises, and wrote the laws? And Orthodox Jews who enforce Talmudic marriage laws and not Biblical dictates?

You're on losing ground when you claim the Bible as a source of morality.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +14
...
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
StarTrekLivz
I am at this time more interested in he principles which lead some to condone homosexuality whilst condemning incest, both being practiced in private among consenting adults and a contradiction as I see it!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
So popsaw doesn't care about Biblical Morality?
written by StarTrekLivz, March 06, 2010
Hi,

I have been following your posts, and it is clear you have no consistent moral nor ethical nor even religious belief, you just know what you know, and somehow that conforms with your interpretation of god and morality.

This is a stance unworthy of response.

Because you pretended to believe in Biblical norms, I made a response to that position -- clearly you have no standard other than your current whimsical preference. No one can engage with a dialogue with a person with no principles. End of my participation in discussion with you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 06, 2010
@Popsaw
What STarTrekLivz is trying to say is that you cant base your reasoning on biblical morality cause it changes so much. If the bible condones selling your daughter into slavery, allowing you to marry women you have raped or abducted. You can say that this "covenant" changed with Christ, but thats not the point. If something is immoral, it is ALWAYS immoral. Isnt it ALWAYS immoral to rape or to slaughter entire cities and take their young girls as booty? Morality based on God is horrible because he can change it at a whim.
So, thats why we are not buying it, as I said earlier, so using biblical standards is only hurting your case. My question to you earlier was, without using biblical standards or comparing it to anything else, why is Homosexuality immoral?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
@ StarTrekLivs
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
I am no here to defend my position on morality, rather, I am challenging the position of those that condone homosexuality whilst condemning incest. I wish to know on which authority they condemn incest (between consenting adults in private),since I assert that the same authority can be used to condemn homosexuality. I have already stated the basis for my condemnation of both practices.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
...
written by Ravenclaw60, March 06, 2010
Unlike those of us who are "gasp" atheist. The religious have morals that can change based on the religion. The devout muslims can blow up innocent people in a market place simply based on the fact they belong to a different sect of Islam as well as other religions. The christians have historically picked on the jews and others. The Jews are gods chosen people and so on and so forth. When it all boils down to it when it comes to the faithful its all about who is doing the killing and who is being killed. When you dont have an "infalible" god to back you up its harder to justify the killing of your fellow man.

And as for the bible itself you have to decide if you think that its the literally the word of god. If it is than why do you cherry pick your values and morality. If god says its ok to stone to death your toddler because he throws a fit in the grocery store then why not carry it out in gods name. Which brings us to the excuse that things changed when Jesus arrived on the scene, that all the attrocities that were ok in the old Testament arent ok anymore. So are we to imply that god was...wrong? That flys in the face of saying he is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. If the bible is just allegory and metaphor than the bible is nor more morally relavent than say Aesop's fables.

So using the bible as your guide probably isnt your best source of information on morality given his capricious and jealous nature. Your better off with reading the fables of Aesop at least he more socially relevent.

Oh and by the way you can look up in the mulititudes of studies on incidents of incest and predominently its heterosexual men doing the molesting within families. In case you are confused the homosexual molestations are being carried in out in large part by members of the clergy. And Im not picking on the Catholics other religious sects have higher numbers of molestation incidents than them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
@ Ravensclaw
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
Do you condemn or condone incest amongst consenting adults in private?
Do you condemn or condone homosexuality amongst consenting adults in private?
If you have condemned either, on which basis?
Since you assert that Gods morals are changeable and therefore detrimental to follow, which constant/unchanging moral code (written or oral) do YOU refer to?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -10
My position, with apologies to SonicGamer and abuse towards Popsaw
written by StarTrekLivz, March 06, 2010
Hello,

SonicGamer, I thank you for your words of support and your attempt to bridge the prodigious gap between me and Popsaw. But please, do not put words in my mouth.

According to fundamentalists, the Bible is immutable, unchangeable, the eternal Word of their divinity. Hence their contortions when I demand they encounter the actual text.

I am a Fundamentalist's worst nightmare. I used to be a believer. I have read the Bible in German (my native language), English (the King James version most American protestants use has many and significant errors in translation), Hebrew (my mother's family is Jewish), Greek, and was for 5 years a Benedictine monk and studied it in Latin: Benedictines don't read proof-texts, they read whole big gulps of the Bible (the Benedictine lectionary requires us/them to read the entire Bible annually).

So, SonicGamer, I have read the Bible -- it has many horrible parts, including rape as a form of marriage proposal/dating. And popsaw, you are claiming Biblical support for your position, but you have never actually read the book and do not know what you are talking about.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 06, 2010
I condemn incest among consenting adults in private. As to why many people would find it immoral without needing supernatural permission to do so, I would direct you to articles like this one: http://www.theaustralian.com.a...1115991380

I condone homosexuality among consenting adults in private, on the basis that homosexuality occurs not only in nature, but also in every known human society. Also homosexual relationships run no risk of congenital defects to offspring they produce, precisely because offspring can't be produced.

We can go back and forth throwing links at each other to studies on the "damage" done to children raised by homosexual couples, but I'm sure even you will concede that incest poses a very real, demonstrable biological risk. On that basis, I'd say it's a stretch to consider them equally "immoral", regardless of what ancient instruction manual you're using as a yardstick for right and wrong.

As to your earlier claim that animals can "consent"... that's so ridiculous an argument that it's barely worth responding to. Consent is a legal consideration. A dog wanting to hump your leg hasn't "consented" any more than a 12 year old girl agreeing to sleep with you has "consented".
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
...
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
I agree with your reasons for condemning incest where there is a risk of congenital defect in offspring. Do you also condemn consensual adult incest where there is no such risk ie homosexual male incest or where there a female cannot possibly conceive?
I would add that homosexuality has been detrimental and the HIV virus has also caused the death of unborn children aswell as innocent adults. Fornication amongs heterosexuals also shares culpabiliy for the spread of AIDS.
Taking you 'homosxuality in nature' model. Killing also occurs amongst animals in nature. Does it follow that it is acceptable for humans?
Regarding bestiality, I remind you that it is not illegal in many places, including the UK (barring penetration)In that bestiality is legal in the UK and an animal may be extremely 'willing', do you condone none penetrative bestiality? If not, why not?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -10
@popsaw part 2
written by poobah103, March 06, 2010
You can attach enough conditions to any moral question to sway opinion towards one side or the other, so long as you're willing to overlook how preposterous your argument has become. Would I "condone" consensual incest in a case where it is guaranteed that conception is impossible? Sure, insofar as I would not support legislation designed to specifically target those individuals for violation of privacy, loss of civil rights, or a sentence of death. But you're ignoring the very salient fact that incestuous relations *can* result in conception, and that that conception often does result in congenital defects in the child. As such, laws against incest do not exist to target those cases where incest poses no real threat to an unborn child. Those laws exist specifically to target those who *would* conceive, whether on purpose or by accident... the fact that all cases of incest fall under that legal umbrella is irrelevant. It is always illegal to run a red light, even when you only do it in cases where there is no possibility of injury or death.

As for the AIDS virus- again, you're confusing the issue. First off, lesbian sexual relations poses a greatly diminished risk of all sexually transmitted diseases when compared even to heterosexual relations, and yet I assume you wouldn't take that as an argument for the "morality" of lesbian sex. Obviously, I would condemn anyone who knowingly spreads the AIDS virus (and there have been cases where doing so has resulted in prosecution), but that is still a separate issue from incest. Incest is not a question of disease prevention or safe-sex education. It poses a demonstrable biological risk to children conceived by incest. To anticipate your next question of "But what about all the times incest *doesn't* lead to conception?", I refer you to the paragraph above this one.

As for "killing occuring in nature", I would remind you that even we humans, with our lofty morality and magic guidebooks from heaven, still kill quite often for food, which is one of the chief reasons animals kill in the wild. I would obviously agree killing other humans is, in general, immoral... but that's because the act of killing poses a demonstrable risk to human society in a way that homosexuality does not. So your argument is, again, preposterous, unless you've taken it upon yourself that homosexual sex is morally equivalent to murder... in which case, good luck with that.

As for bestiality... again, you're trying to confuse the issue. The same logic that applies to incest applies here. In places where bestiality is illegal, it is not illegal to persecute. It is illegal because society is attempting to curtail behavior that poses a very real threat to animals across the board. An animal can't testify against a human that has 'raped' it, and proving that an animal was "willing" in cases of bestiality is essentially impossible. That's not the case with homosexual sex.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by Steel Rat, March 06, 2010
The law to which you refer is a covenant between God and the Israelites nation only. In any case, the law ceased at Christs death since his was a propitiatory sacrifice..


Oh, right, sure. If you say so. So then Jeezus was only speaking to the locals, so we can safely ignore anything he said. He surely wasn't preaching to the Romans, or the Mayans, or the Kalahari Bushmen, or the Australian Aborigines, or the Inuit, or the Chinese...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 06, 2010
@StartrekLivz
Sorry about that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@Poobah103
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
There is much I could respond with in your previous reply but here is the main point I picked up on. I agree that the legal 'umbrella' is irrelevant in a discussion of morals/right and wrong.
You concede that where there is no risk of congenital defects in a consensual adult incestuous relationship, you do not object to such 'relations'. Is this because you do not view them as immoral or is this because whilst you view them as immoral, you do not care because there is no victim and nobody is affected adversely?
Regarding your second paragraph. You imply that homosexuals are less culpable for their behaviour since they generally do no knowingly spread AIDs.I am sure however that the incestuous also take precautions not to conceive. Certainly, on balance, incestuous relationships do not present the danger to society that homosexual relationships do through the spread of disease. I believe also that the law is able to discriminate to allow incest where there is no risk of birth but it just does not. This may change if the 'incestuous lobby' ever gains the power of the 'homosexual lobby'.
Regarding your third paragraph. You appear to be backtracking ion your assertion that what animals do is also ok for humans (as evident in your homosexual animals example)you say that humans killing humans is detrimental to society but do not say how. Is there not currently an over population? If however you are suggesting that it is immoral for humans to kill other humans but not for animals to kill other animals, does this not show that morality is a human trait/concept, not animal and therefor you homosexual animal example does not apply?
With regards to bestiality, I was merely asking whether it is immoral (it is no illegal in the UK)to perform a non penetrative sex act on a willing animal. For the purpose of he question, the willingness of he beast is not in dispute.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -8
...
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
I am confused as to what you are trying to say it your post. The scriptures I use to support my claim are as follows...
The law to which you refer is a covenant between God and the Israelites nation only
Exodus 24:3-8 (New International Version)

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings [a] to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

The law ceased at Christs death since his was a propitiatory sacrifice

Hebrews 9:13-14 (New American Bible)...
13
For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes 11 can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit 12 offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God



report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
...
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
The above post was for Steel Rat
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Steel Rat, March 07, 2010
Well, the scripture you quote says nothing about old laws ceasing. It merely asks a question, "how much more". It doesn't say "Do not sacrifice animals any more."

And when those laws were laid down, there was no mention of them being temporary, they were there for all time, supposedly. God, apparently, is fickle. And if sacrificing one person cleanses so well, why not sacrifice millions more?

The old laws also said that the sacrifices were done because god enjoys "the sweet savour" of a good barbecue, apparently.

My point is that this stuff is just plain silly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@popsaw
written by Pingu, March 07, 2010
With regards to bestiality, I was merely asking whether it is immoral (it is no illegal in the UK)to perform a non penetrative sex act on a willing animal. For the purpose of he question, the willingness of he beast is not in dispute.
The willingness is in dispute, because there is no way to establish this in a non-sentient species. Furthermore, what matters is consent, not mere willingness. Animals can't give consent, because they lack the cognitive powers to do so.

But if, say, Vulcans or Klingons landed on Earth, then even though they are a different species, I would not consider sex with them (provided both parties are consenting) to be immoral. Because species has nothing to do with it. It is about the ability to consent; about having an understanding of what you are getting into and choosing it.
What consenting, sentient (by implication), beings do in their bedroom is up to them; and it isn't our business to meddle with. If you think it's icky and bad, well, think about something else; they're not forcing you to watch.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 07, 2010
@popsaw
I'm sure he'll get back to you. In the meantime, though.
You're suggesting that animals killing other animals means its ok for humans to kill humans, and that right now humans killing each other would be the moral thing to do since we apparently have an overpopulation problem.
There are 2 things, though. Morality came out of tribal communities that knew that killing each other would be detrimental to society because there are so few numbers in the tribes. Animals dont kill each other of the same species, they group together and protect each other while.
May I auggest you look up "Battle at Kruger" on youtube. It depicts an amazing encounter between buffalo and lions in the wild. In the video, the lions chase after a small herd of buffalo, and they manage to single out a young calf and surround it, ready to eat it. After having to fight off an alligator for the calf, the other buffalo that ran away return with the entire herd, kicking off the lions from the young calf. Mind you, they didnt kill the lions, they didnt try to eat the lions as a source of food, they simply kick the lions off the calf, which was still alive, and then chased the lions off. Amazing stuff, and if that isnt morality in animals, I dont know what is.
Also, as for the human overpopulation, I doubt anyone of us here want to solve it by killing off the population. There are a number of ways to fix this. Remember, overpopulation isnt dependtant on how many are in the population, its the population size in comparison to the resources available. It isnt about room, its about if the planet can continue to sustain our populations. Development in third world countries and scientific discoveries in agriculture has, and will continue to work on this problem, but no one is suggesting to kill everyone off.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@popsaw, part 3a
written by poobah103, March 07, 2010

To answer your list of (increasingly floundering) objections to my arguments, I'll itemize them:

1. Do I think incest is immoral when there is no victim?
Ultimately, yes. I won't lie, there is a gross-out factor involved here... one that, in my defense, seems to be intrinsic not just in our species, but in many throughout the animal kingdom. I can understand that, for the religious (and to be fair, many who aren't religious), there may be a similar "gross-out" factor at work in their attitudes towards homosexuality.

But here's the thing that still makes my position more tenable than yours: laws against incest that I support are not about persecution. Incest poses a tangible risk in the conception of congenitally-defective children. Laws against incest are not about regulation of peoples' private kinks, they are about preventing behavior that could lead to a measurable increase in nonviable pregnancies, developmentally disabled children, and the like. You could raise the question of whether or not parents have a right to knowingly bring a child into the world who's existence will be little more than a few short hours of pain before premature death, and that's a question that may bear further examination. But it's also a separate question entirely from homosexuality... unless you can prove that homosexuality poses any sort of risk on a comparable level to incest, you can't equate the two without exposing a high degree of intellectual dishonesty.


2. Homosexuals take precautions to prevent the spread of AIDS, but AIDS still spreads. The incestuous probably take precautions to prevent conception. If you allow one evil, why not allow the other?

Your argument works right up until you consider all the incestuous couples who *don't* take precautions to prevent conception, like the Australian couple I linked to a few comments back. Again, if you want to equate incest with the spread of sexually-transmitted disease, then you should be a little broader in your attempts to persecute. Heterosexual relations are just as capable of spreading AIDS as homosexual ones (and remember, heterosexual relations are far more capable of spreading AIDS than lesbian relations). If you're going to outlaw on the basis of transmission of STDs, then the type of sex that should be most free of regulation should be lesbian sex, a type of homosexual sex.

Incest doesn't raise the same issue. There are very real victims of incest, in the forms of children suffering from severe congenital defects. These victims are entirely innocent, as they had no say in their own conception. The same can't be said of those who contract STD's from sexual relations... unless rape was involved, they consented to sexual activity without protection. Their stories are tragic, but you can't pretend it's the same thing as babies conceived through incest. (And if rape was involved, there are plenty of other laws on the books to prohibit and punish that kind of behavior without resorting to persecution of a sizable percentage of the population on the basis of "rules from God".)

As for whether or not incest where there is no risk of conception should be legal... that's the same as asking if running red lights when nobody is around should be legal, or asking if people who drive drunk should only be punished if they run somebody over. You're ignoring the reason the law was created in the first place. It's not about whether someone is hurt every single time, it's about prohibition of behavior that poses a high degree of risk. Again, the same can't be said of homosexuality... the tired old "But what about AIDS" argument is dismissed as soon as you consider that people who get AIDS from consensual sex have a degree of responsibility in a way that someone who gets run over by a drunk driver (or the child conceived through incest) does not.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
@popsaw, part 3b
written by poobah103, March 07, 2010
3. How is humans killing humans immoral? Isn't humans killing humans okay if there is overpopulation? If animals killing animals is not immoral, doesn't that prove that humans are moral creatures where animals are not, making it irrelevant that animals can be homosexual too?

Some of the questions you raise here are not worth responding to. Certainly, you don't expect me to explain why humans killing humans harms society, or why murder does not suddenly become permissible just because your apartment building is getting crowded. If you honestly need things like this explained to you, you've disqualified yourself from any kind of intelligent discussion about morality, because you've demonstrated that you're severely lacking even a basic understanding of right and wrong.

As to your second point, which is at least slightly more interesting: yes, humans are moral creatures where animals are not. Where we fundamentally disagree, however, is where that morality comes from. Humans are social creatures, and they have come together to create a society that has allowed them to thrive in a way that no creature before them ever has. The religious are fond of asking, "If there's no God, where do concepts of right and wrong come from?", implying that our sense of right and wrong is either totally arbitrary, or that we're just refusing to acknowledge that we all live by the teachings of God.

Except that's nonsense. Morality is anything but arbitrary. Humans have a natural sense of empathy, as do all social mammals. This is a product of evolution, because without it any sort of society would be impossible. Further, human society is far more complex and nuanced than any other type of animal society, so it follows that the rules by which we govern ourselves would be more complex and nuanced as well. If you're asking if there is any true, objective morality... well, no, at least not in the sense that the universe will care if a murderer is brought to justice or if an innocent man goes to jail. But just because nobody but humans shares this morality doesn't render that morality meaningless. The fact that we're even having this discussion in the context of society proves my point. Morality is a human invention, a product of human socialization and our desire to function together in a society, but none of that implies that it has to have been handed down to us from God.

As for whether or not animal homosexuality has any bearing on the "morality" of human homosexuality: what we decide is and is not moral goes through several filters. Homosexuality has been observed (though not always accepted) is every recorded human society, as well as throughout the animal kingdom. Thus, we can be sure that homosexuals are not engaging in behavior that can be considered aberrant or unnatural. Killing, too, occurs in all recorded human society and throughout the animal kingdom... but there is a second filter we must apply as well: whether or not the behavior under consideration poses a risk to human society. Obviously, killing poses a very real risk to society... homosexuality does not, unless you have access to information that the rest of us don't.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@popsaw, part 3c
written by poobah103, March 07, 2010
4. Is bestiality on a 'willing' animal immoral?

My answer, again, would be the same as incest. There is obviously a gross-out factor at work here... yes, I would consider it immoral. My considering immoral, however, is not sufficient cause to prohibit or persecute those who engage in bestiality.

What is sufficient cause to prohibit bestiality is the demonstrable risk to animals the behavior poses. Like incest, bestiality runs a real, tangible risk to the safety of animals, and allowing it only in cases where the animal is 'willing' is a useless consideration because animals can't consent or testify against those who victimize them. Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges here... unless you can demonstrate that homosexual sex poses a real, demonstrable risk in the way that incest and bestiality do, your reasoning is entirely invalid.


Ultimately, I recognize you have a right to find homosexuality immoral. I think even you can't deny that the chief reason for that opinion comes from the Bible, a book that has been thoroughly debunked and disproven throughout human history, so I would suggest that you should base your opinions on something a little more solid, but I must respect your right to an opinion.

What I do not have to respect or condone, however, is your attempt to legislate (or in this case, your support of those who attempt to legislate) your opinion based on nothing but a mandate from an ancient text. You can't prove that homosexuality poses any reasonable risk to society, and your attempts to equate it with things like bestiality and incest demonstrate just how desperate you are to force your way into the debate without having the prerequisite "facts" to back up your assertion.

Finally, and most disturbingly, your questions about whether or not humans killing humans is "immoral" or permissible in the context of overpopulation demonstrate that you are either severely deficient in your understanding of what is "moral" or "immoral" in the context of human society (a trait that, I find, is often shared by people who use ancient text books as their basis for right and wrong), or that you are so desperate for an argument that you're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. In either case, merely asking those kinds of questions has severely weakened your position, in my opinion.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Sonic Gamer
written by popsaw, March 07, 2010
I do not accept that animals cannot give consent. Some animals will even initiate proceedings. It may no be written or verbal consent but the willingnes is certainly apparent.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
@ The Sonic Gamer
written by popsaw, March 07, 2010
I am not suggesting humans killing humans is acceptable. I am suggesting that as a preposterous counter argument to the person (can't remember who) that suggested that because animals sometimes engage in homosexual acts, such acts not be immora for humans. I proposed that morality does not apply to animals since they kill each other and cited the humans killing humans exampleas a reason we should not take the animal model for ourselves.
I do not accept that animals are moral agents and would ascribe morality as a unique trait of human beings, like conscience. I believe the behaviour you describe (lions and buffalo) to be instinctive and not borne from reasoning. Like the migration of birds, hard wiring.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
@Poobah
written by popsaw, March 07, 2010
unless you can prove that homosexuality poses any sort of risk on a comparable level to incest, you can't equate the two without exposing a high degree of intellectual dishonesty.
I am confident the number of people that have died from homosexual related disease (directly or indirectly) far exceed the number of those that have died from incest related disease or defect. There are many that do not consent to the risks bu catch HIV anyway. Babies born with HIV , blood transfusion patients, partners of unfaithful spouse etc etc. This cancels out you argument,..."it's about prohibition of behavior that poses a high degree of risk"On this basis, homosexualit should be unlawful as should fornication.
I believe incest,bestiality, homosexuality and fornication all to be immoral. Anything that is not immoral does not have repercussions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
@popsaw, par t4
written by poobah103, March 07, 2010
First off, to call AIDS a "homosexual related disease" is willfully ignoring the fact that heterosexual sex can spread AIDS just as well as homosexual sex can, and a great deal better than lesbian sex. So your issue is not about curtailing the spread of disease, otherwise you would be championing the cause of lesbian sex. You seek to persecute, based on biblical law, and you are trying to confuse the issue with ridiculous claims that AIDS is a "homosexual's disease".

Partners of the unlawful spouse still contract AIDS through consensual heterosexual sex. This is tragic, it is abhorrent, and in cases where the spread of the disease is done deliberately, it is potentially prosecutable. And yet, your cause does not support declaring heterosexual sex illegal, because your problem is not now and never has been about the spread of diseases through sex. It's about persecution based on ancient biblical mandate.

The same is not true for those who support prohibition of incest or bestiality. Our "persecution" of the incestuous isn't ultimately based on "because God said so". We may say incest is "immoral", but this merely opens the argument rather than closes it. We can further say that incest is demonstrable dangerous to children conceived through it... *intrinsically* dangerous, rather than potentially dangerous if one assumes the presence of a sexually-transmitted disease (which is obviously a separate issue).

Whereas your position begins and ends the argument by crying "immorality", and then seeks to justify your close-mindedness by borrowing from the arguments levied against you.



I believe incest,bestiality, homosexuality and fornication all to be immoral. Anything that is not immoral does not have repercussions.

This demonstrates a pretty tenuous grasp of simple cause-and-effect. Every action has repercussions, and yet obviously you wouldn't consider every act immoral.

But okay okay, I get that you mean "bad repercussions". That's not a very useful way of evaluating the morality of behavior, because it would render some of mankind's most noble tendencies "immoral": the man who runs into a burning building to save children trapped inside and dies during the effort is "immoral"? We are creatures of free-will, and our decisions have consequences. We must live (or sometimes die) with those consequences, for good or ill... but to make a statement like "moral choices have no repercussions" is not only patently untrue, it's also dangerous.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
@popsaw part 4b
written by poobah103, March 07, 2010
I do not accept that animals cannot give consent. Some animals will even initiate proceedings. It may no be written or verbal consent but the willingnes is certainly apparent.

"Willingness" and "consent" aren't the same thing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
God hates yeast more than gays
written by TheGodlessMonster, March 07, 2010
To the religious out there, prove me wrong. Read your Bible. There are more prohibitions against the use of yeast than homosexuality.
At least show some consistency across the board. Read your silly book and act accordingly. You can start by the way, with the following verses:
1. Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with an holy kiss".
2. I Corinthians 16:20 "Greet ye one another with an holy kiss".
3. II Corinthians 12:12 "Greet one another with an holy kiss".
4. I Thessalonians 5:26 "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss".
5. I Peter 5:14 "Greet one another with a kiss of charity".
Pucker up, boys!!!
TGM
http://thegodlessmonster.com/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@ Poobah
written by popsaw, March 07, 2010
I will respond to your comments in due course. rather busy today and they deserve a considered reply. Regardig repercussions though. Immoral sexual acts have consequences. Moral sexual acts do not. I am defining moral as righteous (within divine law)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 08, 2010
Defining moral as righteous (within divine law) means nothing to anyone who doesn't believe in divine law. You would do as well arguing that morality comes only from what we learned from Sesame Street... except that, in most cases, I'd probably agree with the Sesame Street guy a thousand times over before I'd agree that "gay" means immoral because that's what it says in a translation of a translation of a book that was written centuries before either of us were born. If you've reached the point in the debate where all you have left to throw at me are various iterations of "Because God said so", then you can save yourself the trouble of responding.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 08, 2010
@Popsaw
Wait, you dont think animals have consciousness?
I may be crazy and am willing to admit that I'm wrong if the science shows it, but I always thought they did, at least high order animals do.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by popsaw, March 08, 2010
Certainly I do not seek to force my opinions on others, merely to explain my position and the basis for it. My belief that morality is born from a hard wired conscience (something alien to animals)and that a well trained conscience will act in accord with divine law.
It has been asserted that the incest laws exist not for moral reasons but to prevent congenital defect. A pre-emptive law protecting a would be victim. On this basis, would it not follow that any consensual sex act that is a potential danger and may create a 3rd party victim should be illegal. Why single out incest? The question is, do consensual sex acts create 3rd paty victims.Indeed, fornication, and homosexual acts spread AIDS on other STDs, to innocent third parties. Many have died from such diseases without beeing involved in a consensual sex act. this includes babies children and those that have received infected transfused blood.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 08, 2010
@Popsaw
Again, there you go blaming homosexuals for STD's and AIDS. To my understanding, those viruses can be spread through many forms of sexual intercourse, heterosexual or homosexual.
In philosophy, we tend to come up with crazy scenarios in order to prove a point. Let's say in an instant all STD's and all AIDs vanished from the planet, no more of that. All sexual acts are safe again. Is homosexuality still immoral?
You see, like the others have said, you base morality on the bible, not on the actual reason. I dont kill, not because I think the act of aiming and shooting a gun at someone is immoral. Actually, it's fun. Going paint-balling was one of the most exhilarating times of my life, it really gets the blood pumping. But no one dies, and no one is out to kill when paint-balling. I dont kill because I find the taking of someone's life to be immoral. I have empathy for my fellow man, having been taught that others have lives just like my own. You know, the whole golden rule thing, which I would give kudos to the bible for if it didnt have that whole thing in the old testament with Israelites going around sacking cities and killing tons of people cause God told them to.
So once again, you're trying to prove homosexuality is wrong cause it causes some sort of damage. In reality, its about the same as heterosexual activities, so your argument is still flawed.
We base our morality on the consequences of the actions, and if those consequences can be averted, through sexual education, then are those actions really immoral?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by popsaw, March 08, 2010
Again, there you go blaming homosexuals for STD's and AIDS. To my understanding, those viruses can be spread through many forms of sexual intercourse, heterosexual or homosexual.
Not true that I blame only homosexuals.Please check line 4 in my previous post. Since the original article s regarding homosexuality I addressed the issue on that basis. Certainly, the only sure way to prevent inncoent victims is to stay with one sexual partner.
In philosophy, we tend to come up with crazy scenarios in order to prove a point. Let's say in an instant all STD's and all AIDs vanished from the planet, no more of that. All sexual acts are safe again. Is homosexuality still immoral?
I believe all sexual acts outside of marriage to be immoral regardless of danger to self or others. However, since your own condemnation fincest is based on risk to unborn children, if his risk did not exist and this sexual act became safe, would YOU consider it immoral?

So once again, you're trying to prove homosexuality is wrong cause it causes some sort of damage. In reality, its about the same as heterosexual activities, so your argument is still flawed.
I am not trying to prove it wrong as I do not have that authority. I am merely stating the basis of my position that it is immoral. Homosexual intercourse is inherently unsafe even when practiced monogamously, see http://tinyurl.com/ygqe9hg . Heterosexual intercourse poses no danger when practiced monogamously. This in itself shows that it is un-natural since nature is rejecting the practice.
I have shown in my previous post that all sex acts outside of heterosexual marriage are a potential risk to innocent non consenting 3rd parties so why is it that you single out incest as immoral but no others?

We base our morality on the consequences of the actions, and if those consequences can be averted, through sexual education, then are those actions really immoral?
In view of the above, if the consequences of incest (congenital defects)can be averted by birth control or by reason homosexual incest, is incest it still immoral in your opinion.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
...
written by popsaw, March 08, 2010
The failed link above is..
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/3050.aspx?CategoWe base our morality on the consequences of the actions, and if those consequences can be averted, through sexual education, then are those actions really immoral?ryID=118&SubCategoryID=122
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 08, 2010
Let's be pretty clear about who's doing what here; first off, nobody has "singled out" incest except for you, by your repeated insistence that "incest and homosexuality are morally equivalent".

Secondly, all your arguments for incest (I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you seem to be arguing a lot more in favor of the morality of incest, rather than coming up with anything meaningful to say against the morality of homosexuality) assume the presence of something that will regulate what is, by itself, a potentially dangerous behavior.

Further, your arguments against homosexuality also assume the presence of disease, something to turn behavior that is not in and of itself dangerous ("fornication", whether hetero- or homosexual) into something that is potentially harmful.

Surely you can understand how they are not the same thing.

Look at it this way: allow 1000 disease-free incestuous couples to have unregulated, unprotected sex, while allowing 1000 disease-free hetero- and homosexual couples to have unregulated, unprotected sex, for about 6 months apiece. Assuming that all couples involved are 100% faithful to their partners, they will each end the six months with no spread of STD's, because STD's do not just spontaneously generate in couples that aren't having sex according to God's rulebook.

But then take a look at the pregnancies. Which side do you think will represent the greatest number of congenital defects in their offspring? The homosexuals obviously have no babies, so that's 0% risk to third-parties right there. Heterosexual sex can, quite tragically, still produce congenital defects in offspring... but that risk is reduced when compared to incestuous relations.

Now, research has been done which suggests the risk of incest to potential offspring (on a "first cousins" basis") may be less than most people think (here's an article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo...enics.aspx). The results are not yet definitive, and do not seem to apply to "immediate family" incest (potential skewing of the data can also be occuring by attributing *all* instances of birth-defects from incestuous relations to the incest itself), but we could soon see the day when a very real case for the "safety" of incest may be made.

Thing is, that case has already been made for homosexual sex. I defy you to find me a study that finds that consensual homosexual sex is, in and of itself, dangerous. Disease can be introduced to make sex potentially more dangerous, just as condoms can be introduced to make incest potentially less dangerous. But those are two entirely separate issues, speaking to separate problems. Attempting to group them together, hoping that the "gross-out" factor of one will influence our opinion of the other, is like citing "divine law": it doesn't add anything meaningful to the debate.

As for "morality", here's something to consider: I can't speak for everyone on this board, but I would sooner support the legalization consensual incest than support a law designed to persecute a portion of the population based on nothing but Biblical law. Any thinking person should agree that having a rational, factual basis for your opinions is far and away a more "moral" decision than taking all behavior cues from a book that was written a thousand years ago whose claims have been disproved over and over and over again.

You don't have "facts" to support your opinion of homosexuality; you have "divine law" (a term that could mean anything, and thus counts for nothing). When asked why homosexuality is dangerous, you start explaining why sexually-transmitted diseases are dangerous, answering a question nobody asked about something that's an entirely separate issue. You assume that incest is equivalent to homosexuality without justifying that assumption with anything other than "because God has prohibited both of them".

You're arguing in circles.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by popsaw, March 08, 2010
I did bring up incest but I did not single it out as an immoral act. I said ALL sex acts outside of marriage are immoral.

Look at it this way: allow 1000 disease-free incestuous couples to have unregulated, unprotected sex, while allowing 1000 disease-free hetero- and homosexual couples to have unregulated, unprotected sex, for about 6 months apiece. Assuming that all couples involved are 100% faithful to their partners, they will each end the six months with no spread of STD's, because STD's do not just spontaneously generate in couples that aren't having sex according to God's rulebook.
This piece confirms that morality is (in your opinion) directly related to risk. Take away the risk and the act becomes moral. Is this why you have failed to answer why homosexual incest (which carries no risk ) is in your opinion an immoral act? Also, since homosexuality DOES carry a risk to a third party and those engaging in the practice are aware of the risks, does this not also become an immoral act by your criteria?

I defy you to find me a study that finds that consensual homosexual sex is, in and of itself,
dangerous.

I have previously posted this link which shows the angers of homosexual intercourse (in itself)
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/3050.aspx?CategoWe base our morality on the consequences of the actions, and if those consequences can be averted, through sexual education, then are those actions really immoral?ryID=118&SubCategoryID=122

As for "morality", here's something to consider: I can't speak for everyone on this board, but I would sooner support the legalization consensual incest than support a law designed to persecute a portion of the population based on nothing but Biblical law. Any thinking person should agree that having a rational, factual basis for your opinions is far and away a more "moral" decision than taking all behavior cues from a book that was written a thousand years ago whose claims have been disproved over and over and over again.


That is your personal view to which you are entitled. My view is that in a world where only heterosexual sex was practiced exclusively between married persons, all sexually transmitted disease including AIDS would be eradicated.

You don't have "facts" to support your opinion of homosexuality; you have "divine law" (a term that could mean anything, and thus counts for nothing). When asked why homosexuality is dangerous, you start explaining why sexually-transmitted diseases are dangerous, answering a question nobody asked about something that's an entirely separate issue. You assume that incest is equivalent to homosexuality without justifying that assumption with anything other than "because God has prohibited both of them".
Of course I cite STDs as the danger of homosexual sex just as you cite congenital defects as the danger of incestuous sex. Do you maintain that homosexual incest is immoral though, if so why? It does not fulfill any of your criteria for immorality!

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 08, 2010
I maintain that incest is immoral, as I have previously stated, and I have explained my reasoning for that belief in previous posts, so I'm not going to go into it again here. Whether or not that incest is homosexual is irrelevant to my opinion of it... as I've said about a thousand times now, incest and homosexuality are not equivalent.

That's the last time I'm going to make that particular argument until you can demonstrate some reason to justify your belief that homosexuality and incest are the same thing with something besides "because God said so". I'm really getting tired of repeating myself there.

Secondly, here's a direct quote from the website you linked to:

As with most sexual activities, anal sex carries the risk of catching an STI. The main health risks are HIV, human papilloma virus (HPV or wart virus), hepatitis A and hepatitis C and E. coli. E. coli is one of the many viruses and bacteria that can be passed by oral-anal contact. (Emphasis added.)

Again, your assumption that "homosexuality is intrinsically dangerous" doesn't pan out; the article you cited says that disease is dangerous. Your entire argument, against both homosexual sex and heterosexual "fornication" out of wedlock, is based on the assumption that all, or at the very least most, homosexual and heterosexual "fornicators" do engage in unprotected sex, and that most homosexual and heterosexual "fornicators" will get STD's. This is obviously not the case.

Incest, by itself, with no help from diseases (but evidently plenty of help from God) has the potential to cause congenital defects in offfspring. Homosexual sex does not, by itself, just magically conjure AIDS out of thin air. AIDS must be present in one of the partners... and like I just said, there is nothing to suggest that all, or even most, homosexuals carry STD's. For the last time, these are two separate issues.

Yes, homosexual sex (as with all types of sex, even sex in the context of marriage), can lead to contraction of STD's. But incest does lead to congenital defects... not all the time, and like the article I linked to previously, perhaps not as much as we might think. But the risk is always there, by itself, intrinsically. It's not a question of "do one of the partners involved carry an STD"? It needs no additional conditions imposed on it to make it dangerous.

For you to find sex dangerous, you must first attach a condition to it that is not intrinsically there: the presence of a sexually-transmitted disease.

Thus, they are not equivalent.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by poobah103, March 08, 2010
It is also worth noting that my view of the morality of incest is irrelevant to my opinion on the legality of incest. Finding something immoral is not, in itself, sufficient justification for declaring it illegal and persecuting those who disagree with you. Ultimately, my opinion about whether or not incest or bestiality are moral have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this debate.

You know... like I've said already.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 08, 2010
@Popsaw
So you think sex outside of marriage is immoral?
If it's because of the danger of the spread of STD's, then your argument is as weak as your argument against homosexuality.
So why did Abraham, among others, half so many concubines? What was that all about? Isnt that sex outside of marriage? And if God wanted it that way, why did he change is mind?
Is Morality based on God, or does God base his judgment on morality?
Maybe you've heard that argument before, Plato coined it. If God is a slave to morality, then morality doesnt change, no matter what God wants. But then he wouldnt be God, would he? If God gets to choose morality, then he can make it whatever he wants. If God revealed to you that not only is it now moral to be homosexual, but that he demands that you become gay, would you do it?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@Poobah
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
I maintain that incest is immoral, as I have previously stated, and I have explained my reasoning for that belief in previous posts, so I'm not going to go into it again here.
Your criteria for immorality (that there should be a non consenting potential victim) does not apply to homosexual consensual incestuous acts. I have highlighted an inconsistency in your view and given an opportunity for you to reconcile it. You have not done so and since I cannot force you to explain why homosexual consensual incest is immoral in your view, the inconsistency remains.

That's the last time I'm going to make that particular argument until you can demonstrate some reason to justify your belief that homosexuality and incest are the same thing with something besides "because God said so". I'm really getting tired of repeating myself there.
I have NOT said they are the same thing. I have said they are both immoral.

Again, your assumption that "homosexuality is intrinsically dangerous" doesn't pan out; the article you cited says that disease is dangerous. Your entire argument, against both homosexual sex and heterosexual "fornication" out of wedlock, is based on the assumption that all, or at the very least most, homosexual and heterosexual "fornicators" do engage in unprotected sex, and that most homosexual and heterosexual "fornicators" will get STD's. This is obviously not the case.
Homosexual sex and is a high risk activity in that there is a real danger of disease. That cannot be denied. This is why it is essential to use 'protection'. True, it is not he 'sex' that kills a person just as it is not smoking that kills a person, it is the cancer. I think it is clear regardless that it comes under the criteria of sexual conduct that can create a third party victim.

Again, I am forced to cite homosexual incest as an instant which there is no danger of congenital defect yet you still condemn it. Inconsistent! I do not accept your criteria for immorality and I hold that a divine wisdom is superior. If God laws on marriage and sex were adhered to, we would have a STD and AIDS free population.
I am not in agreement with persecution of any persons homosexual or not. I am in agreement with humane laws that protect innocent persons from the consequences of the sexual acts of others, be it incest, homosexuality , fornication or any other sexual practice.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
So you think sex outside of marriage is immoral?
If it's because of the danger of the spread of STD's, then your argument is as weak as your argument against homosexuality.
So why did Abraham, among others, half so many concubines? What was that all about? Isnt that sex outside of marriage? And if God wanted it that way, why did he change is mind?
Is Morality based on God, or does God base his judgment on morality?
Maybe you've heard that argument before, Plato coined it. If God is a slave to morality, then morality doesnt change, no matter what God wants. But then he wouldnt be God, would he? If God gets to choose morality, then he can make it whatever he wants. If God revealed to you that not only is it now moral to be homosexual, but that he demands that you become gay, would you do it?


Concubines were secondary wives. God did not see fit to restore the original standard of monogamy as he had established it in the garden of Eden until the appearance of Jesus Christ, but he did protect the concubine by legislation. Concubinage logically worked toward a more rapid increase of the population in Israel.
Regarding morality, it is for God to decide what is moral and for our benefit, just as the designer of a car will provide a manual for the owner. Deviate from he manual and there will be negative repercussions. If God revealed to me that I must become gay I would be in a position to decide for myself wheher I wished to obey since I have god given free will. Nobody is forced to obey i the same way tha you are not forced to put the correct fuel in your car.Again, there are negative repercussions when freewill is exercised against divine law.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Your Kunf Fu is weak
written by incredulous, March 09, 2010
@popsaw

The taboo against incest is a pretty practical one and seems to be a case where a social norm reflects a biological truth.
Any incestuous act would contribute to the erosion of the taboo, thus opening up a community to the risks inherent in incestuous procreation. In this regard all incest is bad because it leads to a demonstrable harm; inbreeding.

it is for God to decide what is moral and for our benefit, just as the designer of a car will provide a manual for the owner.

Did you know that all operation manuals for automobiles must be submitted to a safety and quality control agency prior to being released?

Science does that for your myth.
So whether it be kissing cousins, same-sex adults or mixed-sex couples incapable of reproducing, acts of incest do contribute to a genuine, real-world ill. I would consider that enough to label incest as unethical. But in addition to that reason there is considerable evidence showing the psychological damage caused by real world incest, which is rarely consensual and between adults.
There is no similar argument for homosexual sex.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by The SonicGamer, March 09, 2010
@Incredulous
Indeed, his morality seems to be able to change. "It's NOT ok to sleep with someone who isnt your wife....unless, of course..."
"It's NOT ok to kill....unless, of course..."
To my understanding, divine standards arent supposed to change. Are you saying that I can have a secondary wife?
"God did not see fit to restore the original standard of monogamy..." That one right there scares me. That God can change morality like that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Religion fails
written by incredulous, March 09, 2010
There can be no fixed moral imperatives in religion because religion is based on the whims of the folks in charge of the holy texts. Over the centuries, interpretation has rendered Christianity into a hodgepodge of nearly unrelated systems of arbitrary moral codes.

The incest taboo seems to fall back on our understanding of a biological risk - the argument against homosexuals has no such support and is hollow as a result.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@incredulous
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010

The taboo against incest is a pretty practical one and seems to be a case where a social norm reflects a biological truth.
The taboo against homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is also true for the same reasons. Your own version of immorality differs from previous posters in that their version of immorality requires a non consenting victim. You are suggesting that an immoral act can be committed where the is no victim (except those consenting)and you state "a social norm reflects a biological truth." I remind you that it used to be the social 'norm ' to frown upon homosexual acts ant they also wee punishable, and still are in many places.

Did you know that all operation manuals for automobiles must be submitted to a safety and quality control agency prior to being released?
Is this a diversion or do you REALLY not see the point I am making! My point is that a creator(be it of a car, person, washing machine etc) knows what is best for the creation.

So whether it be kissing cousins, same-sex adults or mixed-sex couples incapable of reproducing, acts of incest do contribute to a genuine, real-world ill. I would consider that enough to label incest as unethical.
There is no similar argument for homosexual sex.

I accept that incest contributes to "real-world ill", however, the real-world ill caused by fornication and homosexuality is pandemic. Surely you do not deny that the spread of AIDS is due to sexual promiscuity including homosexuality. For some reason you do not accept this.

In addition to that reason there is considerable evidence showing the psychological damage caused by real world incest, which is rarely consensual and between adults
Where the adults are consenting and here is no risk of reproduction you have offered no logical reason why two free persons, engaging in such a consensual act, in private would be committing an immoral act, other than it is contrary to your sensibilities. Since the act is consensual and no harm is caused, I cannot accept your contradictory reasoning.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
@Sonic Gamer
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
@Incredulous
Indeed, his morality seems to be able to change. "It's NOT ok to sleep with someone who isnt your wife....unless, of course..."
"It's NOT ok to kill....unless, of course..."
To my understanding, divine standards arent supposed to change. Are you saying that I can have a secondary wife?
"God did not see fit to restore the original standard of monogamy..." That one right there scares me. That God can change morality like that.


Rules certainly can change so that divine standards are maintained. Gods standards do not change, only the rules, in order to fit the standards. Nobody is forced ito comply.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Popsaw
written by Griz, March 09, 2010
Either you believe you are still under the old testament law or you don't. If you don't then you cannot condemn homosexuality on that basis. There is no prohibition against it. Where it is mentioned as bad you could just as easily interpret the passage to condemning fornictaion regardless of the genders of the participants. In addition, Paul said, "all things are legal but not all things are profitable." Even a cursory glance at the new testament makes it clear that the whole nitpicking at rules thing is frowned upon (straining at gnats and swallowing camels, see also Paul's discussion of hair length.)

If you are under the old testament law, then you better not be eating pork or shellfish, or keeping dairy and meat in the same place, and observing the other several hundred commandments that are conveniently forgotten.

The reason you as a christian are so against homosexuality is because there is no other basis on which to oppose same sex marriage, so the conservative right uses you religious folks as a tool (constantly) to try and force their agenda in support of corporate america. Corporate america doesn't want to pay benefits for same sex couples, it's as simple as that. That christians are so ready and willing to have their "moral" codes based on the whims of fat cat corporations has always puzzled me, except that there are few people that buy into the whole religious brainwashing thing that reserve enough brain cells to think it through.

In answer to your questions: moral is an irrelevant word today. Is homosexuality immoral? No. Is incest immoral? No. Anything that happens between two (or more) consentin adults in privacy is just fine with me. The only case for using the word "moral" I can think of is as a word to describe a social contract between groups of people where they agree to abide by a certain set of rules. I think a certain set of rules is inherent in society. I shouldn't steal your stuff, you should harm me, etc. But since we (in the US) are a nation of difference backgrounds and philosophies, there is no way to establish a single "morality" that will suit everyone's lifestyle. Therefore, you're welcome to yours, but don't try to apply it me. I don't accept your code, especially since I know it's based on very loose interpretations of ancient literature that I don't believe has any greater authority than the Odessey or the Koran or Uncle Tom's Cabin, for that matter.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Popsaw
written by Griz, March 09, 2010
Two things I forgot:

First, to include bestiality along with homosexuality and incest is absurd. Animals can't consent in the same way that children cannot. They are not equipped to make a good decision.

Second, you said God's standards do not change. You need to wake up to the fact that the interpretation of the bible you live your life by is the exact product of changing views of scripture, and the changes have been prompted by politics. Even according to the bible itself, god's rules have changed multiple times. Literalist try to cobble it all together with apologetics, but the fact is that from the Torah to the period of captivity are really two different religions, and there are two different religions espoused in the new testament as well (Jesus and Paul.) Fundie christians pick and choose the things from the old testament they want to push, and conveniently gloss over the ones that they can't fight. That's not morality, that's hypocrisy. When you can show me that you are able to really live by what's in that book (which I know inside out being a former fundie preacher) then maybe I'll listen to you as regards the morality I live my life by. But since that's impossible, I know I'll never have to live up to my end of that deal.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
incredulous
written by Griz, March 09, 2010
"The incest taboo seems to fall back on our understanding of a biological risk - the argument against homosexuals has no such support and is hollow as a result."

I'm sure ancient man figured out pretty quickly that brother/sister love eventually produced genetically flawed offspring. In societies where succession and inheritance was determined by bloodlines, the obvious benefit of marrying your daughters to your sons was consolidation of wealth in the family, so I'm sure there needed to be some sort of religious stricture to prevent people from doing it. Even in medieval times and through to the industrial revolution, inbreeding was common in royal families. Medical science now knows that the occasional incestual pairing has a low risk of genetic flaws if it's not carried on for several generations. But people with known genetic flaws reproduce all the time. If there's a prohibition against incest, it should be solely for those considerations, not because the brother/sister love is inherently wrong.

Homosexuality was problematic back in old testament times because same sex unions didn't produce offspring. In the middle east in 2000 BCE there were hundreds of cults belonging to hundreds of minor gods. El, a canaanite sky god, had to compete with many more popular gods, like Baal or Molech. The best strategy for growing a religion is to impose rules that favor marrying as young as possible, producing as many children as possible, and forbidding anything that interferes with procreation. People born into and raised in a particular religion have a greater chance of staying in that religion becuase they are indoctrinated as a child. That's why you see so many religions, especially the ones that came out of areas where many gods were competing for the hearts and minds of few people, that have so many rules concerning how you use your genitals.

Marrying young, polygamy, prohibitions against any unions that didn't produce offspring (not just homosexuals but widows and old maids as well), rules against birth control or masturbation, these are common features in religions based in judiasm. These same rules served to cement the power structure in patriarchal societies because a man that was successful (including observing his religion) would have an outlet for all his sexual fantasies. Multiple subservient young wives and concubines, many sons to further the family concerns, and many daughters to marry off. This gave the ruling class a reason to enforce the religious rules.

Today the fundies are finding it harder and harder to justify these things. They've lost the battles against alcohol, sex for pleasure, birth control, miscegnation, and a host of other "immoral" things that are considered acceptable in fundie circles now. Abortion and homosexuality are their last battles, and those will be over within a decade.

It's been interesting, as a former fundie, watching the latest crop of preachers navigate these treacherous waters. Most of them run aground pretty quickly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@popsaw, grand finale part 1
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
I find homosexual incest immoral because I find incest immoral, for reasons I've explained. I'm not sure where you're finding inconsistency there. The one doesn't affect my opinion of the morality of the other. I've also said (I think this will be three times now) that, though I find incest immoral, THAT ISN'T ENOUGH BY ITSELF TO JUSTIFY MAKING IT ILLEGAL. Homosexual incest is illegal because incest is illegal. I know that your entire worldview is based on somehow convincing everyone that homosexuality and incest are equal, but you've been pissing on your own feet since this debate began. I get that you think I'm being inconsistent- I'm really not, but I get that you think I am- but I'm not sure how many more times I need to type this before you actually read it and let it sink in. Here's one last go, this time bolded and in all-caps so it will just jump right off the page at you:

"INCEST" SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT POSES A RISK OF CONGENITAL DEFECTS. HOMOSEXUAL SEX POSES NO INHERENT RISK; ONE MUST FIRST ASSUME THE PRESENCE OF STD'S TO MAKE IT DANGEROUS. THE FACT THAT "HOMOSEXUAL INCEST" FALLS UNDER THE SAME LEGAL UMBRELLA AS "INCEST" IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

What I have also said is that I would sooner support incest than persecute homosexuality, a "moral" position that is in no way inconsistent... unlike, say, your position of trying to reconcile "God is love" with "God wants a sizable portion of the population persecuted (or, if people like Ssempa get their way, executed) because of how God designed them".

Research exists that may one day make a case for the safety of incest. If the risk of congenital defects is not as serious as conventional knowledge suggests, I may very well one day revise my opinion as to the "morality" of incest. That is not an inconsistency... that's taking new facts into consideration when forming an opinion that may have very real consequences on the private lives of people all over the world.

You can't demonstrate why homosexual sex is dangerous. You seem insistent on the idea that "homosexual sex just magically summons the AIDS virus out of thin air, so that two perfectly healthy, STD-free homosexuals will find themselves riddled with disease after engaging in sodomy". This idea is, very clearly, idiotic and insane. In cases where AIDS and other STD's are involved (which is a separate issue), they can be combated with medical science and safe-sex education... combated pretty effectively, by the way, so long as people like you don't begin spreading misinformation about the efficacy of condoms (which is something the church has a long, storied history of doing). Your answer of "GAYS SHOULD NEVER HAVE SEX BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM!" is childish; it's like saying cars should all be outlawed because some people drive drunk.

"God's law" is subject to interpretation, but it is ultimately static. It makes no allowances for new information; your opinion on homosexuality will be the same ten years from now as it is today without you lifting one finger to learn anything new about it. Using "God's law" to justify any position is intellectually lazy, and morally dangerous. Your floundering for arguments in this very debate has led you to ask questions like "we're overpopulated, so why don't you condone killing?" and say things like "moral actions have no repercussions". Any thinking person can plainly see the faults in your chains of reasoning, and recognize the danger implied by your insistence that all we need do is follow "what God tells us to do" and no harm shall ever befall us.

Because harm will befall us. Here's a pretty obvious example: if we follow God's law, we will be forced to monitor the sex lives of homosexuals, persecute them when they are found. If we follow Ssempa's law (which, hilariously enough, also seems to be "God's law"), we'll have to execute them for what is, according to all the evidence we have, a natural aspect of their psychology... one that, if you believe God created the universe and everything in it, has to have been specifically placed there by God.

Your position is inconsistent. I would imagine you believe that God is love, and yet you support a position that would have us kill in His name. You believe God created the world, but that He knowingly designed homosexuals to be persecuted by us "normal-sexuals". You leave no room for modifying your opinion based on new information; why should you? "God's law", and God has already thought of everything.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@popsaw, grand finale part 2
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
Your "morality" is based, in its entirety, on the scribbling of churchmen laid down in the infancy of the human species, before we knew things as basic as the Earth's position in the solar system or the germ-theory of disease. If we continued to follow "God's law", all human knowledge would have remained static. What reason would there have been to look any further? God has given us all the information we need. We'd still burn witches because someone in the village came down with the hiccups or because there was a solar eclipse. We'd torture those with the temerity to voice even the slightest iota of doubt as to "our Loving Heavenly Father's existence". The church cannot ever separate itself from these facts of its history. There is no evidence, nothing you can point to at all, that suggests that the church would not have continued on its merry way, persecutin' and torturin' and pilin' up all the poor-folks' money, if not for the rise of rationality during the Enlightenment.

My morality comes from examining evidence. My morality can change (as any *good* morality ought to be able to) based on the acquisition of new data. And even if my morality was as static, rigid, and unchanging as yours, I STILL WOULDN'T ARGUE THAT IT SHOULD BE LEGISLATED. You can't make that claim- what is right for you should be right for EVERYONE, evidence and logic be damned.

If you would have us live by the laws of the church, you must have us live by all the laws of the church, otherwise you are being inconsistent. And remember; God's law is perfect, and so it must be unchanging. How can you say you're not arguing for the persecution of homosexuals? That's exactly what the Bible's position on homosexuality does, intrinsically; the reasoning behind it may be up for debate, but the result is not. You are singling out a section of the population for ridicule, invasion of privacy, and (as a member of your illustrious faith would have it) sentence of death and an eternity of torment. If these are the beliefs demanded of you by your God, the fine... but at least have the intellectual courage to recognize exactly what it is you are arguing for.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@popsaw, grand finale part 3
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
Here's one final thing to consider: if your position is, ultimately, based on faith, then you must surely recognize that you can never prove it with facts. The credulous may not need anything other than a religious upbringing and a boatload of willful ignorance to justify everything they believe about the world, and I'm sure that, had we had this debate on a religious website, you'd have dozens of equally closeminded friends jumping in to agree with you.

But this was never an argument about faith. You elected to have this debate in a skeptical forum; a forum not swayed by "faith", but by "evidence". Even if we assume you somehow destroyed my entire position (which you very clearly did not), you have yet to make any headway justifying yours. The crux of your argument is now and has remained since the beginning, "it's God, obviously".

In a debate of facts, you have very clearly lost. You've exhausted every objection to my arguments (and let's face it here: when one of your objections is "the world is overpopulated, so you should think killing is okay, even if *I* don't because God's on my side", you've pretty much dropped all pretense of rational discourse) and are now basing your entire position on convincing everyone that AIDS is an intrinsic property of homosexuality (an idea that is absurdly stupid), or that because you imagine an inconsistency in my argument, it somehow proves the validity of yours.

This is not a debate you were ever going to win, because you were never basing your opinion on facts. But your determination to drag it out has caused you to lose it in a particularly spectacular fashion: you've exposed that you lack even a simple understanding of how diseases work, how debates work, and how rational (see also: "useful") opinions are reached. Some of your arguments weakened your case far more than anything any of us could have said, particularly your harping on how homosexuality = incest and how all homosexuality invariably leads to AIDS, thus AIDS is an intrinsic property of homosexuality. You've demonstrated for us exactly the kind of reasoning behind Martin Ssempa's claims that "gays must be exterminated"... revealing a stunning lack of empathy, compassion, and (dare I say it) morality that could almost be hilarious if it weren't so heartbreaking and tragic.

You'll reply to this. And in that reply, you'll probably ignore everything I just wrote and repeat your "AIDS is an intrinsic threat to fornicators" argument. I'm thoroughly finished destroying that joke of an argument, so if that's all you're going to bring to the table, don't expect me to bother with replying to you.

You might also bring back that "if I imagine your position to be inconsistent, that means my position is proven correct" chestnut. Nevermind that I've explained why my position is actually *not* inconsistent... I'm really done explaining things to you that every other person following this debate was able to wrap their heads around five or six comments back. Again, if that's all you've got left as an argument, save it; we've heard it, and nobody but you thinks it holds water. Don't expect me to reply just to say the exact same things I've said to you a thousand times already.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Incest laws are probably a good thing, regardless of "morality"
written by Gaius Cornelius, March 09, 2010
I am not sure that the taboo on incest had it origins in the increased probability of congenital defects. The details of many incest laws do not seem take account of genetics in that way. For example, I understand that in the UK incest laws prevent a man from marrying his brother’s widow. (In the past private member’s bills have been passed in parliament to make specific exceptions, the entire law may have been repealed by now. Henry VIII famously got a special dispensation from the pope.)

Incest taboos are ancient and widespread. Assuming that religious prohibitions merely echo secular concerns, I suspect that they originate in an understanding the incest was somehow bad for society.

Even if there was no possibility of congenital defects, permitting incest between close relatives is probably a bad idea. Societies generally have all sorts of laws, taboos, rules and conventions that forbid sexual relationships between people who already have certain types of relationship between them. For example: doctor and patient, teacher and pupil, manager and staff etc. with varying degrees of censure. The reason for these rules is to protect people who would be vulnerable to exploitation. Within families, the potential for exploitation and the degree of physiological damage that may result is very great and it is generally right that it should be condemned.

(For some reason, other than in the Catholic Church, a relationship between a priest and a parishioner attracts no disapproval – following the above logic of protecting the vulnerable, perhaps it should?)

Of course, incest rules will sometimes cause suffering when they get in the way of somebody’s freedom. While I am willing to be persuaded; it seems to me that incest laws do far more good protecting vulnerable people than they cause harm by limiting personal freedom.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Ravenclaw60, March 09, 2010
Poobah this popsaw is just a church troll. Nothing as in significant as the facts and reason will get in the way of his silly superstitous thinking.

Remember what I said earlier the religious have very fluid morality. They dont mind if every homoesexual in the world is killed in terrible ways just because homosexuals offend their sensibilities. Even though in their book of fairy tales it says "Thou shalt not kill" I guess that only applies if the person isnt a fag.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
@Gaius Cornelius
Now there's an argument I hadn't considered, and it sounds like a reasonable one at that. Thanks for demonstrating how much more useful thoughtful consideration of an issue based on reasoned conclusions can be, as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on Biblical mandate.

@Ravenclaw60
I get that his mind is irrevocably made up, I just wish he would stop trying to couch his opinion in "reason and logic", borrowing from the very worldview he's arguing against. Maybe it's me... I don't know why I'm so often surprised at how ready the credulous are to willfully delude themselves to hang on to their superstitions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@ riz
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
Either you believe you are still under the old testament law or you don't. If you don't then you cannot condemn homosexuality on that basis. There is no prohibition against it.
Here is the prohibition (here are others) in the new testament...
1 Corinthians 6:9 [Click this icon to open a printer friendly page]
Context
1Cor 6:9 (N.I.V)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders".
The Mosaic law applied only to the Israelites and was fulflled (ended)when Christ died.

The reason you as a christian are so against homosexuality is because there is no other basis on which to oppose same sex marriage, so the conservative right uses you religious folks as a tool (constantly) to try and force their agenda in support of corporate america. Corporate america doesn't want to pay benefits for same sex couples, it's as simple as that.
I live on small Island called Britain, 3000 miles east of planet USA.

In answer to your questions: moral is an irrelevant word today. Is homosexuality immoral? No. Is incest immoral? No. Anything that happens between two (or more) consenting adults in privacy is just fine with me
Heroin? Cocaine?

First, to include bestiality along with homosexuality and incest is absurd. Animals can't consent in the same way that children cannot. They are not equipped to make a good decision.
I vehemently disagree with this, Animals may not consent in the human/legal manner but to imply that consent only a human trait disregards that animals can show willingness/eagerness to engage in all sorts of activities, including sex with other animals.

Homosexuality was problematic back in old testament times because same sex unions didn't produce offspring
ot according to the acount of Sodom and Gomorrah who were neither an people nor required to produce offspring. God was disgusted at the homosexuality.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
@PooBah 103
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
I find homosexual incest immoral because I find incest immoral, for reasons I've explained. I'm not sure where you're finding inconsistency there.
The inconsistency is because you say "
"INCEST" SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT POSES A RISK OF CONGENITAL DEFECTS. " There are no such risks attached to homosexual incest or to heterosexual incest where the chance of conception has been eliminated. So since there is no risk to anybody in this consensual act and that your criteria for immorality requires a non consenting victim, why do you still consider incest any incest (where there is no danger of conception)to be immoral. Is there another criteria you have failed to mention?


You can't demonstrate why homosexual sex is dangerous. You seem insistent on the idea that "homosexual sex just magically summons the AIDS virus out of thin air, so that two perfectly healthy, STD-free homosexuals will find themselves riddled with disease after engaging in sodomy"

You are doing the same thing with incest, summoning congenital defects out of the air. Neither act is inherently or directly dangerous, it is the potential consequences that we could consider dangerous.

In cases where AIDS and other STD's are involved (which is a separate issue), they can be combated with medical science and safe-sex education

The same could be said of incestuous sex. I am sure he risks could be eliminated in such ways.

combated pretty effectively, by the way, so long as people like you don't begin spreading misinformation about the efficacy of condoms (which is something the church has a long, storied history of doing). Your answer of "GAYS SHOULD NEVER HAVE SEX BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM!" is childish; it's like saying cars should all be outlawed because some people drive drunk.

This is one big (and wrong) assumption since am not associated with a church nor do I accept church teachings, which are often contrary to the bible. I have not stated nor quoted for my argument any of the above. I do not agree with persecuting homosexuals either. Please judge me on what I write not what you assume I think.

if we follow God's law, we will be forced to monitor the sex lives of homosexuals, persecute them when they are found. If we follow Ssempa's law (which, hilariously enough, also seems to be "God's law"), we'll have to execute them for what is, according to all the evidence we have, a natural aspect of their psychology... one that, if you believe God created the universe and everything in it, has to have been specifically placed there by God.
There is no requirement in the bible for persons sex lives to be monitored nor to execute homosexuals. The execution of homosexuals in Israelite times was toward those Israelites that had entered a covenant arrangement with God and abide by his moral code. The penalty for transgression was known and agreed by them.

Your position is inconsistent. I would imagine you believe that God is love, and yet you support a position that would have us kill in His name.
I do nt support illing in Gods name. Jesus said...
Romans 12:18 (New International Version)

18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
@PooBah 103
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
Here's one final thing to consider: if your position is, ultimately, based on faith, then you must surely recognize that you can never prove it with facts.
I refer you to my post some time ago (post 25)....
I am no here to defend my position on morality, rather, I am challenging the position of those that condone homosexuality whilst condemning incest. I wish to know on which authority they condemn incest (between consenting adults in private),since I assert that the same authority can be used to condemn homosexuality. I have already stated the basis for my condemnation of both practices.

Even if we assume you somehow destroyed my entire position (which you very clearly did not)

Until you explain why incest(practiced without risk)is immoral in your opinion whilst homosexuality(practiced without risk) is not immoral. The inconsistency remains exposed.

Some of your arguments weakened your case far more than anything any of us could have said, particularly your harping on how homosexuality = incest and how all homosexuality invariably leads to AIDS, thus AIDS is an intrinsic property of homosexuality
Er, the article is about homosexuality and homosexuality does lead to AIDS, so does fornication. No homosexuality or fornication = no AIDS.

You might also bring back that "if I imagine your position to be inconsistent, that means my position is proven correct" chestnut. Nevermind that I've explained why my position is actually *not*
inconsistent...

Actually, this is the main reason I have persisted, in order to get an explanation for the glaring inconsistency regarding your differing view stance on harmless homosexuality v harmless incest. No logical reason has been given and your views appear prejudicial against the incestuous.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
I am no here to defend my position on morality, rather, I am challenging the position of those that condone homosexuality whilst condemning incest. I wish to know on which authority they condemn incest (between consenting adults in private),since I assert that the same authority can be used to condemn homosexuality. I have already stated the basis for my condemnation of both practices.

Again- assuming that condemnation of one must logically lead to condemnation of the other is you saying that homosexuality and incest are equivalent. I don't care how much you hold your breath and pound your fists on this, your initial assumption, from the very start, is flawed. Calling into question condemnation of one type of sexual activity by equating it to the baseless persecution of another (in this case, homosexuality) is, at best, going to convince people to condone incest. Nothing you've said is an argument for why homosexuality is immoral... every point you raise says we are wrong for finding incest immoral.

So, even if we assume that your initial assumption, that arguments in favor of homosexuality must also apply to incest because incest and homosexuality are equivalent (an argument that, for the millionth-billionth time, you are absolutely making and is absolutely wrong, all you've done is say that incest is just as harmless as we know homosexuality to be.

Er, the article is about homosexuality and homosexuality does lead to AIDS, so does fornication. No homosexuality or fornication = no AIDS.

No. Homosexuality and fornication with someone who has AIDS leads to AIDS. That is what has been the issue with your attempt to equate homosexuality to incest from the beginning... the same point you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge, because even recognizing that AIDS must be present (and is thus, not intrinsic to "fornication") would deflate your entire argument.

Actually, this is the main reason I have persisted, in order to get an explanation for the glaring inconsistency regarding your differing view stance on harmless homosexuality v harmless incest. No logical reason has been given and your views appear prejudicial against the incestuous.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html


Ah, so the best point you have to support persecution of homosexuality is that condemning incest makes us no worse than you? Even if we give you that point (I absolutely don't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend I do), you're still left defending a position that is, by your own assertion, wrong. You feel (incorrectly, but remember- we're pretending your arguments aren't based on a flawed initial assumption) that we are persecuting incest, and claim that we are wrong to do so. But then you want to turn around and claim that persecuting homosexuality somehow is okay.

Even using your own backward logic, you're still wrong.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@poobah103
written by popsaw, March 09, 2010
Calling into question condemnation of one type of sexual activity by equating it to the baseless persecution of another (in this case, homosexuality) is, at best, going to convince people to condone incest.
I have stated numerous times that I am opposed to the persecution of homosexuals. However,I could say you are in favour of the persecution of the incestuous!


Nothing you've said is an argument for why homosexuality is immoral... every point you raise says we are wrong for finding incest immoral.
It is not my intention to convince anybody that homosexuality is immoral (again I am repeating myself. I am challenging those that say homosexuality not immoral to question in that case (under their criteria) whether they must concede (by the same acid test/criteria)that incest is not immoral.Both can be practiced safely and both can be practiced at risk. The physical act of incestuous sex itself is not dangerous, neither is that of homosexual sex. Both acts however (when practiced without precaution) carry potential risk. You discriminate between the two on a moral basis without explanation. One you find immoral, the other not! You argument is one of pedantry, like saying it is not dangerous to dive jump from a 1000 foot building (the physical sex act). Technically, it is not, but if you do not wear a parachute, you will probably die (the consequences of unprotected homosexuality or incest)
Since you hold that any sexual activity undertaken that poses a risk to a non consenting third party is immoral and that unprotected homosexual(or heterosexual) sex poses that risk, whether knowingly or unknowingly, does it not follow that it must be immoral under your conditions? I also assume that you are aware that AIDS can be both carried/ transmitted unknowingly, giving further cause for restricting illicit sex for the protection of innocent 3rd parties.

You feel (incorrectly, but remember- we're pretending your arguments aren't based on a flawed initial assumption) that we are persecuting incest, and claim that we are wrong to do so. But then you want to turn around and claim that persecuting homosexuality somehow is okay.
I do not actually feel you are persecuting the incestuous and I agree incest should be condemned. I am merely saying that if (according to you) I am persecuting homosexuals because I condemn homosexuality, you must be persecuting the incestuous (by your reasoning) because you condemn incest!
Personally (and I have said this many times) I am opposed to persecution of any group.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
I have stated numerous times that I am opposed to the persecution of homosexuals. However,I could say you are in favour of the persecution of the incestuous!

That's not true. You argue for a position that would declare homosexuality illegal. That's persecution... now, the question is whether or not that persecution is justified. Nobody's going to complain about society's persecution of serial killers, for example, since clearly serial-killer behavior is obviously destructive. The point is, we don't ultimately condemn serial-killer behavior solely on the basis of morality- we have other things we can cite that are a direct consequence of serial killer behavior. No additional conditions or assumptions need be made for us to reach that conclusion.

A similar case can be made for incest. Obviously, incest and serial murder are not equivalent, but the method of reasoning is the same: incest can lead to congenital defects as a direct result of incest itself. No conditions or assumptions need be made to make the behavior dangerous. It is, all by its lonesome, dangerous. Just because congenital defects do not occur 100% of the time does not alter the fact that they are possible with no further assumptions.

NO SUCH CASE CAN BE MADE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY. Homosexuality, just as all sex, in and of itself, does not pose a significant risk. IF you add AIDS, then sex can become dangerous... but making that assumption FUNDAMENTALLY changes the discussion. We are no longer talking about sex, we're talking about disease.

On that basis, I am in favor of persecuting the incestuous. I am not in favor of persecuting homosexuals. I have the courage to admit the moral consequences of my opinion... you are refusing to admit that you're arguing an opinion at all.

It is not my intention to convince anybody that homosexuality is immoral (again I am repeating myself. I am challenging those that say homosexuality not immoral to question in that case (under their criteria) whether they must concede (by the same acid test/criteria)that incest is not immoral.Both can be practiced safely and both can be practiced at risk.

So you have no argument, you're just testing other people's arguments. Fine. The trouble is that your assumption is STILL based on the flawed conclusion that incest and homosexuality are equivalent. You're saying "You've concluded an apple is red. Must you not then conclude that an orange is red, because both of them are fruit?" So you're as well as admitting, from the start, that you have absolutely nothing useful to contribute to this discussion whatsoever.

Do me a favor: copy and paste this into your reply, because I want to at least be sure you've READ it. INCEST AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. THE REASONS WHY WE JUSTIFY OR CONDEMN THEM DO NOT HAVE TO BE THE SAME. THEY ARE SEPARATE BEHAVIORS THAT REQUIRE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@popsaw
written by poobah103, March 09, 2010
I do not actually feel you are persecuting the incestuous and I agree incest should be condemned. I am merely saying that if (according to you) I am persecuting homosexuals because I condemn homosexuality, you must be persecuting the incestuous (by your reasoning) because you condemn incest! Personally (and I have said this many times) I am opposed to persecution of any group.

I condemn incest, and have no problem whatsoever with saying that I support persecution of those who practice it. That's what laws that target a particular group or behavior fundamentally do. See the "serial killer" example above.

Likewise, you condemn homosexuality, and obviously seek to persecute it. THAT has never been at issue during this debate (until just now, since you're introducing it to further confuse the issue)... what HAS been at issue is your JUSTIFICATION for persecuting it. YOU ONLY HAVE "DIVINE LAW" TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. (And I swear to your nonexistent God, if you reply to this with "sex can spread AIDS" I'm just going to scream... THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT POINT. SEE ABOVE POST FOR *ANOTHER* EXPLANATION AS TO WHY.)

I, on the other hand, have biology on mine. And should what we know about incest change (as *I* have admitted long ago they might) MY OPINION MUST CHANGE WITH THEM. Your opinion, being based on "divine law", is immune to new findings and facts.

Look, if all this was about was "challenging our perception", great. You've challenged and challenged and challenged until you're blue in the face. At the very least, even YOU have to admit that "homosexuality = good, incest = bad" is not just some arbitrary decision that we have all just adopted so we can look cool and progressive. You're not arguing for anything, you're just going around and around in circles.

On the other hand, if you have been trying to convince us that we should find homosexuality as immoral as we find incest (which you very clearly were arguing for, whether you admit it or not)... well, see basically every single post I've made leading up to this one, itemizing over and over again the reasons why that position DOES NOT pan out.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Popsaw
written by Griz, March 09, 2010
1 Cor 6:9 is not intended as a catalog of sins, those are examples of things that the intended recipients of the letter once WERE but now are justified, etc. It's contrary to Pauline christianity to use a verse, especially from Paul, to argue against salvation by grace through faith. It's interesting you picked that verse because 6:10 continues the list (with various things it's easy to see in any church today, like drunkards and theives) and then 6:12 is the verse I quoted: "all things are legal..." Although the NIV you cited is a little kinder in its translation of the greek words Malakos and Arsenokoites, it's still prejudicial. Malakos simply mean soft and is used commonly to describe things like clothing. Arsenokoites you should google for yourself because the discussion is lengthy but suffice it to say that it's a poorly attested word in Greek and the occurance in 1 Cor is the first recorded occurance of the word. The word is derived from two words, arsen "male" and koites "bed" (root of english coitus). It probably refers to temple prostitution and was later used (John the Faster, 575 AD) in a heterosexual context.

"Heroin, cocaine?"

Yes please. It's not up to you to determine what I put in my body. Again, consenting adults behind closed doors? Live it up. It doesn't concern anyone else. Besides which, alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug, and it remains legal.

I apologize for assuming you're in the US. I usually don't see too many people outside of Fundie US take up this debate.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Steel Rat, March 09, 2010
This has become a huge yawnfest. How the heck do I unsubscribe from this thread?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
@Poobah103
written by popsaw, March 10, 2010
Homosexuality, just as all sex, in and of itself, does not pose a significant risk. IF you add AIDS, then sex can become dangerous... but making that assumption FUNDAMENTALLY changes the discussion. We are no longer talking about sex, we're talking about disease.
the same cold be said of incest. Incestuous sex does not pose a significant risk unless there sre no recessive genes or potentially harmful DNA. If you add harmful DNA, the sex becomes dangerous. You are condemning those that practice safe incestuous sex (as immoral) along those that practice unsafe incestuous sex. On which grounds is the former an immoral act?

INCEST AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. THE REASONS WHY WE JUSTIFY OR CONDEMN THEM DO NOT HAVE TO BE THE SAME. THEY ARE SEPARATE BEHAVIORS THAT REQUIRE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION
I am not saying that they are equivalent. I am saying they are both immoral in the way that kidnap and rape are not equivalent but they are both criminal (and immoral).

what HAS been at issue is your JUSTIFICATION for persecuting it. YOU ONLY HAVE "DIVINE LAW" TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. (And I swear to your nonexistent God, if you reply to this with "sex can spread AIDS" I'm just going to scream... THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT POINT. SEE ABOVE POST FOR *ANOTHER* EXPLANATION AS TO
WHY.

See previous paragraph which explains why I believe it IS a relevant point. Even if the two are not equivalent, the inconsistency still remains whereby you are in favour if protecting innocent victims against the possible consequences of incest (congenital defects) but you are not in favour of protecting innocent victims against the possible consequences of homosexual/promiscuous/illicit sex (AIDS). Do you not believe the latter deserve protection beyond "better safe sex education" which obviously has failed? How do you propose to protect these ones since your discriminatory views do not allow you to apply the same legislation that exists for he incestuous?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@Griz
written by popsaw, March 10, 2010
those are examples of things that the intended recipients of the letter once WERE but now are justified, etc.
So where does Paul (or anyone)say or even imply that sexually immoral idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes homosexual offenders would now be welcome?

It's interesting you picked that verse because 6:10 continues the list (with various things it's easy to see in any church today, like drunkards and theives) and then 6:12 is the verse I quoted: "all things are legal..."
You have extracted a potion of verse 12 to quote it out of context.So lets read the whole thing
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.
11(Such were some of you; but you were (G)washed, but you were (H)sanctified, but you were (I)justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
12()All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
There are no shortage of verses in the bible condemning homosexuality and sodomy. Could you direct me to any passage condoning such practice. There are many that condone heterosexual sex within marriage but no homosexual counterparts, rest assured!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by popsaw, March 10, 2010
The word is derived from two words, arsen "male" and koites "bed" (root of english coitus). It probably refers to temple prostitution and was later used (John the Faster, 575 AD) in a heterosexual context.
So why would temple prostitutes (often male homosexuals and effeminate young males)be wrong?

"Heroin, cocaine?"

Yes please. It's not up to you to determine what I put in my body. Again, consenting adults behind closed doors? Live it up. It doesn't concern anyone else. Besides which, alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug, and it remains legal.

Alcohol is beneficial in moderation, there is no beneficial amount of hard drugs. This is where'worldly morality' fails. You hold that because it is your body, you may do whatever you wish to it. Here you disregard the consequences to others. That there are adverse consequences of drugs asking to innocent victims is so well established it is no necessary to debate. Drugs are and should be controlled but is it correct to say that you are in favour of a free market for hard drugs, enabling all who wish to become drug users?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
popsaw
written by Griz, March 10, 2010
I assume you're asking why "temple prostitutes" wouldn't be a synonym for homosexual? Because temple prostitues were not exclusively homosexual. It's your prejudice that makes you assume that the male temple prostitutes only had sex with other males. It's clear in that context that the prostitution part is the issue. Paul was writing in Greek to Greeks who at that time were very familiar with homosexuality and pederasty and had many specific words to describe aspects of that culture. If Paul meant homosexuals he would have used ANDROkoites, which specifically means homosexual, not a previously unattested word, ARSENOkoites, which later was used in a heterosexual context.

"There is no beneficial amount of hard drugs"

That's not true. That's part of the propaganda that you've bought into. Cocaine belongs to a family of anasthetics that are used constantly, as was cocaine until it was outlawed because of racial tension. Heroin, when injected, is metabolized to morphine, which as we all know remains a popular pain killer to this day. But your argument breaks down when you look at the most abused drugs, painkillers and amphetamines. One of the most abused drugs, oxycontin, is one of the most popular pain killer, oxycodone. It's the same pain killer found in percocet. Hydrocodone is found in Lortab and Vocodin. These are perscribed every day for a number of ailments and have a great potential for abuse. Adderal, ritalin, and other stimulants similar to methamphetamine are also commonly perscribed medcines. Now you could certainly make this case for LSD, mescaline (peyote), or psylocybin (mushrooms), but these are among the least dangerous "hard" drugs out there.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is abused more than any other drug, is as hard or harder on the abuser, and is readily available legally just about anywhere in the world. In my family there is a heroin addict, several meth addicts, and an alcoholic. The heroin addict is clean and sober right now, the meth addicts are mostly in prison, and the alcoholic is dead.

In the end, drug abuse and addiction is dependant on a person. No one makes you put the stuff in your body, and believe it or not, there are many many casual users of all these substances that have managed to avoid or overcome addiction (you're corresponding with one now). Making the substances illegal simply creates a black market and promotes violent crime. In the US in the last two decades, voilent crime has fallen EXCEPT for drug related violent crime, a lot of which would go away if they took as simple a step as legalizing marijuana.

As far as consequences to others, this is where we differ greatly. You want to punish me ahead of time for what I MIGHT do if I had access to certain drugs. That's not morality, that's thought police. You can punish me IF I do something wrong, not before. Using that logic, we should outlaw alcohol because drunk driving is responsible for the majority of traffic deaths. But we tried that once, and it did exactly what I described, it created a black market that criminals were more than willing to step into.

This is why I do not subscribe to an idea of objective morality, especially not one based on ancient literature whose adherents can neither translate correctly nor agree upon the meaning. I, as a citizen of a country, are given certain rights by the establishing documents of that country (in the US case, our constitution.) You have the same rights. Our "morality" should only extend to the interaction between citizens to ensure that no one's rights are violated. Apart from that: "if it harms no one, do what you will."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
popsaw
written by Griz, March 10, 2010
I forgot to answer your final question: am I in favor of an open market for "hard" drugs. I think I made it clear: yes, I am. I don't really know what form that would take because in reality it'll never happen. But I believe that marijuana will be legalized in the next decade or so and that's a good first step. It will eliminate about 800,000 arrests per year in the US and a great deal of law enforcement effort and spending.

I know what you think you mean by "hard" drugs, even though the term is arbitrary and all but meaningless, but I think you'd benefit from a little research on the subject. People tend to get a very one sided, propaganda enhance view of "drugs" and addiction, and there are more sides than that to the story. The potential for physical addiction is not nearly as scary as the government would like to make it out to be.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@ Griz
written by popsaw, March 10, 2010

I assume you're asking why "temple prostitutes" wouldn't be a synonym for homosexual? Because temple prostitues were not exclusively homosexual. It's your prejudice that makes you assume that the male temple prostitutes only had sex with other males.

Homosexual temple prostitutes certainly WOULD have sex with males, being as they are homosexual. They may also have sex with females but that would make hem bisexual.At any rate, I did not say or assume that they would only have sex with males.

"There is no beneficial amount of hard drugs"

That's not true. That's part of the propaganda that you've bought into. Cocaine belongs to a family of anasthetics that are used constantly, as was cocaine until it was outlawed because of racial tension. Heroin, when injected, is metabolized to morphine, which as we all know remains a popular pain killer to this day. But your argument breaks down when you look at the most abused drugs, painkillers and amphetamines.
Heroin is not inherently beneficial like alcohol. A moderate amount of red wine etc is good for the heart. What benefit is a moderate amount of heroin? Pain relief is a 'diversionary tactic' since whilst it may relieve the pain (that is not a health benefit)it still has adverse effects. Employing your reasoning, baseball bats are beneficial since if someone is in pain, you can knock the unconscious with one. mmediate pain relief. Adverse symptons will occur upon waking though. smilies/wink.gif By he way, I asumed you knew what I meant by hard drugs since I had already cited heroin and cocaine in the same context. In Britain we call hard drugs class controlled substances.

I forgot to answer your final question: am I in favor of an open market for "hard" drugs. I think I made it clear: yes, I am. spending.

I appreciate your candor but I suspect you will raise a lot of eyebrows with this.

It will eliminate about 800,000 arrests per year in the US and a great deal of law enforcement effort and spending.
I think the cost to society (should your ideas ever be implemented) socially, would far exceed what you have stated. A government sanctioned and controlled drugs market would create a nation of addicts. I cannot imagine how exactly this would pan out but I hope the trial runs are as far away from Britain as possible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
Popsaw
written by Griz, March 10, 2010
"Homosexual temple prostitutes certainly WOULD have sex with males, being as they are homosexual. They may also have sex with females but that would make hem bisexual.At any rate, I did not say or assume that they would only have sex with males."

So by that I infer that you agree that the "sin" in question here is prostitution, that there is no condemnation of homosexuality in that passage.

"Heroin is not inherently beneficial like alcohol."

I think you're ducking the issue here. No, heroin does not really have a benefit administered daily like a glass of wine. But its derivatives still have legitimate medical uses. I don't get the point you're trying to make with the distinction. Regardless of its benefit administered as a daily medicine, alcohol is as addictive as opiates, and more addictive than many other drugs you term "hard." If people can be counted on to rationally self administer alcohol (which they can't considering the number of alcohol related deaths each year) then why can't they be allowed to self administer similar substances. Orally administered opiates are depressants just like alcohol, deliver a similar high, and are no more addictive. Why shouldn't they be as available?

"I think the cost to society (should your ideas ever be implemented) socially, would far exceed what you have stated. A government sanctioned and controlled drugs market would create a nation of addicts. I cannot imagine how exactly this would pan out but I hope the trial runs are as far away from Britain as possible."

Again, alcohol is legal. 'Nuff said as far as I'm concerned. It's funny that you wish the experiment was not near Britain, because it's closer to you than it is to me and it's called The Netherlands.

"By he way, I asumed you knew what I meant by hard drugs since I had already cited heroin and cocaine in the same context. In Britain we call hard drugs class controlled substances."

Using the term "hard" with drugs is not a technical term, it's a colloquialism, and means something different depending on who you're talking to. Since we live in different countries, a common nomenclature might be difficult. In the US, we have a schedule of drugs. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that have no medical value, or server purposes for which there are better choices, and are illegal for anything but tightly controlled research. This list include heroin, mescaline, LSD, and, strangely, marijuana, along with a hundred or so other things. Schedule II, drugs that can be perscribed for certain medical uses, include cocaine, opium and derivatives, methadone, and most of the codeine/codone drugs that represent modern pain killers like Lortab or Oxycontin (which it occurs to me might go by other names in your country.) There are five schedules and the lowest contains things like codeine cough syrup, which still requires a perscription but is not so tightly controlled.

So in that context, "hard" drugs could be anything on any schedule, or maybe just things on schedule I. However, marijuana is on schedule I and it is neither physically addicting nor harmful. Alcohol is on no schedule, it's readily available, and is far more addicting and more harmful than most substances on the schedules.

So that's why the term "hard" drugs needs definition because whatever definition you try to apply, it can be contradicted with marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco (we haven't even talked about that, but there is a drug that is nothing but harmful, more addictive than anything but mainlined heroin, and kills thousands of people a year; talk about nations of addicts!)

The bottom line is that drugs are not "hard" or "soft", they are what they are, and how they're used determines their benefit or harm.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by popsaw, March 10, 2010
I think you're ducking the issue here. No, heroin does not really have a benefit administered daily like a glass of wine. But its derivatives still have legitimate medical uses. I don't get the point you're trying to make with the distinction.
I am merely disputing this quote of yours...
"alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug,"
It is a rather curious statement because alcohol is not evil neither is heroin or cocaine. The evil is caused by misuse and that can apply to both. Which is the greater curse on society, I say, hard drugs, you say alcohol. However, doctors recommend moderate amounts of alcohol as producing health benefits. They do not recommend hard drug use (in fact it is called drug abuse)and in fact discourage it, for obvious reasons. If my young son or daughter started drinking moderately, I would no be concerned. If they started on hard drugs (even small doses) I would (rightly) be distressed. I assume the reverse is true for you and you would prefer 'moderate' hard drug use over moderate drinking for such ones?

Using the term "hard" with drugs is not a technical term, it's a colloquialism

Neither is using the term 'evil'with alcohol as you did . However, please understand that by hard drugs I mean Class A or 1. Heroine, cocaine, amphetamines etc. Because you stated "alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug" I am referring to hard drugs to show the absurdity of this statement.

Again, alcohol is legal. 'Nuff said as far as I'm concerned. It's funny that you wish the experiment was not near Britain, because it's closer to you than it is to me and it's called The Netherlands.
A far as I am aware class A drugs are not illegal in he Netherlands or are you trying to water down you stance to make it appear less shocking. If you are now referring to cannabis, it is illegal in the Netherlands but generally the policy is non-enforcement. Hard drugs are illegal and possession supply is considered a serious offence. Sorry to beak all this to you!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Popsaw
written by Griz, March 10, 2010
I retract the use of the word evil. You're right, it's not descriptive in this context. Let me revise that to say that alcohol is the equal in addiction and harm potential to anything you are calling "hard" drugs. I have a chip on my shoulder against alcohol which usually manifests in rhetorical hyperboly like that.

Drinking or drugs, it is still up to the person. Use of drugs or alcohol in my family wouldn't concern me, but rather misuse or abuse. It doesn't really matter what it is. It's how it's used. My kids are grown up, so it's up to them what they want to put in their bodies. As long as they're well informed as to what they're doing and they know the risks, then it's up to them. They are individuals and have to make their own decisions. Getting back to the original discussion: it's not up to me to enforce my morality on them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this special pleading, making it specific to my children. An appeal to emotion doesn't really change my perspective on morality. I don't like to mainline heroin, and I think it's a bad idea overall, but it's not up to me to make that decision for others, and it should not be up to the government to decide what is or is not good for the individual. I believe that if a junky wants help there should be help available, and we do an abyssmal job of that in this country, but I still don't believe it's up to the government to try to anticipate ways in which I might harm myself and prevent them. Even if it is, they have not gone about it in a consistent way since alcohol, cars, and fatty foods are still legal in most places.

As far as the Netherlands is concerned, I think you know what I meant. But if you don't like that one, then let's try Portugal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...f_Portugal
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by popsaw, March 11, 2010
They are individuals and have to make their own decisions. Getting back to the original discussion: it's not up to me to enforce my morality on them.
I believe it is a parents duty to train up children to have a good moral compass. This is achieved with discipline and mental regulating. As adults, they are free moral agents and it is not your job to 'force your morality' on them but as children , surely it is a parents job to enforce morality?
I see morality as a 'highway code'. The rules can change but it benefits everybody when it is universally adhered to. Deviation presents danger to oneself and innocent persons.
Regarding Portugal. The authorities are rightly targetting the traffickers and by freeing up resources and finance that would normally be used to prosecute users, this show that they are keen to prevent drugs getting into the country and therefore prevent drug use. Surely you are not presenting Portugal as drug tolerant? I would say they are sympathetic o the addicts but intolerant of the traffickers.
Drug abuse(use of hard drugs for the purpose of obtaining a 'high')whilst initially only effect the person, the overwhelming evidence is that it creates addiction which in turn is detrimental to society in so many ways. So whilst it is not a major crime to possess and use these substances, trafficking and dealing IS usually severely dealt with. generally , society does not want a nation of drug addicts, even legal ones!

they have not gone about it in a consistent way since alcohol, cars, and fatty foods are still legal in most places.
Those things are only harmful when abused o not used properly. Recreational moderate hard drug use is detrimental at any level and produces no benefit. Fatty foods and alcohol are harmless in moderation, alcohol being beneficial and I think I would prefer my family to live in a community where everyone eats fatty food but does not abuse drugs as opposed to one where everyone abuses drugs but does not eat fatty foods.As for cars, I assume you refer to pollution. I personally welcome any reasonable measures to reduce traffic and pollution.
As regards Portugal, they are tolerant of addicts i order to be more effective in preventing trafficking (of which they are intolerant) This frees up financial resources and man power to enable more effective control of the problem. As I say, few would support your view that a free market should be created for drugs (including hard drugs) since most people would fear a nation of State sanctioned drug addicts. Those that are in 'genuine' need of hard drugs for non recreational purposes are able to obtain them through their doctor. In my view, the Portugal 'model' is a good one!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by BJB, March 11, 2010
I thought it was interesting that Ssempsa knew exactly where to go and find gay porn. Does anyone else suppose it was from his private collection?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
When all is said and done, the article does not come under the umbrella of 'an educational resource on the pseudoscientific paranormal and the supernatural supernatural'.This is a moral issue and since morals differ culturally, there is no absolute universal standard by which Ssempa's methods may be exposed as fake or wrong.
In short, there is nothing here to debunk!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
...
written by Willy K, March 12, 2010
written by popsaw, March 06, 2010
Do you condemn or condone incest amongst consenting adults in private?
Do you condemn or condone homosexuality amongst consenting adults in private?


My answer to both questions is - I don't care, it's none of my fraking business.

Why do you make it your business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do?
NOBODY wants/needs your perverse sexual ideas to guide them. smilies/tongue.gif

PS. You should join Mr. Ssempa in his quest, I'm sure you two would make a lovely couple. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@Willy K
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
Interesting that you (rightly condemn Ssempa but do not mention the law makes criminalizes incest. Since you hold that it is it is nobodies business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do, would it be fair to say that you oppose/ condemn incest laws against preventing consenting adults engaging in incestuous sex?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Willy K, March 12, 2010
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
Interesting that you (rightly condemn Ssempa but do not mention the law makes criminalizes incest. Since you hold that it is it is nobodies business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do, would it be fair to say that you oppose/ condemn incest laws against preventing consenting adults engaging in incestuous sex?


It's nobody's business, that includes law-makers and everyone else. There you are Popsi, is that enough of a mention of sex laws? Stay away from peoples pee-pees.

You really have a perverse need to condemn people. What the frak is wrong with you anyway? smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@Willy K
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
You did not answer the question. You clearly find this topic uncomfortable in which case no participation would have been advisable. the question is still open but I accept you may will decline to answer. If that is the case, thanks for your brief, incomplete'attempt' at defending your views. smilies/sad.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Willy K, March 12, 2010
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
You did not answer the question. You clearly find this topic uncomfortable in which case no participation would have been advisable. the question is still open but I accept you may will decline to answer. If that is the case, thanks for your brief, incomplete'attempt' at defending your views.

I responded clearly. Do you think you being patronizing and dismissive is the way to show the world you're serious?

I said consensual adult sex is nobody's business.

I'm not defending my views or attacking your views. The only conflict here seems to be in your mind. You really have a problem with people talk straight don't you?
Don't take my criticism as toooooo seriously though. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Willy K, March 12, 2010
Back on topic for a moment....

Did anyone see the ABC news correspondent asking/suggesting to Ssempa that people who are raging homophobes have questions about their own sexuality? I thought Ssempa was going to hit him!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by popsaw, March 12, 2010
Your response of I said consensual adult sex is nobody's business was not necessarily a condemnation of incest law (which I asked if you condemned). You appear to be suggesting that this IS your answer and on so on the basis that you condemn incest law between consenting adults, you are condemning a law that is there to prevent serious congenital. This law hurts nobody and is there for the protection of society so in conclusion, I heartily disagree with your stance and state that certain practices between consenting adults ARE he business of others, for the reasons stated here and on previous posts.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Willy K, March 12, 2010
Okay Popsi. I agree 100% with you. You are totally obsessed with sex.
You have to completely twist everyone's statements into your perverse viewpoint, no matter how clear and unequivocal the statement might be.

I will leave it to the next brave person to try and have rational conversation with you. I sincerely hope that you have no contact with any young people.

I was hoping that you might have a teeny, tiny bit of sense. smilies/cry.gif

PS. Yes, that means I give up, you can have the final word. I will no longer even try to talk with you smilies/tongue.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by popsaw, March 13, 2010
Okay Popsi. I agree 100% with you. You are totally obsessed with sex
I did not write the article, the points I have raised are relevant ani in context with the article. I have been courteous and responsive to all posters an nowhere have I posted anything perverse or inapropriate. Some issues are uncomfortable and I have addressed the head on. I have no problem with opposing views but I feel you are abusive and rude and I have reported you for the following comments:-
You are totally obsessed with sex.
I sincerely hope that you have no contact with any young people.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Now What about.....
written by mysticlady, March 28, 2010
All this talk about how incest is so bad because of birth defects etc, then why do animal breeders use line breeding to make certain animals stronger? I used it in breeding siamese cats, mainly father to daughter, and bred three national champs. As far as birth defects, I destroyed 3 kittens in 25 years for cleft palate, and lost maybe 5 to unknown causes out of over 300 kittens born.

HIV/AIDS is NOT just spread by sex!! ANY protein carrier, such as blood or embroytic fluid can carry it. The first cases under one scenerio of its beginnings report raw MEAT was eaten that carried the virus. Promiscious sex may have spread it faster, but its beginnings are very doubtful to be in sex!!! And who is to say it would not have spread less rapidly but just as diversely if sex were not a factor. Using this as an argument against homosexuality is as dense as claiming shrimp is a poisonous animal because eating it almost killed me last year.

Having lived with cows, horses, dogs, cats, chickens etc, etc, etc despite all sorts of liasons, flirting, and even blatant sexual advances, the only animals I ever really saw who got excited by another species advances enough to actual attempt to really carry through with the act other than superfisiously were human beings. Esp. male human beings. The male human being's brain is, in the most part, but not always, so obsessed with sex that they see sexual advances in a mosquito rubbing its legs together it seems sometimes. Personally, I think this guy popsaw has the warm loving glances for his cow, or maybe his cocker spaniel.

Incidentally, making fun of my spelling errors is fine, I am a severe dyslexic with a PHD in Mining Engineering, NOT ENGLISH.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@mysticlady
written by popsaw, March 29, 2010
Firstly, I think it is cheap and in poor taste of you to imply that I have leanings toward bestiality but here is my brief response.
"HIV/AIDS is NOT just spread by sex"
Nobody has suggested that it is but HIV/AIDS is spread primarily through promiscuous and homosexual sex. Initially, the rapid spread of the disease was through homosexual sex.
"And who is to say it would not have spread less rapidly but just as diversely if sex were not a factor"
A preposterous supposition that goes against the facts. Promiscuous sex is responsible for the spread of the disease which is why 'safe sex' was seen as the prevention tool. How far do you think the virus would have spread if it was found to be in meat and not through sexual contact? People would become vegetarians overnight until the removal of the virus from the food chain Promiscuous sex is more difficult for people to quit than meat!

Using this as an argument against homosexuality is as dense as claiming shrimp is a poisonous animal because eating it almost killed me last year
.
I am not using AIDS as an argument against homosexuality. I am using morality. Gods moral/sexual code was recorded in the bible long before AIDS existed. Adherence to this code would see the elimination of all sexually transmitted disease. Monogamy and clean standards are too high a price for some, hence the mess we are in.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy