Always refreshing to see some clear, rational and *humanitarian *talks about *sexuality.

Adding video to channels (Humanitarian, Sexuality, Talks) - requested by Kevlar.

*promote the logic

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 9:04am PDT - promote requested by Duckman33.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.

He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.

This may be a turning point.

>> ^rottenseed:

upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"

>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.

I will upvote because he seems like a good and decent man, however. Bold, frankness isn't something you get from a lot of political types.

<katam>I've brought it up the same way and it does seem to give people hiccups mentally. This is a good thing. They will either learn the truth or become birthers.

</keep applause to a minimum>

*religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by gwiz665.

I love this man! No homo... -_-

>> ^rottenseed:

upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


Excactly, the nature vs nurture discussion/problem is scientifically interesting and yes, the evidence on sexuality points to nature.

But isnt that completely irrelevant? Say if someone chooses (given that its even possible) to change their sexual attraction somehow, or perhaps experiments with S/M or whatever, isnt that like.. uh, i dont know.. None of anybody elses fucking business? Oh yeah thats it.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, but it would matter fuck all if it was. Its a choice consenting adults would have every right to make.

>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.

If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.

How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?

Red hair is a genetic anomaly. Should we legislate against them, too?


>> ^quantumushroom:

If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?

Sometimes you have to talk, as he said, in the vernacular that people understand. If the caucus is composed of religious nuts (see cross-eyed head @ 1:48) then you gotta talk the talk to get your point across and do what's right by the people.

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

This argument is invalid from a Christian standpoint. God doesn't create gay people, he creates people. What Christians believe is that everyone is born with a sin nature, because creation is in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. This sin nature can manifest any number of ways. Some people are challenged by excessive addiction, others by their vanity and pride, and yes some are challenged by their sexuality. Though this is a hot-button issue in the Christian world, Christ never taught we should single out anyone for a particular sin..sin is sin is sin.. The bible says there is no one good, not one. So, any Christian who is constantly railing against homosexuality is a hypocrite at best.

lol

>> ^bareboards2:
I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
You arguing about this completely proves my point.
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I don't see why religion has anything to do with this, although I applaud this man for his take on religion. Homosexuality is natural - everything occurring on this planet is natural. Nature makes no mistakes, it dictates and changes trends. In this case, we are overpopulating the planet, our sperm count is dropping, and more developed nations are becoming asexual or homosexual. Look at Japan, it's a very populated nation, but they can't get their kids to marry, let alone have children - The Japanese youth is addicted to sex toys. It's all natural trend which may or may not revert, and only the feeble minded would bring religion and a 3000 year old book written totally out of context to an argument like this.

On a side note, my wife went to church about 6 months ago while she was visiting PA, and the main topic of the sermon was about how church men don't have sex with their women because they are addicted to porn.

Talk about hypocrisy...

In short, I know my homosexual neighbor is real and has feelings; I don't know if God exists, let alone worry about how God feels.

I see banking and divorce on the rise, yet both usury and divorce are sins. Then again, bringing logic to the religious table is mental suicide.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This argument is invalid from a Christian standpoint. God doesn't create gay people, he creates people. What Christians believe is that everyone is born with a sin nature, because creation is in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. This sin nature can manifest any number of ways. Some people are challenged by excessive addiction, others by their vanity and pride, and yes some are challenged by their sexuality. Though this is a hot-button issue in the Christian world, Christ never taught we should single out anyone for a particular sin..sin is sin is sin.. The bible says there is no one good, not one. So, any Christian who is constantly railing against homosexuality is a hypocrite at best.

Best question I ever heard was, did you freely choose one day to become heterosexual, having previously had no or equal attraction to both sexes? And I think back to my childhood, even at a young age I found girls attractive without even having any concept of sex at the time, so the answer was no, there was no choice for me. If that's the case, why would I imagine it to be any different for a homosexual?

http://videosift.com/video/When-Did-You-Choose-To-Be-Straight

Made it to Number One on the Sift.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Best question I ever heard was, did you freely choose one day to become heterosexual, having previously had no or equal attraction to both sexes? And I think back to my childhood, even at a young age I found girls attractive without even having any concept of sex at the time, so the answer was no, there was no choice for me. If that's the case, why would I imagine it to be any different for a homosexual?

*promote a well-phrased argument.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 1:43pm PDT - promote requested by notarobot.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't see why religion has anything to do with this, although I applaud this man for his take on religion. Homosexuality is natural - everything occurring on this planet is natural. Nature makes no mistakes, it dictates and changes trends. In this case, we are overpopulating the planet, our sperm count is dropping, and more developed nations are becoming asexual or homosexual. Look at Japan, it's a very populated nation, but they can't get their kids to marry, let alone have children - The Japanese youth is addicted to sex toys. It's all natural trend which may or may not revert, and only the feeble minded would bring religion and a 3000 year old book written totally out of context to an argument like this.
On a side note, my wife went to church about 6 months ago while she was visiting PA, and the main topic of the sermon was about how church men don't have sex with their women because they are addicted to porn.
Talk about hypocrisy...
In short, I know my homosexual neighbor is real and has feelings; I don't know if God exists, let alone worry about how God feels.


While I agree with your sentiment, cyanide is also natural as is violence and the need to eat other living creatures to sustain yourself. Natural and moral aren't equal. I am not attesting that Homosexuality is immoral, just that it being natural is not a moral argument in the least.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?


What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature. Hell, even a pedophile can be attracted to children without hurting anyone.

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?

I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?


What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.

Then do you support polygamy?

Like this? M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS>> ^bareboards2:

Red hair is a genetic anomaly. Should we legislate against them, too?

>> ^quantumushroom:
If the odds of being born gay were 50%, perhaps it would be less viewed as a genetic anomaly.
How many more serial killers and pedophiles does 'God' have to create before we let them run amok as well?

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

The argument completely flies in the face of evolution.

>> ^silvercord:

The argument completely flies in the face of evolution.


Which one? The one where evolution tries everything, even things that can't procreate? Or evolution made them, so it must be right? Or it doesn't matter if it is natural or not, I can't masturbate to it (or only half of it)?

Can someone tell me how you keep applause to yourself? Like clap in your mind or something?

Anyway this politician said it well. I hope it makes a difference but I don't think it will. As long as you aren't hurting someone or infringing on anyone else's freedoms just do whatever you want.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.


I don't think this is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, because the answer is clear. Marriage is *not* personal and not private by any means. Marriage is written into tax laws, health laws, death laws, etc. Government creates and maintains the law, so government is intimately tied to marriage.

Put another way, if you want to have a personal and private connection with another human being and live with them, love them, and cherish them forever, no-one is stopping you. You don't need a ceremony or a contract or even recognition to have a deep bond to another human being. Ironically, homosexuals probably know this best, as they have been denied that recognition for so long. As a result, some do share personal and private connections with others, regardless of the state's position. Yet, many of them want their state to recognize those bonds.

If marriage were personal and private, the state's recognition wouldn't matter. However, marriage isn't personal -- It's a contract between two people and the state. With it comes a host of new benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks. As a result, the government's view of marriage suddenly becomes very relevant.

>> ^davidraine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.

I don't think this is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, because the answer is clear. Marriage is not personal and not private by any means. Marriage is written into tax laws, health laws, death laws, etc. Government creates and maintains the law, so government is intimately tied to marriage.
Put another way, if you want to have a personal and private connection with another human being and live with them, love them, and cherish them forever, no-one is stopping you. You don't need a ceremony or a contract or even recognition to have a deep bond to another human being. Ironically, homosexuals probably know this best, as they have been denied that recognition for so long. As a result, some do share personal and private connections with others, regardless of the state's position. Yet, many of them want their state to recognize those bonds.
If marriage were personal and private, the state's recognition wouldn't matter. However, marriage isn't personal -- It's a contract between two people and the state. With it comes a host of new benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks. As a result, the government's view of marriage suddenly becomes very relevant.


Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.

So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.


(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)

Marriage should not have any associated tax benefit or tax penalty. Government should be neutral towards it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?


I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.

Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?

>> ^bareboards2:

I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
<oddly manipulative text>You arguing about this completely proves my point.</oddly manipulative text>
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
<patronizing>Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again?</patronizing> He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
<oddly manipulative text> You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.</oddly manipulative text>

I see, it's simple! In your view:

1> make concessions to undeserving benefactors, legitimizing their craziness.
2> win(?; see below) the battle but loose the war
3> Profit!

We can win the this battle and win the war. This vid is fine to represent solely a religious view of this issue, but the correct way to attack this issue and assert the integrity of government is to keep them out of our pants as a principal.

And to the point, and this argument didn't work in one of the more liberal states in the nation. Not one repub was swayed. I guess the water spilled eh?

Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

QM, when did you stop beating your wife?>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

As mentioned above, marriage is a contract between two people AND the state. It is offered by the state to the people as a means to provide them some benefits (ie. tax breaks) with only nebulous returns (ie. community stability and offspring). It would be irresponsible to allow individuals the power to rewrite the contract to suit their personal needs, as those needs may not mesh with the community's. If every marriage had to be reconsidered case by case (such as marrying your mousepad) then it would become a sham.

However, it is clearly high time to reconsider the system, as there are very significant numbers of people that it simply does not suit. Before that can be done properly, their needs to be some consideration of what exactly the state gains from marriage. When it comes to gay marriage, the obvious discrepancy is children. Is that all? Does adoption cover this? Does this affect the children? There's a ton of considerations.

As for using the bible to decide how to behave, well that's somewhat laughable. Depending on the part of the bible you personally decide is more divinely inspired, you'll either stone them, cast them out, or support them (FYI I'm pulling that outta my ass, but I bet I could find support somewhere in the mess).

>> ^KnivesOut:

QM, do you actually stop beating off while online?>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?



Fixed it for ya!

He's got a Vincent Price thing going on with the thumbnail

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.
So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.
(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)


I think we both have the same basic idea about how this should ultimately be handled. But since the devil is in the detail, I'll still nitpick a bit. I still say that the state needs to have some control over how they define marriage, and that it can't be a private matter because of the benefits afforded to married couples. I do think the government should recognize "non-standard" family units, and should allow you to assign visitation rights / tax benefits / property sharing / etc. as you see fit for the most part.

However, there are limits. Marrying your mousepad, for example, is right out. Even if you have an undying love for your mousepad, it can't consent (being inanimate), so that's a problem right there. A mousepad doesn't pay taxes, so there's no reason to give it tax benefits. And if you divorce it later on, does it get half of your possessions? Who would represent it in divorce court? No, I would say someone marrying their mousepad is trying to game the system by getting married tax benefits while still single.

You seem to imply that the state shouldn't recognize the marriage between yourself and your mousepad, but that they shouldn't define what marraige is... I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

(You are correct regarding the personal / private thing -- I misspoke. It is personal, but isn't private.)

As a gay atheist, it doesn't matter a jot to me whether or not the desert god Yahweh "wants me around" or not.

I don't believe we were created by a god in the first place, and since it also supposedly created HIV, snakes, ebola, Uwe Boll, river blindness, periods, earthquakes and asbestos, I don't think an argument based on that god's idea of "good" and "bad" is built on solid ground. So while I appreciate what this guy's trying to do, this argument doesn't move me much.

1) I don't give a crap that he's half-Black. I'm more concerned about his lack of qualifications for the Office, bowing to dictators, high unemployment, high gas prices, etc. Your Emperor wears no clothes.

2) Since I'm a Jew by blood, I'll have to get back to you on that.

3) Rapists should be put to death. Find me a liberal who will state the same. If you can.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.
Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?

God loves everyone, you included, and He does want you around. He doesn't create people He doesn't love. This video completely misses the point on both sides of the issue. The issue that God has with homosexuals is the same issue that He has with any human being. Every single one of us has sinned and have fallen short..and there is no one good, not one. I myself am personally disgusted by all of the prejudice that Christians show homosexuals. It is not what Christ taught, at all. Christ taught us to love one another, and to show that love always. If a Christian treats you like that, they are not following what He said.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a gay atheist, it doesn't matter a jot to me whether or not the desert god Yahweh "wants me around" or not.
I don't believe we were created by a god in the first place, and since it also supposedly created HIV, snakes, ebola, Uwe Boll, river blindness, periods, earthquakes and asbestos, I don't think an argument based on that god's idea of "good" and "bad" is built on solid ground. So while I appreciate what this guy's trying to do, this argument doesn't move me much.

Right after I started kissing yours, Goofus.


>> ^KnivesOut:

QM, when did you stop beating your wife?>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

Unfortunately, we live in a democratic republic. That doesn't mean a free country--that just means a way a government runs. It does not actually prohibit or discourage a-holes from running other's lives. Remember, we only have the freedom elected officals give us, so we must elect them wisely (And that ain't gonna happen.)

He does address the issue "Get off the gay hating because god hates you."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.
I will upvote because he seems like a good and decent man, however. Bold, frankness isn't something you get from a lot of political types.

This is about money--big business does not want to pay the insurance premiums.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God loves everyone, you included, and He does want you around. He doesn't create people He doesn't love. This video completely misses the point on both sides of the issue. The issue that God has with homosexuals is the same issue that He has with any human being. Every single one of us has sinned and have fallen short..and there is no one good, not one. I myself am personally disgusted by all of the prejudice that Christians show homosexuals. It is not what Christ taught, at all. Christ taught us to love one another, and to show that love always. If a Christian treats you like that, they are not following what He said.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a gay atheist, it doesn't matter a jot to me whether or not the desert god Yahweh "wants me around" or not.
I don't believe we were created by a god in the first place, and since it also supposedly created HIV, snakes, ebola, Uwe Boll, river blindness, periods, earthquakes and asbestos, I don't think an argument based on that god's idea of "good" and "bad" is built on solid ground. So while I appreciate what this guy's trying to do, this argument doesn't move me much.


I don't want to be impolite, because like the fellow in the video I think you mean well, so I'll just say "thanks, but no thanks".

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

>>> What is conservatism at its core? A system of traditions and laws formed in the fires of trial and error, over decades, over centuries. 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. I'm tired of liberals skipping the part where their ideas are challenged and going right to activist judges circumventing the will of the people.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

>>> A unified society does thrive on a universal moral code. Everywhere it is wrong to murder, everywhere it is wrong to steal (unless you're in government). If you believe your freedom ends where it wrongfully infringes on others' freedom, that's a root of morality.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

The issue is a lot more complex than you're making it sound. Families of all religions consist of one man/one woman. Most atheists families are probably the same. Without technology, there is no reproduction among 'faithful' gays.

If we have a socialist health care system, then irresponsible sexual practices among gay men are everyone's problem. Are you going to choose between a child dying of cancer and a gay man whose 'peccadilloes' landed him in the hospital? Ideally, a child should have a father and mother. It's not improbable that the adopted child of two gay fathers views one as more motherly, or in fact seeks a mother figure.

I do support gays in most endeavors, but when 3% of the population wishes to overthrow the traditional definition of what marriage is for the other 97%, that's not something to take lightly.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

I'm not against polygamy nor some type of gay civil union which can be self-defined as "marriage", but understand in both cases moral, social and legal upheavals would follow. There are all kinds of unforeseen consequences lurking out there. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Homosexuality is genetic. The brains of gay men are similar to those of straight women. It will likely be something that can be 'cured' in the womb in a few decades. There is no need to glorify it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
blahblahblah I'm repressing my own homosexuality blahblah

What about irresponsible sexual behavior between heterosexuals? If gays are 3% of the population, then we have a lot more to gain by interfering in the bedroom activities of the other 97%. QM, when did you want to start monitoring the sex habits of straight people?

Also, since Citizen's United, conservatives don't get to complain about activist judges bypassing the will of the people. Just say'n.

At the end of the day I would always support gay rights, not so much for honestly caring about other people being trampled for what is in most cases most likely a natural orientation, but for the off-chance that 20 years from now I'll find myself bored with sexuality as I know it, adventurous enough to tell myself "hey, why not suck a cock?" and mature enough not to cringe at the mere thought.

(not saying heterosexuality is immature, just that I believe we are all capable of evolving new 'orientations' through genuine open mindedness and experience, albeit most of us unfortunately have no interest in doing so.)

>> ^quantumushroom:

1) I don't give a crap that he's half-Black. I'm more concerned about his lack of qualifications for the Office, bowing to dictators, high unemployment, high gas prices, etc. Your Emperor wears no clothes.
2) Since I'm a Jew by blood, I'll have to get back to you on that.
3) Rapists should be put to death. Find me a liberal who will state the same. If you can.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.
Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?



Hey QM,

Rapists SHOULD be put to death.

Now what?

>> ^quantumushroom:
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?
[snip]
Then do you support polygamy?


[edited because I originally missed your first paragraph]

If you quote or @name me, you've got a better chance of me getting back to you. I only saw this by accident.

But to answer your questions, I like the idea of a flat income tax or none at all. I'd rather see gigantic sales tax, and other consumption taxes, than the convoluted mess that is the income tax system.

I've said on several occasions that, although I have no interest in owning a gun, I support gun ownership. I don't think the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own firearms outside of organized militias, but I support that right either way. I'm not against a certain level of regulation, however.

And finally, yes, I support polygamy; and for the same reasons that I support gay marriage: because I don't believe the government has any place telling consenting adults what they can do with each other. Polygamy is illegal because it "leads to" spousal abuse, just like pot is illegal because it "leads to" gang violence.

You seem to still be under the insane notion that I'm a liberal. Is it because I call you out on your pseudo-conservative nonsense?

The tax code needs to be reworked to address how two people can basically incorporate in a special way wit the govt, and benefit, while > 2 is not allowed.

There should be no limit because there should be no laws about marraige, period.

You shouldn't get tax status changes for something only you can do, by default, while denying others rights, especially when the historical attempt is to make the most fair system possible for people who have no choice living together (society).

clearly the argument is so convoluted when the victory is allowing ANOTHER set of TWO to have rights.

Just like letting gays serve in the military. Whoo hoo. I'd rather not have war.

Idiocy.

QM,
To answer a few points of yours.

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I do not judge an idea's worth by its age. I determine its worth by rational thought. If you want to just be opposed to every new idea just because its new, and freeze your brain in the now, go ahead, but it's rationally absurd. The founding fathers you worship were considered RADICALS in their day by conventional thought. Some new ideas are good ideas. It makes no sense to say one idea is better because it's been around longer. If that were true, the world is flat instead of round.

I'm tired of conservatives acting as if the "will of the people" solely determines what is right and wrong, what should be legal and what shouldn't be. The founding fathers themselves did not believe in mob rule, never did. Legal implications of court decisions don't mean "legislating from the bench" automatically every time. Constitutional review was established for a reason. What do you want - courts to be completely neutered?!

The entire idea of inalienable rights implies that we, as a society, do NOT try to impose a unified moral code on everyone forcibly by law. We forcibly impose everyone to respect the rights of others. That's the entire point of a right. The US has never, EVER, had a unifying moral code. Most of us do share some of the same values, but those are generally vague, and when they conflict, people generally disagree about they believe is right or wrong. The point is the gov'ts job is not to impose the specific answers. Our gov't exists to solely protect rights, and to preserve a healthy society for everyone. That would include things like "you can't dump toxic sludge into land that you even own" kinds of questions.

To say that gay people cause more health problems is preposterous. So now we're gonna legislate that people can't have sex before marriage, or have unprotected sex?! It's ridiculous. You know what the unforeseen consequence is of gays being allowed to marry? More people who are gay will be honest about it, and have a chance at a happy existence instead of living a repressed miserable life. For states that allow gay marriage now, I haven't seen any significant unforeseen issue that has arisen they have to deal with. To suggest that infant mortality will rise, or suicide rates will mysteriously surge because gay marriage is now legal is absolutely preposterous.

Most families are composed of one main racial color. Does that mean interracial marriages are immoral? Most families believe in some religion. Does that make atheism immoral? Does that make the world's most predominant religion the only true one? Of course not.

And one last point - the 3% of the population is not telling the other 97% how they must define marriage. A bigoted portion of the 97% is imposing their definition of marriage on the 3% for no reason other than "we don't like your definition - we don't have a single rational reason that doesn't involve religion, which can't be used as a reason because of the 1st Amendment". If you think marrying someone from the same sex is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same sex.

I think Satanism is wrong, but I'm not out there trying to stop Satanists from worshiping. It's ridiculous!

@heropsycho

That was one of the most patient and well thought-out responses I've seen on the Sift in a long time. Kudos to you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Agreed, and really happy with the dicussion for this thread in general.
>> ^SDGundamX:

@heropsycho
That was one of the most patient and well thought-out responses I've seen on the Sift in a long time. Kudos to you.

>> ^LarsaruS:

Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.


As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.

"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?


I wholeheartedly support consensual polygamy (i.e. outside of the context of cults that indoctrinate children and coerce behavior).

>> ^jwray:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.


Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.

I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.

If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.

(Hear me out before you give me the QM treatment.)

Sex is personal, and none of government's business. But this amendment wouldn't make any kind of sex illegal, so that point is moot.

Marriage is a public, socially and legally recognized contract, and inasmuch as the government has the right to determine that marriage is not a union between a man and four women, nor between a man and a dog, nor between a man and a child, nor between a man and a non-consenting woman (which I think we mostly agree the government can do), it also has the right to determine that it's only between one man and one woman.

That said, I think the only reason to do so would be religious and to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

The only thing I didn't like about this guy was that he suggested it just might be possible that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, that people don't just take up gayness like they take up skateboarding.

>> ^messenger:

The only thing I didn't like about this guy was that he suggested it just might be possible that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, that people don't just take up gayness like they take up skateboarding.

Wait, there are a lot of double negatives there. Are you saying you think it is a lifestyle choice, or that you think it isn't?

I'm saying it's not a choice at all -- who the hell would choose so much exclusion and persecution? I'm disappointed this guy even suggested that it was anything but 100% natural.

Or maybe it's the case that in an environment where to question anything in the bible directly is political suicide, he's using indirect language to say what he's not saying in words.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^messenger:
The only thing I didn't like about this guy was that he suggested it just might be possible that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, that people don't just take up gayness like they take up skateboarding.

Wait, there are a lot of double negatives there. Are you saying you think it is a lifestyle choice, or that you think it isn't?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^silvercord:
The argument completely flies in the face of evolution.

Which one? The one where evolution tries everything, even things that can't procreate? Or evolution made them, so it must be right? Or it doesn't matter if it is natural or not, I can't masturbate to it (or only half of it)?


The one where God dictates who is here on earth. I heard him say, that "'sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God,' and I think that's true." That was what Simon is talking about, wasn't it; that there is a God and he decides who he wants here?

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.

Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.
I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.
If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.


It's not circular reasoning. It's redundant explanation of an axiom (one of many).

Not every action that harms others without their consent is immoral or should be illegal:

1. Train is about to hit 10 people, but you can pull a lever that will make it go on a different track and hit 1 person instead.
2. You run a business. You have underperforming employee. You fire underperforming employee.
3. Some instances of self defense.

Don't let the bronze-age-myth fools soil the name of morality so thoroughly that you stop bothering to use the word except mockingly.

>> ^messenger:

I'm saying it's not a choice at all -- who the hell would choose so much exclusion and persecution? I'm disappointed this guy even suggested that it was anything but 100% natural.
Or maybe it's the case that in an environment where to question anything in the bible directly is political suicide, he's using indirect language to say what he's not saying in words.
Not every gay person's life is a tale of woe, exclusion and persecution. In my experience, this comes as a surprise to many straight liberals.

Are you looking for straight liberals to bash or something? It's uncontroversial that most gays suffer some exclusion and persecution due to being gay. "Tale of woe" came from your own head, not mine.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^messenger:
I'm saying it's not a choice at all -- who the hell would choose so much exclusion and persecution? I'm disappointed this guy even suggested that it was anything but 100% natural.
Or maybe it's the case that in an environment where to question anything in the bible directly is political suicide, he's using indirect language to say what he's not saying in words.
Not every gay person's life is a tale of woe, exclusion and persecution. In my experience, this comes as a surprise to many straight liberals.