Talking about comic books, TV shows, movies, sports, and the numerous other pastimes that make us Gentlemen of Leisure.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Dr. Bitz's Man Meat

So, Proposition 8 passed in California. Similar votes throughout American States also passed to ban Gay Marriage. And this personally sickens me. I defy anybody to give me a legitimate reason that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be considered married in the eyes of the law. Oh, and 'because God said so' doesn't cut it.
But if you're really interested in how I feel, for the most part, then listen to Keith Olbermann on the left.
Anyway, as a really lame act of solidarity for 'those who play for the other team', I will now give everyone my long awaited(?) list of dudes that may make me take a few at-bats for 'the other team' if given the chance.

Before we get started, despite me saying that if I was any more pro-gay I'd be gay myself, I'm actually the straightest person I know. Dudes just don't do it for me. Why do you think I like lesbian porn so much? Regular porn has too much penis for my liking...which is to say ANY penis.
Although I will admit this. When I was in High School and I was striking out with the ladies left and right, I started to wonder if I was gay and didn't know it. Maybe I should've just tried to be gay in order to see some semblance of 'action.' But, in the end, three facts remained convincing me that I just can't be gay. I'm too messy, dress like a slob, and have a hemorrhoid problem. It just would never work.
However, if I had to make it work, these are the top 5 guys I'd try and make it work with.

John Cusack: I always go for the girl-next-door look. So I guess he would be the boy-next-door. But hey, he's got boyish good looks and can be charmingly befuddled. I also imagine him to have a soft touch. How can you not dig the Cusack?
And yes, I would at some point force him to stand outside my window with a boombox blaring Peter Gabriel's 'In Your Eyes.'

Sean Connery: Yeah, he's old and I don't even want to imagine how far his balls droop, but there's something intriguing about getting worked over by the Man's Man. If Sean Connery gave it to me good, I doubt I'd refer to it as making love, getting it on, or making whoopee...I'd refer to it as a conquest. The adventure of a to speak.
Also, I'd imagine that while penetrating me Sean Connery would scream "Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky!!!" and that would be worth it alone.

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson: This guy is one of the most charismatic people I know. I shudder to think what this man could convince me to do with just a smile and a raise of the eyebrow. I also shudder to think what this man's half-Black ethnicity would do to my hemorrhoid problem...

Adam Carolla: He's a bit hairy for my liking, but I think he'd make up for it in personality. I believe that post-coitus Adam Carolla would bring humor and levity to the situation. So after being violated I'd be smiling instead of crying in the fetal position fully clothed in the shower.

Ichiro Suzuki: One of the only men in the world who, if I hooked up with, I feel like I'd have a decent chance at being the pitcher. Just look at his stance at the plate. He's like a delicate ballerina. Here's how I imagine my life with Ichiro would go:
We'd live in a quaint little home with a white picket fence. I'd come home after a hard day of work and Ichiro would be tending to the supper while wearing a pink apron with white fringe.
I would plop down on the couch with a grunt and turn on the baseball game. Ichiro would pull himself away from the supper long enough to offer me a beer. I'd accept with a nod and a faint smile and he'd go back to the kitchen.
Ichiro would secretly glare at me as I yell some uneducated comment at the TV. I'd scream something like, "How can you swing at a pitch like THAT!?" Ichiro would know exactly how you can 'swing at a pitch like that' for he has forgotten more about baseball than I'll ever know. And at that point another piece of him would die inside.
Thus, the tragic cycle of the internal battle between love and hate continues...ummm...what was I talking about again?

Honorable Mention: Toby Maguire, Barak Obama, Jamie Lee Curtis, George W. Bush


  1. Cheers~

    It took me about 2 minutes to get through Sean Connery. I was laughing too hard.

    Well played, herr docktor.

  2. Indeed, well worth the wait. I'd watch a sitcom featuring your relationship with Ichiro.

    I also like that "Jamie Lee Curtis" is one of your honorable mentions.

  3. Well, although I'm not all that attracted to Jamie Lee Curtis, I figure he has the added benefit of having a vagina.
    So for me, the gay sex could more easily simulate straight sex.

  4. So I just finished watching the Olbermann clip on the side of the blog and of course I have some questions.

    Anyone who has read my book, A BOOK CALLED LIFE - Containing the Answers to the Meaning of Life, should know where I stand on the whole Gay Issue.

    Keith seemed to be saying that it all comes down to love and those who voted against gay marriage are denying love from those who want to engage in it.

    My question to those who support gay marriage is should a Mother be allowed to marry her son? How about two brothers marrying each other? A grandfather and his grandaughter?

  5. Well, those are interesting questions you bring up.
    First of all, as far the grandfather/granddaughter and mother and son thing, I'll say this first.
    I guess the ages we're talking about would come into question, however, I believe there are laws against, say, a psychiatrist or doctor having sex with their patient.
    The reason would be because the doctor is in a position of authority and may easily manipulate their patient into having agreeing to have sex. You could argue simliar things for a mother and a son or grandfather and granddaughter.
    Secondly, I believe that there is an issue with the offspring having a greater chance of physical or mental disabilities. So that would have to be looked at.
    As far as two brothers go, I will say a huge part of me finds it...icky and unsettling. But at the end of the day, they are both adults and if they truly want to be married to eachother in a legal sense, who am I to stop that?
    It really won't effect me or society as a whole.
    However, if America allowed brotherly marriage I doubt that it would be all the rage.
    But, at the end of the day, we're ignoring the issue at hand. We're not talking about incestial marriage. We're talking about gay marriage. And the real question is, what do you have against it in the legal sense? Is it just that you fear gay marriage would lead to legal incestial marriage? Because that's a horrible argument. Or do you have some other argument against it?

  6. Oh, and another thing. First of all, if sibling marriage is involved, I would only allow same sex sibling marriage and they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.
    You can not let kids come into the equation because the people in question have already shown that they know no family sexual bondaries. Therefore, they cannot be trusted with kids in their own family.
    But I feel a bit ridiculous arguing this stuff. Like I'm saying, there are arguments for why family members shouldn't marry eachother, especially when kids are involved.
    What is your argument against gay marriage?

  7. There was a really great documentary on BBC American about siblings being in love and "Genetic Sexual Attraction" or GSA (i can't remember what it was called, but Sarah might). I highly recommend you check it out if there's going to be a discussion about incestual relationships.

  8. This may get confusing since I’m going to try to reply to each point in the order you expressed it.

    I believe you said that grandparents and parents should not be allowed to marry/ have sex with their children or grandchildren simply because they are older and could be “manipulating” the younger people. So does this mean only older people are able to manipulate younger people? Can’t a younger guy/girl manipulate an older girl/guy into having sex/marrying him?

    The second reason close relatives shouldn’t be able to marry/get freaky in your opinion is because their genes could combine to form a child with a mental disability or deformity. This brings me to the main reason I am against Homosexual activity.

    Sex, boiled down to its core, is for reproductive purposes.

    Whereas fallacio and cunnilingus may be highly pleasurable, the organs involved were not designed to interact in such ways, just as a penis wasn’t designed to enter anyone’s (or anything’s . . . poor chickens) anal cavity.

    Does this mean people aren’t going to engage in such acts? No, of course not. The human mind has a very powerful imagination and is blessed with an overabundance of creativity. Google the words “sex” and any other random word and you’ll probably find a website devoted to something you’ve never imaged. I do believe it was Jeffrey Dahmer who drilled holes in his victim’s skulls and planted his seed, so to speak.

    Your initial reaction to the scenarios I questioned you on was an inbred knowledge that what I was suggesting was wrong. The human mind has a little voice that habitually chimes in with guilt and foreboding whenever we know or think we have done or will do something we aren’t supposed to be doing. Silencing this voice is not impossible. Millions of people convince themselves every day they are doing nothing wrong and justify seemingly horrendous acts in ways others can’t comprehend.

    You did have the argument that two adult brothers should be able to marry because “who am I to stop them?”

    That’s my problem with the extreme “liberal” mindset. They want equal rights and opportunities for all and have the mindset of do whatever you want as long as no one gets hurt. Stealing doesn’t hurt anyone, especially if you do it from a multi-billionaire who can afford to have several thousands of dollars taken from him. Does that mean stealing isn’t wrong in that circumstance?

    The world today has been trying to convince us that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior because “they are two adults who love each other and they aren’t hurting anyone.”

    My main points against this would be –
    1 – Right and wrong cannot be determined by the “did anyone get hurt” litmus test.

    2 – Anyone with a splotch of common sense can determine how something (especially an organ of the human body) is to be used. Penises and vaginas are for sexual reproduction.

    3 – Just because you love someone or have thoughts doesn’t mean you have to act upon them.

    My third point is vital. We all have thoughts that pass through our minds virtually from nowhere. These thoughts may be good or bad, healthy or darn out fervently twisted and repulsive. There are those people who act upon their fervently twisted and repulsive thoughts and then try to justify them to themselves and others. Lying, cheating, raping, murdering, backstabbing, littering, vandalizing, sabotaging, etc . . . are all repulsive acts yet everyday they are committed.

    It’s pretty easy to recognize the acts I listed as wrong but there are those people who feel there’s nothing wrong with lying to someone, or cheating on a test or spouse, or raping their daughter, or murdering their enemy, etc . . .

    This is the same thing that has been happening to homosexuality. People convince themselves there’s nothing wrong with it even though in our hearts we know male and females of the human race exist for one boiled down purpose – procreation. To pervert that is blatantly wrong.

    It’s pretty common for family members to love each other. My whole point of the incestual scenarios was to show that just because you love someone doesn’t mean you should be having sex with them. This seems to be the main argument spouted for homosexual behavior. They love each other so leave them alone.

  9. First of all, my granddaughter/grandfather discussion, it's not aged based. (Provided the people in question are of age.)
    The reason against it would be the idea that the grandfather is in a position of psychological authority. Much like a psychiatrist and their patient.

    All right. Let me respond to your points.

    1 – Right and wrong cannot be determined by the “did anyone get hurt” litmus test.

    Sure, right and wrong shouldn't be based on "did anyone get hurt". But we're not talking about whether gay sex is right or wrong. Morals shouldn't be the sole basis of legislation.
    Morals can change from person to person. And if churches want to believe homosexuals are going to hell and refuse to acknowledge their marriage in the religous sense, that's the church's decision.
    The idea that laws are a moral authority is flat out false. Legality does not imply morality. The fact is, laws are suppose to keep people from hurting eachother and keep people's individual rights from being infringed up one. Laws have to be based on someone being hurt, or the government will break down. The justification for a law can't simply be, "it's immoral."
    If I cheat on my wife, should I be arrested or fined?
    The church I grew up in thinks whacking off is immoral. Considering the number of times I've done it, should I get the death penalty?
    And the notion that stealing from a multi-billion dollar corparation doesn't hurt anyone is false. The multi-billion dollar corporation got hurt. And the corporation may not have been hurt a lot, but stealing is stealing and it did infringe upon the rights of the corporation.

    2 – Anyone with a splotch of common sense can determine how something (especially an organ of the human body) is to be used. Penises and vaginas are for sexual reproduction.

    So you seem to be saying that marriage should strictly be for reproduction. Are you saying that if a man and a woman decide not to have children and plan to use birth control throughout their marriage and may even go so far as to get a vesectemy, they should not be allowed to get married?
    What if a man is, for some reason, born sterile? Should he be denied the right to marry?

    3 – Just because you love someone or have thoughts doesn’t mean you have to act upon them.

    I agree, you don't have to act on them. But then again, I don't want the government legislating my sex life (as long as its between consenting adults). And marriage is a natural extension of that person's sex life.

    Basically, all I'm hearing from you is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because gay sex is immoral. And I say that a government can't act or have laws based on morals alone. "Morals" are too subjective. There has to be an element of individual rights being infringed upon for a law to be valid, in my mind.
    You find me a law that is strictly based on someone's moral code and not on protecting someone's rights then I'll find you a law that shouldn't exist.

  10. Someone on this blog stated before that morality wasn’t exclusive for religious people. I made a point in my previous arguments to keep God and religion out of the discussion and I’ll attempt to continue to do so.

    I’m not following the psychological authority standpoint. There are things that are simply wrong. I common consensus would be my examples of siblings or close relatives engaging in inappropriate behavior. If your only argument against it is because one of the people has a dominating personality, that makes me extremely worried. Even you would have to admit theirs more to it, something possibly called morality.

    Speaking of common consensus, 50 years ago homosexuality was frowned on by the majority. Recently that has changed as people become desensitized and bombarded with the gay agenda, just as violence and other sexual acts have become more mainstream. As I stated before the most used argument for this is let people do whatever they want and don’t infringe on their rights.

    As to the best of my knowledge, the laws that were passed simply define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. A lot of people attempt to distort the constitution and the laws begat by it. The whole system of amendments was put in place because the founding fathers were wise enough to realize they didn’t know everything and their document wasn’t perfect. Unfortunately, many people think that the amendments have made it perfect. I sorely disagree.

    Freedom of speak is a wonderful thing. Does that mean it’s right to have an emotional outburst at someone else and belittle them or use vulgar language at them? Of course not. You’re most likely hurting them emotionally and most times it’s highly undeserved. However, they have the right to do so under our constitution. Human nature makes it impossible to make everyone happy because people are going to do what they want to do.

    We all do immoral acts. Your argument that morals vary from person to person is true but there is an underlying acceptance throughout the history of mankind of what is morally right and wrong. Religious views, no matter what creed or denomination, and the laws of most governments are based upon this underlying viewpoint.

    I never said marriage should be strictly for reproduction. I said sex boiled down to its basics is for procreation. Pleasure is an added bonus. This is what I base my viewpoint on concerning homosexual relations. I have a very mathematical mind and that equation is plan as day to me. A(man) + B(woman)=C(baby). Therefore A+A=C is wrong as is B+B=C when everyone knows A and B are different.

    My common sense has shown me that homosexuality is not a natural act.

    You mentioned masturbation. The juices coming out of you are filled with little squiggly proteins that are encoded to pass your genes down to create another life. Are you using your sperm in the way they are intended? Of course not. Therefore they are being used incorrectly. Do I masturbate? Hell yeah. Am I using my body as intended? Hell no.
    Should the government make it more accessible for you and I to masturbate whenever and wherever we please? Should the government teach our children how to masturbate because it is everyone’s right to do what they please? Should your congressmen come over to your house and witness you masturbating? (okay. I’m starting to lose focus . . . )

    How do you determine if something is morally right or wrong?

    I know what your saying with let people do what they want and for the most part I agree. If someone wants to lie, they’re going to do it. I have no authority to prevent them from doing so, nor would I want that authority. However, I do NOT have to condone their actions nor should I.

    Allowing gay marriage is CONDONING their actions.

    The family structure exists in order to procreate, protect and nourish. Marriage is the means by which a family is created and continued. Using the example of people who cannot have children or choose not to is a blatant distortion of the family structure used by people attempting to get what they want. There is no moral code that says you must procreate. This argument by the advocates of gay marriage is like saying Betsy is a cow. Betsy is brown. All cows are brown. It doesn’t work like that.

    I’m not aware of any culture in the history of mankind that allowed homosexuals to marry. If it’s never been allowed before, how are their rights being infringed?

  11. I missed a point.

    You concede that stealing is stealing and its wrong and it infringes on the rights of the corporation.

    Corporations being considered a “person” under law is one of the distortions we have allowed in our laws and government but I won’t go it to that aspect right now.

    My point was they won’t miss it. If you lost a penny or if someone took a penny from you would you go out of your way to recover it and demand retribution?

    Are you really being hurt? Have your rights been infringed?

    Stealing is the easiest example of morally wrong.

    Laws have been legislated throughout history to prevent this morally wrong act from happening.

    Are people still going to steal? Sure. Maybe they are stealing in order to eat and survive and continue to live life in liberty. Aren’t we infringing on their rights to live if we punish them for stealing. Should we condone their actions in such a case?

  12. "If your only argument against it [incest] is because one of the people has a dominating personality, that makes me extremely worried. Even you would have to admit theirs more to it, something possibly called morality."

    No, first of all, you're forgetting my argument that marriage between the two would also be troublesome due to the kids that may possibly get involved. But more imporantly, I wouldn't say that those would be my only PERSONAL arguments against incestious marriage, I am saying those would be my only LEGAL arguments for why it should be illegal.

    "I never said marriage should be strictly for reproduction. I said sex boiled down to its basics is for procreation. Pleasure is an added bonus. This is what I base my viewpoint on concerning homosexual relations. I have a very mathematical mind and that equation is plan as day to me. A(man) + B(woman)=C(baby). Therefore A+A=C is wrong as is B+B=C when everyone knows A and B are different."

    First of all, that whole argument confuses me. You say that marriage shouldn't be strictly for reproduction, but then you say gay marriage is wrong because reproduction can't happen. Huh? Why is gay marriage different than the marriage of my wife and I, who aren't planning on having a baby, having plenty of sex?

    "Allowing gay marriage is CONDONING their actions."

    So whatever the Government allows to occur is considered condoning? If I was a neo-Nazi and I wrote a book on how great Nazis are, the government would give me a copyright on it. I'd be allowed to publish it, it would probably end up on in the Library of Congress. Any money I made on the book would be taxed. Does that mean the government condones being a Nazi?
    If I'm a Muslim, and I get married in a Muslim ceremony, does that mean the government is condoning being a muslim? I know some Christians that would have a problem with that.
    If a guy and a girl are get married, but are also telling everybody that there marriage is going to be 'an open one' to anybody and everybody who asks, does that mean the government is condoning 'open' marriages?
    The fact is the Government isn't conding or encouraging, it's just allowing people to have tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. The calls those rights "marriage" and it's strictly legal paperwork as far as the government is concerned. I'm not saying marriage can't be much more in a spiritual sense, but we're talking legalities here. And I don't see why gays being allowed marraige in the eyes of the law is a big deal. I put homoesexuality akin to someone having a different religion than me.

    "If you lost a penny or if someone took a penny from you would you go out of your way to recover it and demand retribution?
    Are you really being hurt? Have your rights been infringed?
    Stealing is the easiest example of morally wrong."

    Sure, I already said that stealing is morally wrong. But we're not talking about morals, we're talking about laws. And laws also deal with ownership. And I owned the penny and had a right to the penny. If someone stole it from, my right to ownership of that penny was lost illegally. Therefore, I have ground to take that person to court. Like most government laws, this was based on individual rights, not morals.

    "Are people still going to steal? Sure. Maybe they are stealing in order to eat and survive and continue to live life in liberty. Aren’t we infringing on their rights to live if we punish them for stealing. Should we condone their actions in such a case?"

    Is it right to steal bread for your starving family? That's one of the wishy washy moral quandries that has two sides. Just one more reason laws shouldn't be strictly based on morals. They're too subjective. Laws should be more concrete. Of course, now we're getting into the nature of criminal law, which is a bit off topic.

    Oh, and arguing what's natural or not is pointless. You can go down two roads, either everything humans do is natural because they themselves are a part of nature, or humans have gone so far beyond what's 'natural' (with TVs, computers, cell phones, indoor plumbing, motorized vehicle, etc.) that it's not even worth discussing anymore.

    I'd also like to note that my tour guide on my Hawaiian honeymoon noted that in Hawaiian culture, homosexuality wasn't frowned upon. They felt they were good for staying home and protecting the women-folk when the heterosexual men went out to war.

    Anyway, the bottom line is that marriage, in the legal aspect, is the joining of two people's assets, among other boring stuff. And I just don't see why people get so upset about gay marriage in the legal aspect. The only arguments I've heard about why the goverment should ban gay marriages is 1) It's just...wrong. (Which is the same argument people used against interracial marriages) and 2) They can't procreate. (Which to me would mean any heterosexual couple who either plan to not have children or simply can't shouldn't be allowed to be married either.)
    I'm not arguing the morality of gay marriage, I'm arguing the legality. And when government policies are strictly based off certain people's moral code it can lead down a bad road.

  13. Bravo Bitz. You truly deserve the title Doctor.

    And yes, GSA = Genetic Sexual Attraction - in adult siblings who were not raised together - upon meeting one or both siblings experience an intense sexual attraction to their genetic siblings - it happened over 50% of the time which would make it much more commonplace than anyone would realize.


  14. The point of difference, I think, boils down to whether or not you think that laws should reflect morality, be it of a specific religion, or as boots~ argues, an uncategorized and universal "it's just wrong" morality.

    This is not to say that some our current laws DON'T reflect morality; they certainly do. But that doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD.

    Look, theoretically, I can believe homosexuality is immoral. I can believe that all gays are banned to Hell for their sinful ways. I can belong to a church that won't allow homosexuals to worship and I can flick holy water on them as they try to enter that church. And boy howdy, they had better believe they won't be allowed to marry one another in that church. Because it is immoral.

    At the same time, I can believe homosexuals should have the same rights in the eyes of the law as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage because the government is not my church, and its laws do not (or at least, should not) reflect my morality and the morality of my church. If some of those laws do, as they inevitably will, so be it.

    Bottom line: Morals are not the same as laws. Sometimes they intersect, but a law doesn't HAVE to be moral. The concept of "double jeopardy," for example, could certainly be considered immoral in some circumstances. Is it a crime to steal a loaf of bread? Yes. Is it a crime to steal a loaf of bread for your starving family from a man who won't miss it? Yes.

    We can debate whether or not that second instance is morally right or wrong, but in the eyes of the law, its a crime.

    I have heard plenty of arguments from plenty of people about why homosexuality is immoral/wrong: it's not "natural", the Bible says so, the butt is not an entrance, it doesn't result in reproduction, its just as immoral as other things that don't have as strong a lobby or agenda, etc. If we were debating the MORALITY of gay marriage, these could all be fine arguments.

    But we're arguing the LEGALITY of gay marriage, not the MORALITY. If someone wants to argue there shouldn't be a difference between laws and morals, fine, but that's a different argument. What is the LEGAL reason homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry?

    Everything I've ever heard essentially boils down to "because I and a seemingly vast majority of people believe it to be morally wrong" but the government and its laws don't (or at least, shouldn't) care about what 1 or several millions of other people believe to be morally right or wrong.

    Besides, if one truly believes that homosexuality is immoral, then all those gays will ultimately be judged accordingly by a power higher than any man made law. Meanwhile, on this plain of existence, what or whom does it hurt, legally, to give homosexuals the same LEGAL right to marriage as heterosexuals?

  15. This seems to be wrapping up so we can go back to talking about comics and such.

    My main question is how do you determine your morality?

    With the talk of GSA it seems some people are saying, “Science has found a link in how people react to others so if these people follow through on their thoughts there’s nothing “wrong” with it. They were born that way.

    I have the thought that I want to have sex with a baby. It’s in my mind, passed down through my genes, so I’m justified to do it.

    I have the thought that I want to run through a supermarket naked.

    I have the thought I want to yell at someone across the street for ten minutes as loud as I can.

    Some people may think these actions are “inappropriate”. Others might think they should be allowed to do whatever they want. They have freedom of speech and expression.

    Our society has truly dropped down a level as to what is appropriate and what is not. More questionable actions are allowed than ever before in the USA.

    Rome and Greece were two of the greatest empires that every existed but each of them slowly degenerated into nothingness. Following the history leads one to see the main cause was a drop in morality.

    Morality is not something that can be ignored. It’s impossible to take any subject and truly give it a fair shake without taking hundreds of factors into consideration.

    Laws would not exist without morality being considered. SHOULD they reflect morality? Yes. There IS nothing else to base them on. The problem (one which we are having in this discussion) is getting people to agree on what is morally right or wrong. That is my entire argument. How do you determine morality?

    How do you determine if someone’s rights are being infringed? How do you determine if a law is just? How do you know if hurting someone is bad?

    Morality isn’t something that should be turned off and on however unfortunately we are all guilty of doing so.

    “What is the LEGAL reason homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry?” is a trick question because it doesn’t have an answer without taking into account morality.

    Take other somewhat similar question –

    “What is the LEGAL reason Farmer Bob shouldn’t be allowed to let a horse sodomize him?”

    “What is the LEGAL reason I shouldn’t be allowed to urinate on the street while stuck in traffic?”

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t lie under oath in a courtroom?”

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t carry a bazooka around my neighborhood?”

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t sleep in the middle of the public library?”

    Your answers to any of these questions cannot be justified without taking morality into account.

    My closing statement and thought is everyone on this earth needs to truly think what their morals are and how they have decided upon them. It’s become common practice to try to get what you think you want and need without taking others into consideration.

    “Gay marriage is being fought so people can have tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. They call those rights "marriage" and it's strictly legal paperwork as far as the government is concerned.”

    The government is supposed to listen to the will of the people. The will of the people thus far is to uphold marriage as a “sacred institution”. The same will of the people also says we’re going to shit on this “sacred institution” by treating marriage like it’s meaningless. Divorce rates are skyrocketing. Marriages are started and ended on whims. People are using marriages to get money or favors or other selfish desires.

    Human nature is flawed. We all make mistakes and wrong others.

    I have no problem with giving someone hospital visitation rights. I have no problem with someone giving their inheritance to whomever they choose. These rights are not “marriage”.

    This is a link to the LEGAL definition of marriage.

    The dictionary defines marriage as - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

    Gay marriage is attempting to rewrite both of these definitions. Thus the controversy.

    There are ways to give homosexuals what they want without changing the common consensus we all have been living with for thousands of years.

  16. “What is the LEGAL reason Farmer Bob shouldn’t be allowed to let a horse sodomize him?”

    As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be a law against this. I think it's gross, but if Farmer Bob wants to get schtupped by a horse in the privacy of his own home, more power to him. Doesn't change my life at all.

    Of course, one could argue the law is in place to protect the horse, which lacks the intelligence and/or capability to communicate to agree or disagree to participate in such acts, and thus the law is in place to protect the rights of the horse.

    “What is the LEGAL reason I shouldn’t be allowed to urinate on the street while stuck in traffic?”

    Public sanitation concerns. Everyone pissing in the streets would lead to dirty water and disease. Though some would say the law is in place because prudes don't want to see your wiener. But that doesn't bother me, so I support such a law for the first reason.

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t lie under oath in a courtroom?”

    To do so would undermine our entire judicial system. Because lawmakers know many people could care less about that, especially if lying was in their own best interests, they passed laws establishing a punishment to help prevent people from doing so.

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t carry a bazooka around my neighborhood?”

    Because the likelihood of you blowing up your neighbors is greater with a bazooka than without, and getting blown up is seen as an infringement on people's rights.

    “What is the LEGAL reason I can’t sleep in the middle of the public library?”

    You sawing logs in the reference section prevents other people from using the library to the extent to which it was designed.

    Your answers to any of these questions cannot be justified without taking morality into account.

    Yes, they can. I just did.

    It seems, however, that we all inadvertently agree that there is no legal argument against homosexuality; one side, because they believe the morality of homosexuality has no bearing on its legality, the other side, because they believe morality cannot be separated from legality, and their morality tells them Gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be condoned by the government.

    So we agree to disagree, in a way, I guess.

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure marauding Goths had something to do with the fall of Rome. Though by modern standards, they were some of the most immoral people around, so I guess bad morals did contribute to the fall of Rome.

  17. Sorry to say but none of your answers ignore morality.

    In the case of the horse you’re assuming it’s immoral to have a horse do something it normally wouldn’t be in a position to do.

    In the case of the street urination you’re assuming it’s immoral to put others health at risk.

    In the courtroom you’re assuming it’s immoral to undermine our judicial system.

    In the bazooka incident you’re assuming it’s immoral to infringe on someone else’s rights or immoral to harm another person.

    In the library you’re assuming it’s immoral to disturb others or prevent them from peaceful study.

    The word “Immoral” could easily be swapped with “wrong” or “incorrect”.

    So, as stated, you can try to ignore or leave morality unrecognized but it’s still there and is the foundation of our entire lives and existence.

    Side note – Alaric and the Visigoths play a major role in one of my unfinished novels – TRUST – about a modern day teenage girl who knows TRUE MAGIC. True Magic is sort of like knowing how to play the accordion or program a computer, only thousands of times more difficult.

  18. Wow I don't check the blog for a few days and look what happens.

    Seems like it has mostly ran it's course though so I won't add my two cents here. If you want to discuss it with me you will have to do it in person. I will say that I fall more in line with the doctor and Treebore than boots~ though.

  19. I just saw one of the labels is "proposition hate". I think that is a common misconception.

    Much along the lines of the black person who claims "RACIST!!!" anytime you may question or critique them, those who feel people with my viewpoint are preaching out of hate are sorely mistaken.

    There are definitely those who act and react out of spite. I am not one of those people.

    I have friends who lie. I have friends who steal. I have friends who cheat are their wives. I have friends who are homosexual. I do not hate any of them. I may not approve of their actions, especially considering I am guilty of some of those acts and equally immoral ones.

    I think we all owe it to each other to figure out morality and attempt to follow it.

  20. Yeah, I feel like this argument is going in circles at this point. So I'll respond to a few points and then make a final point.

    "The government is supposed to listen to the will of the people. The will of the people thus far is to uphold marriage as a “sacred institution”. The same will of the people also says we’re going to shit on this “sacred institution” by treating marriage like it’s meaningless."

    That's a bit dangerous. If the will of the US Government blindly obeyed the will of the people, then African Americans may still be trying to get civil rights. Heck, I'd be scared what the will of the people would be regarding Muslim American Citizens after 9/11. That's a fallacy called appeal to the people. Which is to say, just because a majority of people believe something does not necessarily make it right. I'm not saying the US Government should ignore the will of the people, but sometimes going against the grain is necessary.

    As far as the legal definition of marriage is concerned, legal definitions are always subject to change. As Keith Olbermann pointed out, if marriage was not legally redefined, in many of the states Blacks could still not marry whites.
    Looking at a definition in the dictionary is dangerous too, because dictionary defintions change over time. A dictionary's definition is based on how people use a word, and if how people use a word changes over time then dictionaries will reflect this change. 100 years ago, if you looked up 'cool' in the diction you wouldn't find this defintion:
    a: very good : excellent
    And just for fun, I'll look up marriage, and I find this:
    1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    Hmmm...already the definition is already changing.

    Anyway, you're main point is that laws and morals cannot be separated. I beg to differ, but I suppose it depends on semantics. Let's look at an example of what I'm talking about.

    1. Stealing is morally wrong.
    2. Stealing is against the law.
    3. Stealing is not against the law because it is morally wrong.
    4. Stealing is against the law because our society cannot function without theft being punished. If stealing was legal, then people would be more obsessed with protecting their posessions than doing anything else. People would not work for things while you could just steal it. Not everyone would steal, but enough would to cause chaos. An individual's right to ownership is necessary for American society to succeed.

    So, let's look at gay marriage.

    1. Gay Marriage is morally wrong. (According to some, but for the sake of this excercise, let's accept this premise.)
    2. Gay Marriage is against the law.
    3. Gay Marriage is not against the law because it is morally wrong.
    4. Gay Marriage is against the law because...why?

    That's where things break down. I feel a government's role and its laws are to at least keep its society functioning and at most progress its society forward. I find the ban on gay marriage to do no such thing. I do not feel that society is benefiting from the ban of gay marriage.

    So, I do not buy that gay marriage should not be allowed by the government simply because it's considered 'immoral'. More argument is needed on its detriment to American Society. Or else you end up with arguments like this working:

    1. Lesbian Porn is morally wrong. (According to some, but for the sake of this excercise, let's accept this premise.)
    2. Lesbian Porn is not against the law.
    3. Lesbian Porn should be against the law because it is immoral.

    And if lesbian porn is banned by the US government...then I'm moving to Canada.

  21. I find both you, Dr.Bitz, and teebore highly intelligent. I'm sure in the measurable "IQ" testing you both are probably more intelligent than myself. Which is why I find it so frustrating that my main question has gone unanswered in this discussion -

    How do you determine your morality?

    Hopefully that gets answered somewhere down the line.

    Your semantics game looks very . . . what's the words . . . made up.

    Your fourth point for stealing is assuming and we all know what happens when we "ASSUME".

    Our society was founded on the exact opposite of your hypothesis. Ask the Native Americans and their virtual stance of anti-ownership.

  22. comments were tldr but the blog was hilarious. wow.

    let me just say I have had way too many conversations about incest over the past year. so not gonna get into that.

    also let me say that in Fable II, I have a sexy undead wife. And had four husbands. I sacrificed two.


  23. Both my husbands divorced me in Fable II for no apparent reason...

    As a woman, who still earns less than any man purely because i have a vagina, i just feel sad when i realize that we may be one of the greatest countries in the world, but apparently many of us still don't believe in equality.


  24. Well, first of all, one of the basis of our capatalist society is ownership. Thus, stealing circumvents that basis, thus, it is illegal in our society. You can call it moarals or anything else, the point is, stealing would cause a regression in this society.
    However, if you could come up with a logical argument as to how legalizing theft will be of benefit to our society as a whole, then perhaps stealing should be legal. But we're getting off topic.

    My point is, the argument that something should be illegal simply because it's immoral does not work for me. Which is why I haven't talked about where morality comes from, because I feel that is irrelevant to my argument.

    A law should prevent actions that are detrimental to society. Thus, if you believe something should be illegal, an argument should be attached to that statement as to why that something is detrimental to our society.

    And so far, the only detriment to society that I have heard about gay marriage is that it would hurt our society in a spiritual sense. And I don't believe it's the government's place to worry about our spirituality.

  25. I think Dr. Bitz said it best already, as to why we believe morality is irrelevant to this debate. It seems the issue, for all of us, boils down to whether or not morality plays a role in legality: Dr. Bitz and I believe it doesn't, boots~ believes it not only does but that its impossible to remove morality from legal concerns. So we meet at an impasse.

    But I certainly don't have a problem answering your question, for curiosity's sake.

    "How do you determine your morality?"

    What I believe to be moral and immoral is informed by a variety of different things, including my Lutheran-raised father, who earned a Law degree before spending most of his career in the corporate sector of the grocery industry, my Catholic-raised mother, who never finished college and was a "stay-at-home" mom before going to work at an elementary school library, my own experiences attending a variety of liberal (by Catholic standards) Catholic churches, including a few early years in a Catholic school, my formal confirmation as a Catholic under the auspices of my future mother-in-law, who was very much a non-literalist when it came to the bible and sponsored by a grandmother who has heard more church services in Latin than English, my formal education at a large suburban public high school in, generally, a politically moderate state wherein I was taught some evolution (we played around with fruit flies) but not much Darwin, as I recall (though really, I sucked at biology so I wasn't paying much attention) and also studied the King James Bible, and a moderately sized private Methodist university, the Berenstain Bears, my own reading of the New International Version of the Bible, as well as a variety of biblical and Christian commentaries, including the excellent "Don't Know Much About the Bible" by Kennth C. Davis and "God: A Biography" by Jack Miles, personal study of numerous other religions, including Greek, Roman and Norse mythology, Judaism, Islam, and a variety of Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism and Taoism, repeated viewings and loads of time spent analyzing and contemplating the Star Wars trilogy, a smattering of Western philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant, whose "categorical imperative" I find to be a much more appropriate and effective Golden Rule than Jesus's, numerous friends throughout the years whose personal beliefs and outlooks allow me to look at things in a different way, and of course, a large amount of time spent in prayer and personal reflection.

    So, I determine my morality by taking those experiences and studies into account as best I can, reflecting on them, and then I come to a conclusion as to whether or not I believe something is moral or immoral.

    Obviously, I'm not constantly doing that, but as new moral questions arise as I get older and encounter new experiences, and the world changes, I do my best to apply all of that when facing them, and as I learn and study new things and experiences, I sometimes apply that new information retroactively to old moral questions to see if the new info changes my morals at all.

    I hope that answers your question.

    PS Fable II?

  26. Fable II is the sequel to Fable, an action RPG video game for the X-Box where you can do all sorts of fantastical and non-fantastical things. Like killing minotaurs or starting your own shop.
    You can also get married to people in the game, either of the opposite sex or the same sex. You can be a polygamist also, because what a spouse in one town doesn't know about a spouse in another town won't hurt them.
    Of course, I have not played Fable II, so I may have gotten some of those things wrong.

  27. This all started from the Olberman video.

    He claims it's all about love.

    I'm saying just because you love someone doesn't mean it's right to follow through on that with sex.

    This is a moral argument.

    It's very odd that you keep on saying "LEGAL" and "detrimental to society" then at the same time say these topics have nothing to do with morality.

    Capitalism says we have the right to make as little or as much money as possible. The government will, for the most part, not intervene or influence our right to earn.

    If someone steals from somewhere else, then the government steps in. Why? Because society and order are crumbling by this act and soon our whole system will collapse into nothingness?

    No, of course.

    The government steps in because someone has "WRONGED" someone else.

    They know that one person was wronged because of the common sense morality that underlines every culture.

    I don't think I can make it any more clear.

    Laws/ rules are in place for the good of the people and to protect them from harm, physically and emotionally. They are also passed in order to set a guideline of practices to maintain order and a common practice.

    Laws are not perfection. Laws are not exclusively morally right or wrong. There are always gray areas.

    It is not, nor will it ever be, LEGAL in this country for everybody to marry whomever they choose.

    Therefore, "Marriage" is NOT an inalienable right.

    It's illegal for a mother to marry her son.

    It's illegal for brothers to marry.

    It's illegal for homosexuals to marry.


    Is it because society would crumble if any of these unions happened?

    No, of course not.

    Is it because it's not possible through science for these people to love each and have sex?

    No, of course not.

    Then why is it illegal?

    You can call it spirituality or morality or whatever you want. No matter what its called it's blatantly clear that it is there.

    That is why you CANNOT discuss this subject without recognizing it is a moral argument.

    That is why I keep asking how do you determine your morals. I'm trying to understand your justification to a view opposite of mine.

    Robert McNamara was the US Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. A few years back a documentary was done on him called THE FOG OF WAR(highly recommended). From his experience he lists off the lessons he's learned in life from war. Lesson #1 is EMPATHIZE WITH YOUR ENEMY.

    Now surely you, dr. bitz, are not my enemy (teebore is - I WILL KILL YOU!!!). But if we each recognize where the other party is coming from and empathize with them the chances of solving a dispute increase.

    Most people(including myself and the new president elect, Fraggle Barrack Hitler Hussein Your Mama Obama)have taken the stance of objecting to legalize gay marriage. Many people in this group, even though we may not agree with the morality of the situation, have empathized with the homosexual community and offered to put into LAW civil union legislature that would allow gay couples the rights they desire.

    Why? I feel it is not morally wrong for one person to love (in the greek "agape" unconditional sense) another person. Therefore, they should have the right to be there for each other no matter whatever situation arises. However, I'm still morally against homosexual "eros" (sexual or lustful) love.

    Marriage is a term that has a sexual connotation attached.

    Civil union may as well but doesn't need to be.

    Before anyone starts writing back with "Just because your married doesn't mean you'll be having sex" try to understand the point I'm making.

    I'm not even for civil unions because I am against the act of homosexuality. But as far as the law is concerned I believe that is the way we as a country will come to a compromise.

    Gay marriage is and always will be debated along with such controversial topics as capital punishment, abortion, gun control, etc. These are all MORAL arguments, no matter what side you are on.

    I believe it is a shame when people do not use the greatest tool at their disposal - their mind. Jumping to conclusions without studying and examining a topic thoroughly is a dangerous and sad practice. Unfortunately, many people are guilty of this (myself included even though I try not).

    Hopefully we can all listen to each other, talk things through in a civilized manner, and come to compromises without breaking the only law that truly matters - the MORAL LAW.

  28. And thank you, teebore, for answering my main question. Hopefully dr.bitz will as well.

  29. "If someone steals from somewhere else, then the government steps in. Why? Because society and order are crumbling by this act and soon our whole system will collapse into nothingness?

    No, of course not [sic].

    The government steps in because someone has "WRONGED" someone else."

    I agree that one act of theft will not singlehandedly result in the collapse of our society. But if the government doesn't step in and punish that one act, then others will perform that act again, and again, and without a punishment for stealing and the enforcement thereof, eventually, our society could very well collapse. That is why, ultimately, stealing is illegal.

    I don't think we can make that any more clear.

    "Laws are not perfection. Laws are not exclusively morally right or wrong. There are always gray areas."

    Agreed, 100%.

    "It's illegal for a mother to marry her son.

    It's illegal for brothers to marry.

    It's illegal for homosexuals to marry.


    Is it because society would crumble if any of these unions happened?

    No, of course not."


    "Is it because it's not possible through science for these people to love each and have sex?

    No, of course not."

    Agreed, again.

    "Then why is it illegal?"

    It shouldn't be. Period.

    None of those unions, in any form, are detrimental to our society on a macro (society immediately crumbles) or micro (if one instance isn't stopped, it could eventually lead to societal collapse) level.

    That's what we're arguing: that while all those things may or may not be immoral, society will not "crumble if any of these unions happened" and thus, the government should not stand in the way of them occurring. We believe the government is obligated to protect our society (as a whole and individually) from things that are detrimental to it and the government is not obligated to protect our society from immorality.

    I completely understand that you disagree with that.

    Your morals say that homosexuality is wrong; mine do not. But for me, that's a different debate, because I believe that morals have nothing to do with whether or not the government should stand in the way of legal marriage.

    You, however, believe it is not a different debate, that governmental law and moral law are one and the same, or should be. Again, I don't agree with you, but I see where you stand.

  30. "If someone steals from somewhere else, then the government steps in. Why? Because society and order are crumbling by this act and soon our whole system will collapse into nothingness?

    No, of course not[sic].

    The government steps in because someone has "WRONGED" someone else."

    I disagree. I believe that government should prevent stealing because it would be detrimental to society to allow theft and not because someone has been "WRONGED".
    People get "WRONGED" all the time and the government doesn't step in, nor should it.

    If I tell my wife I can't go to dinner with her family beause I'm sick, but after she leaves I go out and hang out with the guys I have just "WRONGED" my wife. I lied to her. But the government won't do anything about it.

    If I convince someone to donate $10 to a charity but really use it to buy a video game, I have just "WRONGED" that person. But in that instance it is illegal.

    Both are lying. But one instance is illagal and one instance is not. Because one has greater societal implications than the other.

    So I believe laws can and should be separated from morals. They are not just based on people being "WRONG" which is why I don't believe morals comes into this argument.

    But even if we go on the idea people being "WRONGED", I still do not understand whose being "WRONGED" by two homosexuals being married.

    I'll try and wrap this up because I'm getting long winded.

    One, Civil Unions are just another way of saying "Separate But Equal" which has proven in the past not to work.

    Secondly, I understand that you are saying laws and morality should reflect one another. This is your belief and I accept that.
    I believe that laws need to have a detachment from morals. Laws need more of an argument attached to them than simply saying "we shouldn't allow this because it's immoral". Because morals are too subjective from person to person.
    50 years ago some people were saying that it was immoral for black man to be with a white woman.

    Perhaps another way to look at it is that if we want to equate laws to morality, than I'll accept that. But the question should not be asked, "Where do we individually get our morality from", but we should be asking, "Where should the government get its morality from?"

  31. Once again, I'm sorry to say, but I am being mislabled.

    I do NOT believe governmental law and moral law SHOULD be the same.

    I am saying you cannot have the first ne without considering the other.

    If their was no governmental law against stealing are society could continue just fine.

    You both are assuming people follow the law.

    You both are also assuming order and harmony only exists because of ownership. This was my point with the Native Americans. They lived together for the most part in happiness with little system of ownership until our ancestors came over and claimed ownership to lands and such simply because we had a flag.

    People steal all of the time even though there are laws against it.

    People murder all of the time even though there are laws against it.

    Incest happens all of the time even though there are laws against it.

    All of these things happen and society continues.

    Saying something is detrimental to society or government is a MORAL argument.

    Your morals are telling you we need a system in place to maintain universal order and harmony.

    Laws are not telling you we need a system in place. Laws are the byproduct of morals.

    Both dr.bitz's and teebore's argument is akin to saying we want orange juice but we won't conceded that it comes from oranges.

  32. OK, let's assume this premise:
    "All government laws must have a basis in morality."

    But you have also conceded this premise:
    "Not all morals should be enforced by governmental laws."

    I assume you agree with those two statements?

    If so, we can move forward to deciding which morals should be enforced by the law.
    I believe the only immoral actions that should be prevented/enforced by the law are those immoral actions that are detrimental to our society.

    We seem to bring up stealing, a lot. I believe that legalizing theft would be detrimental to society.
    You seem to think society would be fine if theft was legal. However, since it is immoral you believe it should be illegal anyway.
    So we both agree that stealing should be illegal, we simply disagree on the reasons why it should be illegal.
    So I would say that if you could solidly convince me that legalizing theft would not be a detriment to our society in the least, then I would say that theft should be legal.

    So that's where I believe the government should come from. The government should prevent those immoral acts that are detrimental to society.

    Where do you believe the government should get its moral center from?

  33. Government is another name for people of authority. People of authority are put in place in the USA by a somewhat will of the majority. The system is designed to reflect the wants and desires of all its citizens. The problem is you can't get 2 people to completely agree on everything, never mind hundred of millions.

    So if government is a reflection of its people then morality in government would come from its people.

    People are morally corrupt. No matter how hard you try you will end up breaking some of your morals.

    A human defense mechanism to deal with the guilt of breaking our morals is to convince ourselves either we didn't do anything wrong, thus contradicting our own morals, or simply taking our morals and ignoring them temporarily.

    Breaking down topics and analyzing them is part of the human thought process to figure out what something is and why it exists.

    Many people are guilty of skipping this process while still stating a conclusion for their topic.

    "Religious" people do this. "Non-religious" people do this.

    Teebore's response to what he bases his morality on shows me has and is making a valiant effort to be intelligent and thorough in living his life.

    I was raised Lutheran and went to church every Sunday. I went to a private Christian School from grades K-12. I went to a very liberal art college for a semester.

    I'm read and studied the Christian NIV and King James Bible many times over. I've read the Koran and studied Islam as well as many comparative world religions.

    I've questioned and torn apart many of the things I've been told are 100% truth.

    I talk with people. I learn their opinions and viewpoints and try to figure out why they act and say the things they do.

    I read daily and watch documentaries to be better informed about the world around me.

    My morality is based on all of my collected knowledge.

    This collected knowledge has shown me you should not harm your fellow man intentionally either physically or emotionally.

    You should respect nature and not pervert it.

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

    These three guidelines help to make it easier for me to judge what is morally right or wrong.

    Some people base their morals on such things as "do whatever you want as long as it makes yourself happy".

    The vast majority of human beings in the history of mankind would disagree with this basis.

  34. "The system is designed to reflect the wants and desires of all its citizens. The problem is you can't get 2 people to completely agree on everything, never mind hundred of millions."
    Well, if the government should obey the will of the people, except the people don't agree, what do you propose the government do?
    Ignoring the impracticality of it all, if the government could, should it take every single issue and simply implement what the majority of the people want to do about that issue?

  35. If the will of the majority is a moral one, yes.

    The government and its people have failed in the past(see segregation).

  36. So the government should obey the will of the majority only when the will of the majority is moral. However, if the will of the majority is immoral, then the government should not obey the will of the majority.
    Is that correct?

    If so, how is the government supposed to decide what's moral and what is not?

  37. Like I said-

    Government is people.

    I've listed how I determine my morality.

    Teebore has listed his.

    If everything in life was black and white we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    I vote for those people I feel I can trust and hopefully their morals coincide with mine. If their morals contradict mine I would express my disfavor and attempt to change their mindset while at the same time reexamining my morals to ensure I haven't missed something.

  38. I can not disagree with that point.

    But I suppose that is more how the government is, but not necessarily how I want my government to operate.

    It is true America is a republic and we vote in people who reflect our values and if they don't reflect our values in office they don't get reelected. And I have no problem with that.

    But there's another piece to it, and that's that I feel the US Government should not be simply run by the people in office, but those people in office should follow a set of rules.

    That's the power of the Constitution and its Ammendments. I'm not saying it's perfect or that it hasn't/can't/shouldn't be changed ever, but those rules dictates what kind of laws a government should enforce. I believe that's a logical thing to have in a government, to keep the people in office from going mad with power.

    And it is of my personal belief that one of those rules, in not so many words, should be that "a law should not exist unless it is for the betterment of our society." I also believe in the "Freedom of religion." That is to say, I don't believe a law should exist strictly for religious reasons.

    I feel that is logical lest the laws of the land change on the whims of those in charge.

    That's the kind of Government I would like to live in.

    You can disagree, but that's how I feel.

    But at this point I feel like we've gotten so deep into this I'm not sure which way is out.

  39. The exit is to the left, passed the banjo that howls at midnight.

  40. Not to open a new can of worms, but now that the major debate seems to be over (knock on wood), I wanted to put in my two cents. (And I know I'm not as eloquent a writer as others, but I'll try and make my point clear.) Boots~, I find it interesting that, being the thinking kind of person that you are, you do not accept the fact that gay people are simply wired differently, and because B plus B does not equal C it's a perversion of nature. Are your gay "friends" aware that you feel this way? If so, I'd be interested to hear their justification for continuing their friendship with you, because I feel you are devaluing their relationships by calling them immoral.
    I strongly believe in nature over nurture; nature just makes some people different than others, and I give props to those who don't suppress that part of themselves just because, in some places, it's not socially accepted. Every homosexual person I've ever talked to has said that they were born the way they are, so I feel that if nature wanted them that way, how can that be immoral? But I'm not a religious person, so I know you don't see it that way.
    However, I see no good reason why, if they find themselves lucky enough to find someone with whom they want to spend the rest of their lives, they shouldn't be allowed to legally call it a marriage, just the same as heterosexual people are allowed that privilege.

  41. baroness i thought you expressed yourself very well, and i, too, had some of the same questions.

    "Some people base their morals on such things as "do whatever you want as long as it makes yourself happy"."

    the people that belive the above are called sociopaths and we all know what kind of things they can do.

    unless you meant to write "do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy and does no harm to others" which has a completely separate meaning.

    And that's where you'd have to delve into morals again.


  42. Yep, i agree with the Baroness.
    The word 'natural' has been tossed about a bit. But dolphins, dogs, and great apes also practice homosexuality. If nature does it, then why is it 'unnatural' for homo sapiens to do so?
    I've always viewed homosexuality as natural, because it's nature's form of population control. And therefore, since they're born that way (ie: natural) there's nothing morally wrong with it, just like there's nothing morally wrong with the color of a black man's skin, since nature made him that way.

  43. The prevailing point of gay people being wired differently is a cop out.

    Homicidal maniacs are also "wired" differently.

    Homosexuality is an act, not a trait. Black people are not acting "black". Comparing the civil rights movement of African Americans and the homosexual civil rights movement is like comparing apples and baseballs. You may think they are similar but they have very little in common once you break them down.

    I know you're thinking right now that the "gay gene" has been "proven" by science but this is not an adequate justification for actions.

    If someone is born with the schizophrenic "gene" we don't say,"oh they were just born that way" and leave them alone, we try to help them and nurture them out of their negative behavior.

    This could go for hundreds of different acts such as seizures, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, tourettes, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual addiction, etc . . .

    I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease. I don't believe alcoholism is a disease, either. Even though you may be more inclined to do the act compared to a "normal" person this doesn't mean you have to follow through and commit the act.

    There are millions of people who have been alcoholics but no longer drink. There are probably millions of people who have the "alcoholic gene" (considering many people in my family were alcoholics I think the chance of me having the "gene" is pretty high yet I'm not an alcoholic) but it never comes up because they maintain self control and restraint.

    There are also many cases of people being "gay" but now they no longer are a practicing homosexual.

    There are also people who will have sex with anything and anyone - boy, girl, child, camel, electronic device. Are we to say that these people are simply "wired" that way and there is nothing wrong with there actions?

    Dogs hump my leg all the time. Is this simply part of nature and justification for me to return the favor by means of canine sodomy?

    I'm proud of the people who have been posting on this section. Unlike past discussions/disagreements on this blog, we have yet to have anyone comment with degradation and name calling. Maybe the world is becoming a better place with more respect.

  44. While you believe comparing the black civil rights movement and the homosexual civil rights movement is like comparing apples and baseballs, I feel comparing homicidal maniacs and homosexuals is like comparing apples to baseballs. Killing people and getting it on without only one vagina and one penis are completely different things.

    Saying people are wired differently is not a cop out because it applies to this situation in my opinion. You can't use it as a blanket argument for other situations because there are other reasons that I view those problems as problems.

    It's all fine and dandy if people choose to not be practicing homosexuals, but I see nothing wrong with two consensual adults who DO choose to be practicing homosexuals. If a child is being sexually molested, I find that inappropriate because children's minds are not developed enough to be aware of the situation and therefore they would be taken advantage of, just as a camel would not be able to provide consent, and that is therefore wrong as well.

  45. The new issue is "wired".

    I tried to list a variety of acts/ behaviors that to the best of my knowledge have been studied and from a "gene/wired" standpoint.

    Many people believe lying is wrong.

    Many people believe murder is wrong.

    Is one better than the other? It depends but most people would agree that murder is far worse than lying.

    I'm asking questions and offering examples to get you to think in more detail how and why you've taken your stance on the subject.

    In the case of the child, age doesn't equal awareness. Also, consent doesn't make something morally right.

    There are many cases of children sexually abusing other children. Sometimes the initiator is actually younger than the abused party.

    This being the case, I think you need to dig deeper.

    Back to the main topic of "wired".

    The one side says homosexuality is genetic which makes it natural and there's nothing wrong with it because of that.

    I'm saying just because you may be genetically inclined to perform an action (homosexual act, alcoholism, lying, jumping high, singing loudly) doesn't mean you should engage in that act. It isn't justification.

  46. I have really been trying to stay away from arguing the morality of homosexuality because I believe morals are too subjective and can change from person to person. That's why I believe laws should be separate from morality. boots~ says that's impossible. We disagree.

    Yet here I go arguing morality.

    The argument of nature vs. nurture is a non-starter for me.
    Was I born to like chocolate or did I learn to like chocolate? At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I just do.

    I have heard that comparing civil rights for blacks and homosexuals is like comparing apples to oranges because blacks have to be black but gays can choose not be gay.

    This seems strange to me because that would be implying that if blacks did have a choice, then they should choose to be white. But they can't, so people shouldn't hold it against them.

    But I'm not saying anyone posting here has said that.

    But that's because what's really being discussed is morals. Everyone here seems to agree the color of your skin has nothing to do with morality.

    I guess another comparison would be to ask what if Jewish people couldn't get married because not believing that Jesus is the son of God is immoral. Would that be a better comparison? Believing in the Jewish faith is a choice, not anything you're born with. Yet nobody seems to be saying Jewish people shouldn't be married.

    But let's get to the nuts and bolts of this to speak.

    So, the question at hand is, is one man inserting his penis into the anus of another man immoral? Also, is the act of two women rubbing their genitalia together immoral.
    I've looked at these those two issues (for one, figuratively, and the other, literally) from all sides. And I've come to the conclusion that it's not immoral. As long at it's between two consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it.

    And I think the core basis of that belief is because I do not believe it is harming anyone in any way.

  47. Boots~, is the arrogance and self-righteousness that comes out in your writing intentional? Don't tell me I need to "dig deeper." My morals are based on trying to treat people with the same respect I would like to be treated; would knowing more about how I decide what my morals are make you any more likely to understand my side of the argument? Probably not.

  48. I apologize if you feel I was being arrogant. That was not my intention.

    I'm simply speaking from the standpoint of experience.

    I was a child who was technically sexually molested. At the time I was fully aware of the wrongness of the situation even though I was very young. This did not prevent it from happening.

    Your argument was that sexual molestation of a child was wrong simply because the child couldn't comprehend the situation and therefore was being taken advantage of(never end a sentence with a preposition).

    Children are vastly more intelligent than they are given credit sometimes.

    This is why I said "dig deeper".

    There's much more to it than the argument you listed. It could be argued that the reproductive organs are not fully developed and this is how we know it is wrong for a child to be placed in a sexual situation. That would of course back up my argument that sex is designed for reproduction which has been misquoted on this post as meaning "you must reproduce every time you have sex."

  49. Well, needless to say, that's awful.

    But, I will respond to this:

    "Your argument was that sexual molestation of a child was wrong simply because the child couldn't comprehend the situation and therefore was being taken advantage of(never end a sentence with a preposition)."

    I believe I was the one who made that argument, sort of. I feel I'm being a bit misunderstood, though.

    I wasn't saying that sexual molestation is taking advantage of a child because they can't comprehend what's happening to them. Plenty of children/adults get taken advantage of in various major and minor ways every day and have full comprehension of what has happened.

    My argument was that most children aren't psychologically developed enough to understand the complete consequences of sex and the effect it can have on them and thus even if a child consented to sexual contact it would still be wrong for an adult to have sexual contact with that consenting child.

    Of course if anybody, of any age, for any reason, does not consent to sexual content and somebody forces that contact upon them then that is wrong, period. I don't think that's of any debate.

    I'm treading on some dangerous territoy here, but I feel I should say this to be consistent with my own moral values.

    Let's try it this way:

    First, I feel it is not immoral for two consenting adults of any sex to have whatever kind of sexual contact they choose.

    I don't believe it is morally right for a consenting adult and a consenting child to have sexual contact. This is because most children can be coerced into agreeing to something that they don't really want to do. Or, even if they think they want to do something, they probably don't really appreciate all the consequences that are to follow.
    Basically I'm saying even if a child does consent to sex I'm not buying that they 'truly consented.'

    Here's where I need to be consistent with my own internal morals:

    Now, if someone could prove to me that a child was so mentally mature and so aware of all their decisions and their consequences that they were basically the same 'mental age' as your average adult, and then that child consented to sexual contact, then I suppose I don't find it immoral. (Although I would still say it should be illegal, but that's a different argument.)

    But, please, don't mistake what I just wrote. What I just wrote was an exception to a rule that I don't believe ever has, is, or ever will take place. So, practically speaking, I find child molestation immoral. I know I'm going out on a limb there.

  50. Completely off the subject and at the same time completely related - I went to Borders(Barnes & Noble smart ass comment placed here) tonight and purchased THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins and LET'S MAKE SOCK PUPPETS book and kit.

    I can't wait to discover the connection between the two!

  51. I think what you'll find is something I've always known to be true. Sock puppets are the most evil of the puppets...aside from tuxedo wearing ventriloquist dummies with glowing red eyes.

  52. Well, I figured this debate was coming, but went further than even I thought it would. But I suppose I can't complain, since I started it.
    But it feels like this debate has come to a bit of an end and, shockingly, nobody's mind was change. Of course if someone wants to start this debate up again, so be it. It's a relatively free country and you can post what you want. And heck, it might make this post reach 60 comments!
    Anyway, I would just like to thank everyone who contributed, me, boots~, Teebore, the Baroness, the Mysterious A and S, Anonymous, and anyone else I'm forgetting.
    I thank all of you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. And I especially thank all of you who agreed with me. You will be spared when I am ruler of the world. ;)
    Anyway, perhaps we should do something like this again someday...or maybe not.

  53. aw, we're not that mysterious, just have never gotten around to registering ;-)


Comment. Please. Love it? Hate it? Are mildly indifferent to it? Let us know!