[Yogi]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

Are you confusing or discerning between 'openly gay', and 'flaming, radical queer', when you made that statement Lemmy. I wouldn't vote for the latter, but I have a few friends in the former group who have 'the political smarts' to run for office, and if they did, depending on their platform', I might vote for them.

No, I only said "openly gay" because if a person is in the closet, I might vote for them not knowing their sexuality. I'd just have a tough time trusting anyone's judgement if they can't figure out what their dick is supposed to be used for.

My position on religious folks is the same. I have nothing against religious people, to each their own, believe what you want. But don't expect me to trust your judgement enough to vote for you if you believe in ancient fairy tails.

'Gay' isn't my 'cuppa' either. I'm as 'straight' as will ever be found. However, I guess I'm able to see past a persons proclivities. 'What', and 'who' a person does in the bedroom has no bearing on their inteigence and 'otherwise' abilities.

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

'Gay' isn't my 'cuppa' either. I'm as 'straight' as will ever be found. However, I guess I'm able to see past a persons proclivities. 'What', and 'who' a person does in the bedroom has no bearing on their inteigence and 'otherwise' abilities.

I see past others' "proclivities" as well, but that doesn't mean I trust their judgement enough to vote for them. I have gay friends, I have alcoholic friends, I have Christian friends, I have friends who cheat on their spouses and taxes. That's fine, I don't judge them. But I wouldn't vote for them.

[Psudo]

Tman1 Tman1:

Homophobia? Show me where in my comments indicate homophobia.

I meant you are denouncing homophobia. Your topic is homophobia, and you're against it. What about different political systems, though, results in more or fewer gays in office? Is public homophobia the only cause? Because JJ has already suggested another possible influence that makes better sense to me.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, let me first say that I support gay rights. 100%. I'm a true liberal. [...] But, I would not, personally, vote for an openly gay politican.

That's pretty funny, because I'm a social conservative who thinks pursuing a homosexual relationship is an immoral personal choice, and I wouldn't have any problem voting for a homosexual politician who shared most of the rest of my views and had the political capability to pursue them well while in office. Everyone has their faults, and that one point shouldn't single-handedly prevent an otherwise great candidate from their chance to do a great job in office.

Yogi Yogi:

I'm as 'straight' as will ever be found.

Interesting tangent: how do you measure how straight someone is? Every system I can imagine results in either half the population of Earth ties for 'most straight' or only measures the horny side of the promiscuous vs. modest scale.

[Lemmy]

Psudo Psudo:

That's pretty funny, because I'm a social conservative who thinks pursuing a homosexual relationship is an immoral personal choice, and I wouldn't have any problem voting for a homosexual politician who shared most of the rest of my views and had the political capability to pursue them well while in office. Everyone has their faults, and that one point shouldn't single-handedly prevent an otherwise great candidate from their chance to do a great job in office.

Valid counters, I concede. But I don't oppose homosexuality on the grounds of morality. I already declared myself a true liberal. To each his own. I oppose homosexuality on the grounds that a cock is a pretty simple tool to operate. I wouldn't vote for someone too dumb to operate a fork...and operating a fork is a lot more complex a task than operating a cock.

And if we're gonna give our public servants a 'pass' on grounds that "every one has their faults", what faults are 'fatal' faults? Should we be okay with murderers or paedophiles running for office? Likely not, eh? But what about liars? alcoholics? Does it speak to ability to govern? I think it does.

[Yogi]

Psudo Psudo:

Tman1 Tman1:

Homophobia? Show me where in my comments indicate homophobia.

I meant you are denouncing homophobia. Your topic is homophobia, and you're against it. What about different political systems, though, results in more or fewer gays in office? Is public homophobia the only cause? Because JJ has already suggested another possible influence that makes better sense to me.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, let me first say that I support gay rights. 100%. I'm a true liberal. [...] But, I would not, personally, vote for an openly gay politican.

That's pretty funny, because I'm a social conservative who thinks pursuing a homosexual relationship is an immoral personal choice, and I wouldn't have any problem voting for a homosexual politician who shared most of the rest of my views and had the political capability to pursue them well while in office. Everyone has their faults, and that one point shouldn't single-handedly prevent an otherwise great candidate from their chance to do a great job in office.

Yogi Yogi:

I'm as 'straight' as will ever be found.

Interesting tangent: how do you measure how straight someone is? Every system I can imagine results in either half the population of Earth ties for 'most straight' or only measures the horny side of the promiscuous vs. modest scale.

How about I refrase that just for you! I'm strictly heterosexual.

[Psudo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And if we're gonna give our public servants a 'pass' on grounds that "every one has their faults", what faults are 'fatal' faults? Should we be okay with murderers or paedophiles running for office? Likely not, eh? But what about liars? alcoholics? Does it speak to ability to govern? I think it does.

Of course it does. I'm not ridiculing your reasoning, I just thought it was funny how opposite our views are.

All else being equal, I'd vote for the straight candidate over the gay, too. But if being gay is their only fault, that's a pretty fantastic politician. I'd vote for that guy over McCain or either Clinton any day.

Yogi Yogi:

How about I refrase that just for you! I'm strictly heterosexual.

Yeah, I got that. Just felt like giving you a hard time. =]

[Quantum_Wizard]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But I don't oppose homosexuality on the grounds of morality. I already declared myself a true liberal. To each his own. I oppose homosexuality on the grounds that a cock is a pretty simple tool to operate. I wouldn't vote for someone too dumb to operate a fork...and operating a fork is a lot more complex a task than operating a cock.

I'm sure most homosexuals would know how to operate their cocks like majority does but don't want to.

I've seen nothing indicating a negative correlation between homosexuality and intelligence.

Out of curiosity, would you be also unwilling to vote for lesbians? I'm asking since you only mentioned male genital organs.

[DerbyX]

Psudo Psudo:

That's pretty funny, because I'm a social conservative who thinks pursuing a homosexual relationship is an immoral personal choice, and I wouldn't have any problem voting for a homosexual politician who shared most of the rest of my views and had the political capability to pursue them well while in office. Everyone has their faults, and that one point shouldn't single-handedly prevent an otherwise great candidate from their chance to do a great job in office.

In other words Psudo, I was 100% correct about you and you realize why I didn't ask you those 5 hard questions because I already knew the answers. I am also quite correct in my arguments to you with regards to gay adoption.

I won't ask what your definition of immorality is since I don't believe you understand what morality truly entails.

[Lemmy]

Quantum_Wizard Quantum_Wizard:

Lemmy Lemmy:

But I don't oppose homosexuality on the grounds of morality. I already declared myself a true liberal. To each his own. I oppose homosexuality on the grounds that a cock is a pretty simple tool to operate. I wouldn't vote for someone too dumb to operate a fork...and operating a fork is a lot more complex a task than operating a cock.

I'm sure most homosexuals would know how to operate their cocks like majority does but don't want to.

I've seen nothing indicating a negative correlation between homosexuality and intelligence.

Out of curiosity, would you be also unwilling to vote for lesbians? I'm asking since you only mentioned male genital organs.

In some ways, I've taken a Devil's Advocate position as a result of a flippant, but tongue-in-cheek remark. But I regard homosexuality as running strongly contrary to human nature. Homosexuality is a different deviation than, say, murderers or cannibals or sex offenders whose deviations create victims, but it's still deviant behaviour, IMHO, and I feel more comfortable voting for people who aren't deviants.

Then again, I've read that many species of primates engage in homosexuality and rape on a daily basis. So maybe I'm just talking out my ass when it comes to understanding natural human behaviour.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

In some ways, I've taken a Devil's Advocate position as a result of a flippant, but tongue-in-cheek remark. But I regard homosexuality as running strongly contrary to human nature. Homosexuality is a different deviation than, say, murderers or cannibals or sex offenders whose deviations create victims, but it's still deviant behaviour, IMHO, and I feel more comfortable voting for people who aren't deviants.

Then again, I've read that many species of primates engage in homosexuality and rape on a daily basis. So maybe I'm just talking out my ass when it comes to understanding natural human behaviour.

Deviant? Is oral sex deviant since its also contrary to human nature, at least human nature as defined by sex for reproductive purposes only?

[Psudo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

In other words Psudo, I was 100% correct about you

If told you why I disagree, would you listen?

DerbyX DerbyX:

I won't ask what your definition of immorality is

Morality is that which aids the condition or improves the nature of people. It follows that immortality is the opposite; that which damages the condition or corrupts the nature of people. That which has no effect on people's condition or nature could be termed immorality, or could be termed amorality (a third category of neutral actions).

What is your definition?

[DerbyX]

Psudo Psudo:

DerbyX DerbyX:

In other words Psudo, I was 100% correct about you

If told you why I disagree, would you listen?

No. You might just as well be telling me that you think black people are immoral or inferior or any other such thing. It is a reprehensible and undefendable position.

Psudo Psudo:

Morality is that which aids the condition or improves the nature of people. It follows that immortality is the opposite; that which damages the condition or corrupts the nature of people. That which has no effect on people's condition or nature could be termed immorality, or could be terms amorality (a third category of neutral actions).

Accepting homosexuality not only greatly helps them but greatly helps society as a whole but I digress. Your definition doesn't even meet basic criteria since you cannot establish what helps people or aids their condition. Once again you employ circular logic in that you cannot define something by using a completely arbitrary definition.

Morality is one personal beliefs about right and wrong. It certainly doesn't include some disgusting belief that people who pursue their own beliefs are somehow immoral.

[Lemmy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Deviant? Is oral sex deviant since its also contrary to human nature, at least human nature as defined by sex for reproductive purposes only?

I never defined "deviant" sex as sex for non-reproductive purposes. I define it as "contrary to normal behaviour". Heterosexual oral sex is normal sexual behaviour, just as are kissing and hand-holding. Same sex kissing is not normal behaviour. You're opening a can of worms to a lot of gray area that, I fear, is going to end up with one of us admitting to having a Little Bo Peep costume in the bedroom closet.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Deviant? Is oral sex deviant since its also contrary to human nature, at least human nature as defined by sex for reproductive purposes only?

I never defined "deviant" sex as sex for non-reproductive purposes. I define it as "contrary to normal behaviour". Heterosexual oral sex is normal sexual behaviour, just as are kissing and hand-holding. Same sex kissing is not normal behaviour. You're opening a can of worms to a lot of gray area that, I fear, is going to end up with one of us admitting to having a Little Bo Peep costume in the bedroom closet.

I have a sheep costume if you are game.

Seriously though as Psudo demonstrates in his arguments yours revolves around a subjective term, namely defining normal. Oral sex was once illegal and deemed immoral and ironically deviant. Anal sex even among heteros can be considered deviant or not normal.

The real relevant point is what just what makes it contrary to normal behaviour? I would consider sexual relations between 2 people who are attracted to each other to be normal.

[Psudo]

You never seem to get the same meaning out of my words that I try convey with them.

In that first part, I meant "If I told you why I don't think you're 100% correct about me, would you listen?"

I suspect your answer is true anyway; I don't think you'll listen to anything I say. That makes it hard for me to care what you think about me.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Morality is one personal beliefs about right and wrong. It certainly doesn't include some disgusting belief that people who pursue their own beliefs are somehow immoral.

If each person has a different set of personal beliefs about right and wrong, it stands to reason that some of them will include rejection of others' personal beliefs as immoral or repugnant. It is in the nature of people to disagree. Thus, your two sentences cannot both be true at once.

If I ask what 2+2 equals, all people are free to give whatever answers they want. But only the value 4 is correct. It is the same with morality. People have their individual answers to moral questions, but a given answer is not necessarily right,

I'm curious, when was the last time you admitted to being wrong about something? I think I'll go read your post history for a while, see if I can find such a time.