General Pace on Gays

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Homosexual sex between two consenting adults is as natural as anything else. Civilizations have been doing it for years. The whole “homos are evil” thing is relativity recent… so to talk about moral relativism as if it is used to support homosexuals is ridiculous.

And to compare it to something in which one participant is unwilling or doesn’t understand whats going on IE: Pedophilia, rape, ect… is strait up ignorant.

You seem to be quite the hypocrite, HH. You don’t want the government to have any power over our lives, but you seem to want to control decent people at every turn…

Oh, and if a gay couple decides to raise a child that would otherwise have a shitty childhood, are they going against nature?

Oh, and doesn’t medicine go against nature? In nature, shit dies, so why shouldn’t we die? Do cars go against nature? Are they evil too? What about straight couples that don’t have kids? They the bane of the earth? What about the couples that only have a few kids! In nature, they’d have a lot more! There so fucking “anti-life” it makes me sick, refusing to put there fair share into the gene pool…

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Some ignorant pseudo philosophical bullshit and then sucked Ayn Rand’s cock (again. And she definitly had one).

[/quote]

Good call. God hates homos, I keep forgetting.

This man is the reason why the military fights the wars and doesn’t make policy.

63

[quote]Ren wrote:
Absolute morality? I disagree with that. If this were the case we should still be living by the same rules as we did 2000 years ago.

I agree that society needs morality, but that begs the question, who’s morality? Do you accept what Christians claim as moral? What Muslims claim is moral? What Buddhists say is moral? All of which would have us leading very different lives if we were to follow those paths.

[/quote]

You’re falling into the relativistic trap again (this is not a flame, btw). Before anyone participates in a culture, they are human beings. Morality should be based upon universal characteristics that all people have (barring birth defects and so on, of course). For example, would each of those cultures agree that initiating violence toward others who are doing you no harm is wrong? I think so, because people precede cultures.

Of course, no one has ever said humans are perfect or that morality isn’t hard to practice. Its when you are tempted to do something wrong that you need morality/ethics the most.

64

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In your post to Ren you state that homosexual does not produce offspring and is therefore unnatural.

A lot of animal behaviour does not produce offspring, sometimes it kills them and is still considered natural.

And again, if nature produces them, they are natural, whatever you think nature should have intended.

On moral absolutes:

If I fuck a guy to prevent a child from being raped, my actions would be what, if seen from an absolute moral point of view?

Yes, there are no moral absolutes because, no, there is no final moral authority.

Tough luck, but most people tend to live quite well with that.[/quote]

Morality doesn’t apply to animals. Animals don’t think at the conceptual level and are outside the bounds of ethics.

Ethics during emergencies, such as preventing a child’s murder, becomes a matter of value — do you value the child’s life higher than degrading yourself with a homosexual act? Most people would, so you made an ethical choice.

Morality is absolute, because it is based upon the definition of Man. There is no need for any ‘authority’ because you were born with this characteristic (being human). To be a man requires that you be moral.

You are actually moral all the time: Is it good to drive on the proper side of the road? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. Is it good to cheat my business partner out of this money? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. You actually make moral decisions all the time, even if you don’t know it (the libs want you to forget).

65

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Some ignorant pseudo philosophical bullshit and then sucked Ayn Rand’s cock (again. And she definitly had one).

Good call. God hates homos, I keep forgetting.

This man is the reason why the military fights the wars and doesn’t make policy. [/quote]

Now, the Ayn Rand stuff WAS funny! And it demonstrates how destructive the Left has been in Western Culture: That someone could have those thoughts implies a complete absence of any moral character whatsoever.

I bet General Pace (like the Roman Generals of old) is fed up with having to defend lowlifes and cretins, perverts and pedophiles, from the Clintons on down. They had Caligula and we’ve got Bill. He, like those Roman generals, saw a rotting relativistic culture and it disgusts him.

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In your post to Ren you state that homosexual does not produce offspring and is therefore unnatural.

A lot of animal behaviour does not produce offspring, sometimes it kills them and is still considered natural.

And again, if nature produces them, they are natural, whatever you think nature should have intended.

On moral absolutes:

If I fuck a guy to prevent a child from being raped, my actions would be what, if seen from an absolute moral point of view?

Yes, there are no moral absolutes because, no, there is no final moral authority.

Tough luck, but most people tend to live quite well with that.

Morality doesn’t apply to animals. Animals don’t think at the conceptual level and are outside the bounds of ethics.

Ethics during emergencies, such as preventing a child’s murder, becomes a matter of value — do you value the child’s life higher than degrading yourself with a homosexual act? Most people would, so you made an ethical choice.

Morality is absolute, because it is based upon the definition of Man. There is no need for any ‘authority’ because you were born with this characteristic (being human). To be a man requires that you be moral.

You are actually moral all the time: Is it good to drive on the proper side of the road? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. Is it good to cheat my business partner out of this money? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. You actually make moral decisions all the time, even if you don’t know it (the libs want you to forget).

[/quote]

You are starving, and may die if you do not eat soon. Another starving, but smaller, person is with you, and has some food. Do you take it from him/her?

A man has just attempted to kill you, you are holding a gun, and he no longer has a means to harm you. Do you shoot/kill him?

Try those on. The answers will be different for different people.

Lets try this now:

In ancient Rome and Greece, homosexual was not considered evil. At all.

There is certainly a absolute motivation for our morals. Pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates essentially are motivated by the same reason. The prevention of human suffering. But they have completely different views on what is and what is not moral.

And shouldn’t you consider killing immoral? Isn’t the purpose of a soldier to kill? Isn’t that anti-life?

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Some ignorant pseudo philosophical bullshit and then sucked Ayn Rand’s cock (again. And she definitly had one).

Good call. God hates homos, I keep forgetting.

This man is the reason why the military fights the wars and doesn’t make policy.

Now, the Ayn Rand stuff WAS funny! And it demonstrates how destructive the Left has been in Western Culture: That someone could have those thoughts implies a complete absence of any moral character whatsoever.

I bet General Pace (like the Roman Generals of old) is fed up with having to defend lowlifes and cretins, perverts and pedophiles, from the Clintons on down. They had Caligula and we’ve got Bill. He, like those Roman generals, saw a rotting relativistic culture and it disgusts him.

[/quote]

Umm… plenty of Roman Generals nailed man butt…

68

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Some ignorant pseudo philosophical bullshit and then sucked Ayn Rand’s cock (again. And she definitly had one).

Good call. God hates homos, I keep forgetting.

This man is the reason why the military fights the wars and doesn’t make policy. [/quote]

He is definitely not sucking Rands cock.

He is ignoring pretty much everything she wrote about religion.

69

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Morality doesn’t apply to animals. Animals don’t think at the conceptual level and are outside the bounds of ethics.

Ethics during emergencies, such as preventing a child’s murder, becomes a matter of value — do you value the child’s life higher than degrading yourself with a homosexual act? Most people would, so you made an ethical choice.

Morality is absolute, because it is based upon the definition of Man. There is no need for any ‘authority’ because you were born with this characteristic (being human). To be a man requires that you be moral.

You are actually moral all the time: Is it good to drive on the proper side of the road? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. Is it good to cheat my business partner out of this money? Yes or no? Your answer depends on your morals. You actually make moral decisions all the time, even if you don’t know it (the libs want you to forget).

[/quote]

Which somehow still does not answer how
homosexuality is immoral?

Murder is perfectly natural but “bad”, dentistry is unnatural but I assume “good”, yet homosexuality is somehow “bad” because of its non-proven and highly unlikely “un-natural” nature?

Men are not animals and yet our moral codes could or should be derived from nature?

Is “un-naturalness” not man`s true nature?

Is building railroads, buildings or new metals natural, human nature, and therefore moral/immoral?

70

Aruging with bigots is like going to the special olympics and trying to debate drooling.

No matter what you say, they’ll keep doing it.

71

All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

72

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

[/quote]

I don’t know if you have noticed, but the earth has suffered negative consequences for us simply being here.

So by your logic, if all people cannot simply exist without having a negative consequence, then existing is immoral.

Clearly genocide of the human race is the moral alternative here.

And once again you have gone nowhere near the homosexual is unnatural thing. What about heterosexual perverts?

Your answers just seem to be repeating yourself, or re-hashing what you have already said.

73

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

[/quote]

Should all people quit their boring jobs to follow their dreams? What if EVERYBODY did that all at once, wouldnt that result in a total collapse of the economy and society? Does that in turn make it immoral for one person to do it?

What if ALL men decided to be preists, and therefore absinant? Again, ALL men doing so would have a disasterous effect on humanity… so are all preists immmoral?

I could give hundreds of examples of things that YOU would say are perfectly moral for any one person to do, but would have an adverse effect if ALL men did it.

74

[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Anyway, there’s something that bothers me about how natural homosexuality is; Why is it that queers are many folds more likely to get AIDS than others? Doesn’t it imply homosexuality is less “natural”?

Because small cuts and tears are pretty normal during anal sex?[/quote]

Exactly. Because of that, some might believe that the anus was designed as one-way only. Hence, the “unnatural” label.

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

[/quote]

If all men became farmers that would be a disaster.

Is it therefore immoral?

Farming is highly un-natural btw…

76

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

Should all people quit their boring jobs to follow their dreams? What if EVERYBODY did that all at once, wouldnt that result in a total collapse of the economy and society? Does that in turn make it immoral for one person to do it?

What if ALL men decided to be preists, and therefore absinant? Again, ALL men doing so would have a disasterous effect on humanity… so are all preists immmoral?

I could give hundreds of examples of things that YOU would say are perfectly moral for any one person to do, but would have an adverse effect if ALL men did it.

[/quote]

What is the ultimate purpose of morality?

77

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Anyway, there’s something that bothers me about how natural homosexuality is; Why is it that queers are many folds more likely to get AIDS than others? Doesn’t it imply homosexuality is less “natural”?

Because small cuts and tears are pretty normal during anal sex?

Exactly. Because of that, some might believe that the anus was designed as one-way only. Hence, the “unnatural” label.[/quote]

Ok, so if anal sex is unnatural, and therefore immoral, or wrong, etc… why do I never hear about anyone protesting hetero anal sex, or oral sex? Wouldn’t both of those be just as unnatural?

Face it… deep down all the homophobes know that it isn’t that its “unnatural” or “against god” or any of that other nonsense they try to explain away their bigotry with: its the fact that they find it icky. Its weird and different and they dont like it, so they’ll agree with or find any reason to explain why its “Immoral and wrong!”

None of their arguments ever hold water, just look through this thread where HH has to keep running back to the “Its immoral, they are perverts!” line.

Maybe if people like him would just admit that they dont like homosexuality because its weird to them and makes them feel uncomfortable, some progress could be made.

78

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
All of this is very simple — an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence. Should all men rob and plunder? Should all men be homosexual perverts? Should all men cheat on their wives?

Simple, most people can comprehend it.

Now, to my critics, suggest a better standard.

Should all people quit their boring jobs to follow their dreams? What if EVERYBODY did that all at once, wouldnt that result in a total collapse of the economy and society? Does that in turn make it immoral for one person to do it?

What if ALL men decided to be preists, and therefore absinant? Again, ALL men doing so would have a disasterous effect on humanity… so are all preists immmoral?

I could give hundreds of examples of things that YOU would say are perfectly moral for any one person to do, but would have an adverse effect if ALL men did it.

What is the ultimate purpose of morality?

[/quote]

Don’t try to change the point now, bitch.

You assert: “an action is moral if all humans can do it, without negative consequence”

I contest: “I could give hundreds of examples of things that YOU would say are perfectly moral for any one person to do, but would have an adverse effect if ALL men did it.”

Your point is, as usual, soundly defeated.

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Some ignorant pseudo philosophical bullshit and then sucked Ayn Rand’s cock (again. And she definitly had one).

Good call. God hates homos, I keep forgetting.

This man is the reason why the military fights the wars and doesn’t make policy.

Now, the Ayn Rand stuff WAS funny! And it demonstrates how destructive the Left has been in Western Culture: That someone could have those thoughts implies a complete absence of any moral character whatsoever.

I bet General Pace (like the Roman Generals of old) is fed up with having to defend lowlifes and cretins, perverts and pedophiles, from the Clintons on down. They had Caligula and we’ve got Bill. He, like those Roman generals, saw a rotting relativistic culture and it disgusts him.

[/quote]HH,everything you have cited in your answer has been done by your highly regarded political party ,that has controlled my county gov’t and churches for years.They try to keep it from being known.which i think is a lot worse than someone who is’nt trying to hide anything.openly gay etc.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To engage in homosexuality or adultery is anti-life. It is the perversion of pleasure and is, in fact, a longing for death. So those who do these things, while they think they’re having a grand old time, simply wish to die. [/quote]

Let’s pretend this bogusness is true – if they want to die, let them! Send 'em into all of the “death wish” detail as fodder for enemy bullets to save all of the blessed heterosexual soldiers, the superior beings in the eyes of the above posters. Given that, according to your assertion, gays are sub-human, to put them in the service you a) Slighten their earthly presence and usher them on to their sentence in hell and b) save the “superior” hetero soldiers. Win-win!