Is Rick Santorum right to compare homosexuality to beastiality?

[opebo]

Santorum neglects the obvious fact that heterosexuality is precisely as similar to beastiality as is homosexuality.

[opebo]

You look more like a gay than a stereotypical gay-basher.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

Opebo. are you a descendant of a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes, of course.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

[opebo]

since when does hating gays = ignorant? LOLOLOLOL
Look at yourself. you advocate that anyone who opposes your whacked out points of view, to be fed to the lions.

No, you have also misunderstood, but that is to be expected, as you are an ignorant.

[opebo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

[opebo]

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ok. Killing is part of objective morality. Do you favor killing? oh wait... YOU DO!!! you advocate feeding ppl to the lions. OH YES!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, killing has nothing whatsoever to do with objective morality.  Objective morality is merely an excuse for killing.  I advocate killing people even though I don't believe in objective morality.  The only real reasons for killing are power reasons - either self defense or agression, but those blur together at the edges.  I have nothing against killing people for practical purposes, I merely object to adding insult to injury by making the absurd claim that you've killed them because they 'deserved' it - that they were 'bad' based on some objective moral.

[opebo]

While not exactly the same thing, both are forms of sexual activity that will fail to produce offspring.

So is heterosexual sex which finishes with an ejaculation anywhere but the vagina.

[opebo]

I merely object to adding insult to injury by making the absurd claim that you've killed them because they 'deserved' it - that they were 'bad' based on some objective moral.

You state that all people who believe in objective morality are ignorant and irrational - that sounds pretty objective to me.

No, it is not a value judgement, merely an observation of fact.  I don't think it is 'bad' that they are irrational and ignorant, just that they are different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't think they 'deserve' to be killed - I have never stated that.  I have only said that I want to see them killed.  No one 'deserves' anything, as that implies objective morality.

[opebo]

Gay loving home or child spending years in foster care?

That's like asking "swinger loving home or foster care?"

I'm sure most swingers (as well as gays) would make better parents than you, cultist. 

[opebo]

I merely object to adding insult to injury by making the absurd claim that you've killed them because they 'deserved' it - that they were 'bad' based on some objective moral.

You state that all people who believe in objective morality are ignorant and irrational - that sounds pretty objective to me.

No, it is not a value judgement, merely an observation of fact.

No, it's an opinion - you judge them as ignorant and irrational, you are making a judgement of other people whether you like it or not.

I'm merely observing that they think differently than me (or by my definition not at all).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it isn't bad then why should they be fed to lions?[/quote]

For the convenience and safetly of those they presume to judge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't think they 'deserve' to be killed - I have never stated that.  I have only said that I want to see them killed.  No one 'deserves' anything, as that implies objective morality.
[/quote]

Then you shouldn't advocate feeding them to lions - if they don't have it coming to them then why should it be done? You can't give bullsh**t about being practical, because lions are an inefficient way of killing large masses of people, so if you didn't feel they didn't deserve it you wouldn't advocate such a thing.
[/quote]

No, they don't 'deserve' it, it is merely practical and convenient for the rest of us.  The lion method is merely charming, historically significant, and symbolic, but one could use other methods.