Is Rick Santorum right to compare homosexuality to beastiality?

[Everett]

Is he right? That's entirely up to one's own moral standards and interpretations thereof. Personally I would insist not, but that is of course my own opinion. Does he have a right to compare the two? Unfortunately yes.

[Everett]

You really aren't any better than Santorum then, KillerPollo.

[Everett]

Wow, we're seeing Philip's immaturity rise again here. You and KillerPollo can stop being jackasses now.

I second. If anyone is that bored, feel free to take over for me here instead of trolling homosexuals and Q. At least if you have plenty of pent-up anger and frustration, find a better way to burn off that excess energy.

[Everett]

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.

[Everett]

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?

And as long as it has something to do with sex, it's glory to God - oops, I mean opebo - in your book, so that doesn't necessarily count.

[Everett]

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.

[Everett]

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.

[Everett]

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. 

I'm sure the 'cultist' would make a better parent than you, prude.

[Everett]

I skimmed through about the last six pages and I think I can safely say that this thread should be murdered and then buried.

All right; I've sent this guy to destroy the thread and then dig a hole in the ground for it afterwards.