Atheism and homosexuality

[Nuggin]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>That's like claiming that someone who is anti-communism is jealous of those who are communists and wishes he could proclaim his true self to the world. Yer an idiot.

Well, since no one is actually born "communist" and there isn't an entire collection of "self hating communists who are still in the closet about their communism", then no. It's not like that at all.

Congrats on finding a 3rd way to screw up the your/you're problem though. Bravo!

[nanoanomaly]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, since no one is actually born "communist" and there isn't an entire collection of "self hating communists who are still in the closet about their communism", then no. It's not like that at all.
Congrats on finding a 3rd way to screw up the your/you're problem though. Bravo!

Nobody is born gay, you idiot.

[Nuggin]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody is born gay, you idiot.

First, from a LOGIC standpoint, the position that nobody is born gay fails on its face.

- If no one was born gay, then everyone was born straight.
- Therefore, at some point in time, there were NO gay people, just all straight people.
- At that point, someone who was "straight" _decided_ that it would be good to have gay sex and convinced someone else who was also "straight" to join him.

What straight person decides to start having gay if they aren't gay and no one else is gay and no one has even heard of gay?

FAIL.

Second, numerous studies have shown an epigenetic link to homosexuality as a result of the mother's exposure to testosterone from the fetus.

This explains why the more male children a woman has the more likely later children are to be gay _EVEN IN_ cases where the child is given up for adoption and raised in a single child home with no knowledge of older siblings.

Your position fails on both reason and actual science.

No surprise there.

[15th Dalai Lama]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody is born gay, you idiot.

There was a guy at Mass this morning, queer as a three dollar bill, David Bowie haircut and a tailored pastel purple shirt to die for. Clearly a Catholic, he knew every prayer and response, in Spanish no less, and had the sit stand kneel routine down pat. Nevertheless, he was among the maybe five percent that did not share in the Eucharist. There is something terribly wrong with the sexual repression of the Abrahamic religions.

On a lighter note, a little old lady, ancient is more like it, in the front row barfed during the consecration.

[NightSerf]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it wasn't an ad hominem attack.
"You are ugly therefore you are wrong about this" would be ad hominem.
"You failed at marriage therefore don't think others should be allowed to marry" isn't ad hominem. It's pointing out that you are biased and your opinion is based primarily on your own personal failures and not on any sort of reasoning or evidence (which you've made abundantly clear with your posts).
A woman who has tried and failed to get pregnant dozens of times may have an opinion about not wanting others to have abortions, but the reasoning behind that opinion is always going to be suspect.
Similarly, the fact that you resent not having come out of the closet yourself is probably the driving cause for your attacking homosexuals now. Also not an Ad Hom, by the way. Just speculation.
Though, I'd pin that at 75% chance of being right.

The above arguments might best be termed "arguments form arrogance." Isn't it arrogant to presume to know the mind of another? I think so. That and ad hominem have in common the red herring argument (arguing by changing the subject) and the basic flaw of making the argument personal, which always detracts from the subject at hand. All of these approaches fail to make valid points about the core controversy.

[NightSerf]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
First, from a LOGIC standpoint, the position that nobody is born gay fails on its face.
- If no one was born gay, then everyone was born straight.
- Therefore, at some point in time, there were NO gay people, just all straight people.
- At that point, someone who was "straight" _decided_ that it would be good to have gay sex and convinced someone else who was also "straight" to join him.
What straight person decides to start having gay if they aren't gay and no one else is gay and no one has even heard of gay?
FAIL.
Second, numerous studies have shown an epigenetic link to homosexuality as a result of the mother's exposure to testosterone from the fetus.
This explains why the more male children a woman has the more likely later children are to be gay _EVEN IN_ cases where the child is given up for adoption and raised in a single child home with no knowledge of older siblings.
Your position fails on both reason and actual science.
No surprise there.

I think your point is valid because we are not born as sexual beings, but become so as we develop into adolescence. As that happens, sexual preferences develop as well. I don't think anyone really knows the extent to which conscious choice plays a role. I certainly don't remember any conscious choices that led to being "straight."

The real question has to do with how much society and the individuals who make it up can legitimately limit the choices of its minorities or impose consequences for them. In the case of gay marriage, I don't see any legitimacy at all, no reason that gay marriage partners shouldn't have the same benefits and privileges that the rest of us do. DOMA should quickly go the way of the ridiculous anti-miscegenation laws.

[Brian_G]

The serpent was right wrote:

"When the definition of marriage is changed so that two men or two women can marry, that's same sex marriage. One of the feature's of marriage is gender diversity, same sex marriage spoils that beauty with gender segregation."
I suppose alot of people felt the same way in regards to whites getting married to blacks.

And alot of people didn't. Gender has nothing to do with race, except's the left's skill at vilifying opponents. Compare me to a racist? I cherish Loving v. Virginia as US Supreme Court precedent that marriage is male/female.

'

The serpent was right wrote:

"I've never said gays don't pay taxes, but that doesn't reduce the cost of same sex marriage one penny. Why can't same sex marriage supporters understand the costs of their bizarre new laws?" Based on the above, I assume you would support the taxing of churches.

T.s.w.r. assume's incorrectly, I don't support the taxing of churches, I support church freedom and freedom of religion.

'

The serpent was right wrote:

If two tax paying Americans, same sex, consenting adults, want to get married,and there is a church that will perform the service, on what grounds do you object?

I don't, I'd say "Bless you!", I disfavor government creating a new definition of marriage, as for your personal life, I don't really care. This is a legal issue, I'm proud to stand for freedom of religion.

'

The serpent was right wrote:

Majority does NOT always rule. If you are a conservative, and you believe in state rights, I can tell you that at one time the vast majority of some states would have voted to keep slavery,

That's stupid talk, the South seceded because they lost the Majority. Slavery was ended by Congressional legislation and Constitutional referendum after the US Supreme Court decided Dredd Scott to send back a runaway slave as property right.

'

The serpent was right wrote:

or the limited civil rights of blacks.

I stand for civil rights for all, black, gays, religious and atheists. I stand against special rights to redefine cultural institutions for political gain.

There are bibilical arguments for interracial marriage; why no ancient arguments for same sex marriage? Just saying...

'

The serpent was right wrote:

How did that work out? If you tell me that slavery is a violation of an idividuales' civil rights, than that is the same argument that I am going to use on you concerning gay marriage.

Slavery is theft, among the least of it's evils including murder. Freedom is a civil right. The freedom not to suffer under your weird house rules; the freedom to keep marriage as is. The Government doesn't have the right to redefine marriage as male/male or female/female; without electoral consent.

'

The serpent was right wrote:

Here are the facts... Americans...adults....consenti ng. What right does anyone have to violate their civil right to get married?

You might object to incest marriage, polygamy or necrophilia marriage for the same reasons. There's no special right to redefine marriage law for everyone. New laws making government blind to gender in marriage changes laws for heterosexual and homosexuals alike.

[Very Cynical Person]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody is born gay, you idiot.

Do you believe that being gay is something they decide to be?

[Brian_G]

My Top Ten Reasons for Keeping Marriage As Is:

1 Posterity, yes Virginia, procreation does have something to do with marriage.
2 Vive le difference! Say No! to gender segregated marriage.
3 Survival. Same sex marriage is bad for everyone's longevity.
4 Civil discourse. Count the insults.
4 Antidemocratic. Let's vote on marriage law.
5 Taboo. Our culture defines marriage as male/female.
6 Entitlement spending from new marriage laws.
7 Intrusive new regulation from new marriage laws.
8 Higher taxes for everyone.
9 Fallacy of Composition, what's good for the part's isn't good for the whole.
10 Married women suffer less violence. Men shielding women were among the murdered in Aurora.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>If a homosexual marries, like Meredith Baxter or Oscar Wilde; that's gay marriage. There is no law against a gay marrying a lesbian.

No, it's not. A gay marriage is the marriage between two members of the same sex. Again, I don't know what you get out of playing that word game, but I'm not playing it with you. Neither is anybody else.

Brian_G wrote:

When the definition of marriage is changed so that two men or two women can marry, that's same sex marriage. One of the feature's of marriage is gender diversity, same sex marriage spoils that beauty with gender segregation.

Do you think men's/women's public restrooms spoil the beauty of gender diversity?

Brian_G wrote:

If you believe in the ultimate affirmative action of male/female marriage; keep the faith and keep the law defining marriage as one man and one woman.

I've always been against affirmative action, I believe in equal rights.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I've never said gays don't pay taxes, but that doesn't reduce the cost of same sex marriage one penny. Why can't same sex marriage supporters understand the costs of their bizarre new laws?

Yeah, stupid, I know, but you say "taxpayer" as if gay people don't pay taxes.
And what are these new costs? Are they going to be for the bandages needed for the people who are raped in prison because of gay marriage? After all, you said there would be an increase.
.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>How many times must I ask Rose not to mention my wife?

Your ex-wife? Hey, who can blame her for dumping you?

Brian_G wrote:

This just proves, many same sex marriage supporters are incapable of civil discourse. We must keep marriage husband/wife at least until they learn some manners.

That makes no sense, just like your other arguments.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

My Top Ten Reasons for Keeping Marriage As Is:
1 Posterity, yes Virginia, procreation does have something to do with marriage.

You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

2 Vive le difference! Say No! to gender segregated marriage.

A non statement.
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

3 Survival. Same sex marriage is bad for everyone's longevity.

How so, will "gay rays" emanate from gay couples dosing everyone with some kind of lethal homosexual radiation?
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

4 Civil discourse. Count the insults.

STFU, let people have equal rights, then you won't have to worry.
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

4 Antidemocratic. Let's vote on marriage law.

Like we voted in interracial marriage laws?
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

5 Taboo. Our culture defines marriage as male/female.

Circular. Like going into a pot legalization debate and saying pot shouldn't be legalized because pot is illegal.
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

6 Entitlement spending from new marriage laws.

?
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

7 Intrusive new regulation from new marriage laws.

Actually, the new laws would be less intrusive.
Next.

Brian_G wrote:

8 Higher taxes for everyone.
9 Fallacy of Composition, what's good for the part's isn't good for the whole.
10 Married women suffer less violence. Men shielding women were among the murdered in Aurora.

Wow, you come up with crap.

Next.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's one reason of many. There are billions of people with reasons to keep marriage male/female. Everybody has their own opinion.
.
<quoted text>I want the people to decide, not the courts.

The courts decided Loving v VA. Do you have a problem with that?

Brian_G wrote:

I believe in Democracy, do you?

No. Democracy is, as they say, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
We are a Republic, equal rights are promised to us, even when it's not popular with the mob.

Brian_G wrote:

Many leftist prefer Democracy only when it gives them their goal. Like the liberals promoting free trade then acting shocked at outsourcing. They don't understand consequences; that's why I say keep marriage between one man and one woman.

WTF does that have to do with free trade? Are you talking about open marriage?

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>My "odd stance" is called Conservatism. Law, public will and precedent all seem to want restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The state of Utah wasn't created until they ended polygamy, what further proof do you want?
.
<quoted text>Taxpayer benefits to same sex spouse dependent beneficiaries, Viagra and infertility treatments for same sex public schoolteacher marriage.

Why should gay teachers put in the same amount of work, but not get the same benefits?

Brian_G wrote:

I favor DOMA,

You con dumbs are all about "states' rights" and the 10th Amendment until it comes to DOMA...

Brian_G wrote:

cutting taxpayer benefits for same sex dependents.

You homophobes say "taxpayer" as if gay people don't pay taxes.

Brian_G wrote:

Fair is fair, Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA, he's running in November.

Fair should be fair, men and women should have equal rights.

[Hidingfromyou]

Brian_G wrote:

My Top Ten Reasons for Keeping Marriage As Is:
1 Posterity, yes Virginia, procreation does have something to do with marriage.

I teach anthropology. I taught my class that avoiding incest is a human universal - it's in all cultures. One of my students said to me, "that isn't true."

I said "what's your evidence?"

He said "I give you Virginia."

[Hidingfromyou]

Brian_G wrote:

2 Vive le difference! Say No! to gender segregated marriage.

That's not an argument, but a plea.

3 Survival. Same sex marriage is bad for everyone's longevity.

If you remove your testicles, you'll live longer. Devoting energy to reproduction decrease's one's life. I suspect you won't choose this option for longevity though!

4 Civil discourse. Count the insults.

You and I seem to be doing fine. Except that when I give you what you want - science - you avoid talking to me.

4 Antidemocratic. Let's vote on marriage law.

Sure, vote away.

5 Taboo. Our culture defines marriage as male/female.

It actually defines it as man/woman - and only a part of it now. Admittedly, a majority.

6 Entitlement spending from new marriage laws.
7 Intrusive new regulation from new marriage laws.
8 Higher taxes for everyone.

These don't logically follow.

9 Fallacy of Composition, what's good for the part's isn't good for the whole.

Neither does this.

10 Married women suffer less violence. Men shielding women were among the murdered in Aurora.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Why would you bring the recent tragedy into this discussion? Does it help your position?

Do you know what wife beatings increase dramatically after football games?

[River Tam]

Brian_G wrote:

10 Married women suffer less violence.

Are you insane? Who is the first suspect when a woman goes missing or is murdered? There is a reason police suspect the husband first.

[Amused]

Brian_G wrote:

My Top Ten Reasons for Keeping Marriage As Is:
...
10 Married women suffer less violence. Men shielding women were among the murdered in Aurora.

Every 9 seconds a woman in the US is assaulted or beaten by a domestic partner.

Every day, an average of over 3 American women are killed by a domestic partner.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injuries to women, greater than rapes, muggings and accidents combined.

However heroic the actions of the men in Aurora were, and they were heroic, the fact remains that that was an anomalous situation, and in general, male domestic partners are the biggest threat to women's safety.

[The serpent was right]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>And alot of people didn't. Gender has nothing to do with race, except's the left's skill at vilifying opponents. Compare me to a racist? I cherish Loving v. Virginia as US Supreme Court precedent that marriage is male/female.
'
<quoted text>T.s.w.r. assume's incorrectly, I don't support the taxing of churches, I support church freedom and freedom of religion.
'
<quoted text>I don't, I'd say "Bless you!", I disfavor government creating a new definition of marriage, as for your personal life, I don't really care. This is a legal issue, I'm proud to stand for freedom of religion.
'
<quoted text>That's stupid talk, the South seceded because they lost the Majority. Slavery was ended by Congressional legislation and Constitutional referendum after the US Supreme Court decided Dredd Scott to send back a runaway slave as property right.
'
<quoted text>I stand for civil rights for all, black, gays, religious and atheists. I stand against special rights to redefine cultural institutions for political gain.
There are bibilical arguments for interracial marriage; why no ancient arguments for same sex marriage? Just saying...
'
<quoted text>Slavery is theft, among the least of it's evils including murder. Freedom is a civil right. The freedom not to suffer under your weird house rules; the freedom to keep marriage as is. The Government doesn't have the right to redefine marriage as male/male or female/female; without electoral consent.
'
<quoted text>You might object to incest marriage, polygamy or necrophilia marriage for the same reasons. There's no special right to redefine marriage law for everyone. New laws making government blind to gender in marriage changes laws for heterosexual and homosexuals alike.

Here is your mantra..."There's no special right to redefine marriage law for everyone"

But yet you have no problem with the goverment defining marriage in the first place. In my opinion, goverment has no right to ban polygamy. In the case of incest and necrophilia, there are health issues that justify a ban. Homosexuality is not illegal, so I cannot imagine the grounds for a ban on same sex marriage, other than "that's the way it has always been". Since there are churches that will perform the ceremony, than it's not a religious issue either.

If marriage is a religious matter, than goverment should stay out of it. If it is secular/civil, then religion should stay out of it. It appears that it is both, at least for most. What right does the goverment have in forcing a definition on it's people? If there is a civil reason, I could understand, but there isn't.

If there is some civil reason for the ban, present it. Laws change all the time, and the constitution allows for that.

[The serpent was right]

Brian_G wrote:

My Top Ten Reasons for Keeping Marriage As Is:
1 Posterity, yes Virginia, procreation does have something to do with marriage.
2 Vive le difference! Say No! to gender segregated marriage.
3 Survival. Same sex marriage is bad for everyone's longevity.
4 Civil discourse. Count the insults.
4 Antidemocratic. Let's vote on marriage law.
5 Taboo. Our culture defines marriage as male/female.
6 Entitlement spending from new marriage laws.
7 Intrusive new regulation from new marriage laws.
8 Higher taxes for everyone.
9 Fallacy of Composition, what's good for the part's isn't good for the whole.
10 Married women suffer less violence. Men shielding women were among the murdered in Aurora.

1. Than you must oppose older people getting married, since they can't reproduce.

2. Your personal intolerance for same sex marriage is of no consequesnce.

3. Wrong.

4. We do not vote on every law, especially civil rights.

5. That is no reason for violation of a persons civil rights.

6. Like what? Examples please.

7. Define intrusive. Intrusive to whom, and how?

8. Unfounded/unsupported speculation.

9. Since it does not materially/negatively impact the whole, it is moot.

10. Unsupported bullshit.

[Nuggin]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
The above arguments might best be termed "arguments form arrogance." Isn't it arrogant to presume to know the mind of another? I think so. That and ad hominem have in common the red herring argument (arguing by changing the subject) and the basic flaw of making the argument personal, which always detracts from the subject at hand. All of these approaches fail to make valid points about the core controversy.

That may be true however when "debating" with someone who doesn't provide any supporting evidence and flatly denies evidence to the contrary, you're left with very few alternatives.

BG has made it clear that he simply doesn't think that homosexuals are American citizens deserving of rights. His position isn't based on anything even remotely approaching an argument.

The closest he's come is by incorrectly speculating that no other cultures have alternative forms of marriage.

He's further "supported" his argument by making the bizarre claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow change the gender of people. He offered no medical evidence to support this. Hell, he didn't even offer a sci-fi movie to support this.