Comments
21 - 36 of 36 Comments Last updated Apr 11, 2014
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Thinking wrote:
By the same logic, should accepting Asians be regarded as beneficial to a culture?
<quoted text>
Asians are already accepted. Being Asian is an ethnicity, not a lifestyle choice. The Asians are right though. Homosexual unions aren't really beneficial to a stable society.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

You may claim to be an Atheist, but are you rational? Probably not, looking at your overuse of capitalisation.

If, as may happen in the not so very distant future, humans were immune to all diseases, would you still have the same issue?

Also, I note that lesbians have far fewer STDs than heterosexuals, which using your disease argument makes them god's chosen people.
thisGuy wrote:
YES.
I'm an Atheist & I think homosexuality is DISGUSTING. I don't care how "homophobic" or "bigot" you think I am, I think the idea of a man sticking his dick up another man's asshole is fucking GROSS! The lifestyle also is the biggest contributor of deadly STDs. In Canada alone, 70% of AIDS cases come from MSM.
As for marriage, marriage is actually a religious thing. Many homosexuals are NOT religious & could care less about what best for the child. Many children raised by homosexual parents end up being in worst condition than children raised by heterosexual parents. I don't think it's right. Honestly, the churches should be ones who decides who get married, & the government should have nothing to do with it.
I also don't think it's right how the GLBTs are after eliminating their opponent's freedom of speech & religion. They want to criminalize those who disagree with the lifestyle & pretty much oppress free thinking people from believing in the imaginary man in the sky. People should have the right to believe what they want without being persecuted.
I don't need a Bible to prove to you the lifestyle is sick. At its core, it just is. It takes a man & a woman to create a life. Man + Woman = Life. This is a biological fact!
You'd be surprised how many pro-homo supporters have been shocked to find out I'm a Atheist against homosexuality. Their reactions are PRICELESS! Especially, since so many of them are so used to everyone disagreeing with them being religious.
The GLBTs call me a "bigot" for disagreeing simply because of scientific proof. Says everything about them. And I've come to conclusion that I don't like them that much.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

I don't discriminate against skin colour.
I don't discriminate against gay marriage either.
No one can explain to me how gay marriage will undermine my existing marriage without resorting to religitard mumbo jumbo.
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Asians are already accepted. Being Asian is an ethnicity, not a lifestyle choice. The Asians are right though. Homosexual unions aren't really beneficial to a stable society.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Well good for you Guy. No one cares if you're a homosexual.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 27, 2013
 
I don't support it nor am I against it. If people want to date the same sex, great. Al just like that.

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Mar 16, 2014
 
I am an atheist . And am against gay marriage from a libertarian point of view, in that it give the state more power. Scene marriage is a state function. There must be a clear compelling benefits to society. For the state to endorse gay marriage. And there is none at best maybe even negative. When it comes to expanding state power you must take a do no harm stand. because when state expand power freedom is always l out lost.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) should be a matter of conscience and nothing to do with the state or the law at all.
JMHO

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

6

6

6

freethinker1957 wrote:
I am an atheist . And am against gay marriage from a libertarian point of view, in that it give the state more power. Scene marriage is a state function. There must be a clear compelling benefits to society. For the state to endorse gay marriage. And there is none at best maybe even negative. When it comes to expanding state power you must take a do no harm stand. because when state expand power freedom is always l out lost.
You got it wrong-- it's not about expanding state power, it **is** about equality under the **already**existing** laws.

There are **already** marriage laws on the books, which grant various powers, rights and benefits to the married partners.

Under current anti-gay practice, this means the **existing** laws are **not** applied **equally**-- due to 100% religious reasons.

This is unconstitutional on two levels, 1) because it's religious, and 2) because it creates a minority of people under the law, who are treated with **fewer*** rights than the majority.

Both conditions are unconstitutional.

Which is why the anti-gay-marriage laws are falling right and left... they cannot pass the test of Constitutionality.

Your libertarian views have no bearing on this, and are not an argument.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Mar 16, 2014
 

Judged:

7

7

7

EdSed wrote:
Marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) should be a matter of conscience and nothing to do with the state or the law at all.
JMHO
I agree.

However, we already have laws that describe the rights granted to married people.

Anti-gay laws create a minority of people who have **fewer** rights as a result, and they are 100% based on religion.

So they fail on two counts, to be constitutional.

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Apr 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Thinking wrote:
You may claim to be an Atheist, but are you rational? Probably not, looking at your overuse of capitalisation.
If, as may happen in the not so very distant future, humans were immune to all diseases, would you still have the same issue?
Also, I note that lesbians have far fewer STDs than heterosexuals, which using your disease argument makes them god's chosen people.
<quoted text>
Are you rarional, the owness is on you to prove that there is any postive benifit to the nation as a hold from homosexual marriage.that the problem. it not about you after all
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Apr 5, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Mike N wrote:
Just a curious question. I really want to hear the answer from straight atheists. It will be interesting to see. Hopefully the answer will be NO across the board.
I am a straight atheist - so-called. Actually an agnostic athiest. And at my age my sexual preferences are visual - old movies with the gorgeous male stars in their best roles - James Dean in East of Eden, but not the other two movies. etc. I am for the rights of persons who are gay -gbltg, or whatever the initials are. it is a matter of being for the rights of persons - and they are persons. I am also for many rights for animals, and also for some rights of the unborn - even though I support a woman's right to choose. The best way to protect against abortion is birth control that is safe and effective. I am not for justifying ridiculous acts by gay persons, however - such as being exhibitionists in front of children (straight people should not be either) or failing to use protection, and risking spreading disease. marriage and monogamy should be welcomed as a good decision by the right wing, even for gay persons. It proves that many straight rightwing types are not eally as much pro-marriage as they are looking for folks to hate.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Apr 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

thisGuy wrote:
YES.
I'm an Atheist & I think homosexuality is DISGUSTING. I don't care how "homophobic" or "bigot" you think I am, I think the idea of a man sticking his dick up another man's asshole is fucking GROSS! The lifestyle also is the biggest contributor of deadly STDs. In Canada alone, 70% of AIDS cases come from MSM.
As for marriage, marriage is actually a religious thing. Many homosexuals are NOT religious & could care less about what best for the child. Many children raised by homosexual parents end up being in worst condition than children raised by heterosexual parents. I don't think it's right. Honestly, the churches should be ones who decides who get married, & the government should have nothing to do with it.
I also don't think it's right how the GLBTs are after eliminating their opponent's freedom of speech & religion. They want to criminalize those who disagree with the lifestyle & pretty much oppress free thinking people from believing in the imaginary man in the sky. People should have the right to believe what they want without being persecuted.
I don't need a Bible to prove to you the lifestyle is sick. At its core, it just is. It takes a man & a woman to create a life. Man + Woman = Life. This is a biological fact!
You'd be surprised how many pro-homo supporters have been shocked to find out I'm a Atheist against homosexuality. Their reactions are PRICELESS! Especially, since so many of them are so used to everyone disagreeing with them being religious.
The GLBTs call me a "bigot" for disagreeing simply because of scientific proof. Says everything about them. And I've come to conclusion that I don't like them that much.
Ok, so there are aspects of gay sex that gross you out. What about those same sex acts done by a straight couple? Does a man sticking his dick up a woman's asshole make you sick too? Or how about a married woman sticking her fingers or pumping a dildo up her husbands rectum? Does straight sex like that freak you out too? Have you considered that none of anyone else's sex acts are any of your business? Do you know that some gay men never indulge in anal sex? Do you know that the people who are born gay could care less what you find disgusting?

Marriage is a contractual thing, and had existed long before religions found a way to get their two cents from it. Raising children is not about marriage, and good parenting is always about being human and not about being a delusional religitard. The Judeo/Christain profanity called religion (which you would put in charge of marriage) has deemed that a toddler girl of three years and one day of age, as ready for marriage, which can be accomplished by an adult man taking her virginity by raping her. Yes that is her complete wedding in the form of one hard dick and a ripped up hymen. The reason for waiting so long to impale her on a penis is that by this age she will be potty trained, and therefore old enough to become a more pleasing wife. Now if we left it to the church who could be married and who couldn't, any raped woman would be forced into a lifetiome of sexual slavery/marriage to any man who chose to rape her. Your daughters could be sold into sexual slavery and when your brother died you could be forced to hump and impregnate (even if you were gay)his old lady whether you wanted her or not. But then, if you died your brother would be the one humping your wives, and if either one of you pissed off the god, your neighbor would be getting his jollies from your wives out in the street, courtesy of the bible god.

Just so you know, very few atheists would ever consider putting any religious institution in charge of marriage. Unless you were one of the elders, you'd stay virgin and pleasing to Jesus, for as long as the old guys lived. Only war, but no wives for young men, young religous men die for the old religous men's god-given rights to hump babies.
Amused

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Apr 10, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
However, we already have laws that describe the rights granted to married people.
Anti-gay laws create a minority of people who have **fewer** rights as a result, and they are 100% based on religion.
So they fail on two counts, to be constitutional.
There was marriage well before there was christianity. There is marriage in non-christian countries. In many places, religion plays a minor, or even non-existent role in marriage celebration. Marriage exists and has existed independent from religion.

Marriage is a state function. It is, at bottom, a contractual relationship between the parties. The states have laws defining how old one must be to enter into this contract, requires that the parties not be so closely related as to pose danger to potential offspring. It enforces those laws be requiring licenses, except in those places where "common law" marriages are recognized. The state enforces contracts, and the laws of the state determine which contracts can be enforced and which cannot. Through divorce laws, the state determines how marriages end, and the rights of the parties upon dissolution.

Since it is a state function, the state is obligated to enforce the laws in a neutral way. Under our constitution, states can only treat people disparately when there is a compelling state interest that needs to be protected by the disparate treatment. Since marriage is a state function, and not a religious one, vindication of religious convictions about whether homosexuality offends some deity cannot be a compelling state interest. In the absence of any other compelling state interest, there is no basis for unequal treatment.

One would think that with all the time and effort those opposed to gay marriage have expended, that if there were a non-religious state interest that was compelling, someone would have discovered it by now. The absence of evidence for such a compelling state interest is evidence that such a compelling interest is absent.

For myself, I am married. I did not become married in order to join some exclusive club that keeps out gays. I married to build my relationship with my wife and make our commitment permanent. I have no interest in who else gets married, or to whom. If it makes them happy, it is simply not any of my concern. To the extent marriage needs to be defended, which is the greater threat, Britany Spears' drunken 48 hour marriage apparently entered into on a lark, or the marriage of two committed gay men who've been together for years?

On the other hand, as a citizen, I do have a concern about whether the government enforces its laws in a neutral way, without any entanglement with religion impeding the neutrality of its enforcement.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Apr 10, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is primarily a legal issue. The questions I've heard discussed recently have to do with equal protection under the law and the duty of Congress to promote the good of society.

Is there any justification for denying gay citizens equal protection under the law? Are there any circumstances where extra protections should be put into place to assure equality? I tend towards no on both questions. As such, I don't see the need for the hate crime legislation that adds an extra layer of penalty for crimes motivated by the various social prejudices covered by civil rights legislation, which goes no further than mandating equality for minorities.

But there is no justification for oppressing minorities to promote social engineering goals. To deny marriage rights to gays simply because they cannot reproduce sexually is ridiculous.

There is no reason to promote population growth in the U.S. or even to fear a gradual reduction. Our natural resources can only support so many people at the current levels of prosperity and without damaging the environment and causing the extinction of species that we would mourn when lost. We may have reached to point where stable population levels are preferable to growth. But even without that factor, gays, lesbians, and transgendered people will not reproduce at lower rates if they are allowed to marry. I don't think it likely that they would reproduce at greater rates either.

Eliminating population growth as a factor, how else would continued denial of marriage rights for gay couples benefit society enough to justify discrimination against them? I don't see how it does.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Apr 11, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
There was marriage well before there was christianity. There is marriage in non-christian countries. In many places, religion plays a minor, or even non-existent role in marriage celebration. Marriage exists and has existed independent from religion.
Marriage is a state function. It is, at bottom, a contractual relationship between the parties. The states have laws defining how old one must be to enter into this contract, requires that the parties not be so closely related as to pose danger to potential offspring. It enforces those laws be requiring licenses, except in those places where "common law" marriages are recognized. The state enforces contracts, and the laws of the state determine which contracts can be enforced and which cannot. Through divorce laws, the state determines how marriages end, and the rights of the parties upon dissolution.
Since it is a state function, the state is obligated to enforce the laws in a neutral way. Under our constitution, states can only treat people disparately when there is a compelling state interest that needs to be protected by the disparate treatment. Since marriage is a state function, and not a religious one, vindication of religious convictions about whether homosexuality offends some deity cannot be a compelling state interest. In the absence of any other compelling state interest, there is no basis for unequal treatment.
One would think that with all the time and effort those opposed to gay marriage have expended, that if there were a non-religious state interest that was compelling, someone would have discovered it by now. The absence of evidence for such a compelling state interest is evidence that such a compelling interest is absent.
For myself, I am married. I did not become married in order to join some exclusive club that keeps out gays. I married to build my relationship with my wife and make our commitment permanent. I have no interest in who else gets married, or to whom. If it makes them happy, it is simply not any of my concern. To the extent marriage needs to be defended, which is the greater threat, Britany Spears' drunken 48 hour marriage apparently entered into on a lark, or the marriage of two committed gay men who've been together for years?
On the other hand, as a citizen, I do have a concern about whether the government enforces its laws in a neutral way, without any entanglement with religion impeding the neutrality of its enforcement.
Interesting. And I agree-- marriage is a method whereby two adults can share responsibilities of life, in a binding legal way.

That's pretty much it.

For some marriages, that includes the responsibilities of children. For others-- that is not present.

It should not matter either way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Apr 11, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NightSerf wrote:
This is primarily a legal issue. The questions I've heard discussed recently have to do with equal protection under the law and the duty of Congress to promote the good of society.
Is there any justification for denying gay citizens equal protection under the law? Are there any circumstances where extra protections should be put into place to assure equality? I tend towards no on both questions. As such, I don't see the need for the hate crime legislation that adds an extra layer of penalty for crimes motivated by the various social prejudices covered by civil rights legislation, which goes no further than mandating equality for minorities.
But there is no justification for oppressing minorities to promote social engineering goals. To deny marriage rights to gays simply because they cannot reproduce sexually is ridiculous.
There is no reason to promote population growth in the U.S. or even to fear a gradual reduction. Our natural resources can only support so many people at the current levels of prosperity and without damaging the environment and causing the extinction of species that we would mourn when lost. We may have reached to point where stable population levels are preferable to growth. But even without that factor, gays, lesbians, and transgendered people will not reproduce at lower rates if they are allowed to marry. I don't think it likely that they would reproduce at greater rates either.
Eliminating population growth as a factor, how else would continued denial of marriage rights for gay couples benefit society enough to justify discrimination against them? I don't see how it does.
Agreed.

Anti-gay, anti-same-sex laws are 100% hate-based. There is zero **rational** argument in favor of them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 41 min Patrick 394
100% Faith Free 47 min Patrick 6
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 57 min Patrick 5
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Dave Nelson 226,139
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 2 hr NightSerf 6
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 5 hr Patrick 24
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr ChristineM 898
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••