(October 15, 2013 at 11:16 pm)ThomM Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: So I was signing to a christian forum, because I have some questions that I want answered by christians, when I found this in there registration page

Marital Status
Choose an option that best describes your marital status (The Married icon is for access to the Marriage Ministry forum which is available to those who are married, defined as a legal union between one man and one woman).

http://www.christianforums.com/regnow.php?do=register

Marriage is another invention of religion - is certainly not a biological necessity - and is not even consistent in the bible - where polygamy was the rule BCE. THere are very few species in which pairs stay together for life - and it doesn't even happen often in humans as well.

THere is NOTHING that says that christians invented it - they did not. BUT in a christian forum - a marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what christianity specifies it to be. That does not make them right - but then they do not accept reality anyway!

WHY would it surprise YOU that in a Religious forum - they would define something the way their RELIGION defines it.? Religion has been and always will be a basis for discrimination - if you do not accept their position -= they are ANTI - YOU!

To be frank I wasn't expecting anything regarding anybody's marital status. I posted that here because I was rather bemused by the fact that you see stuff openly in Christian forums, when they scream persecution constantly.

(October 15, 2013 at 5:00 pm)John V Wrote: Here's some more discrimination!!!
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21262.html

Quote:I need to make a logo for my atheist meetup group, but don't know what the hell I'm doing. Any good logo maker apps or sites you like? I beg you for ideas!

hock:
Oh the horrors - people deciding what other people they'd like to hang out with!

fuck off, John.

---

Our cover photo on FB was updated today, actually.



How discriminatory.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:See what I did to your logical fallacy?

You equate homosexuality with murder, rape, and paedophila...

No. Read carefully. I equated them with the human population on this planet continuing to grow apace.
It's your logical fallacy pal. Own it.
...homosexuality must not be bad or else the human race wouldnt be where we are now.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...You understand that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, correct?

No - I contest that claim. So do the stats about partner-on-partner violence, self harm, sexually transmitted disease...

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Thats not the reason I am against gay "marriage". I have never made that argument against SSM. Try using the quote function instead of the sock puppet ventriloquism routine.

lol, that's EXACTLY the argument you made - the thread began with a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and you immediately brought up procreation.

Go back and read my post. I said dont blame heterosexism on Christians. Blame Darwinian sexual selection.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Nope. I'm not squeamish. If I closed my eyes, I can probably imagine that a ''blindfolded" human orgasm sensation feels pretty much the same no matter what gender or age or other species is involved. Wanna legalize pet brothels?
Or are you one of those..."animals dont like having orgasms err...I mean...animals cant give consent" type folk?

See, now THAT'S a strawman, since I never once suggested beastiality.

I think you need glasses. I did not accuse you. I asked you what you thought about pet brothels and animal consent.
Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...Why do you lot always seem to resort to that - something to hide?

Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Well, I suppose if you are running that lame... no harm, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS trope, how about the starving people in Africa? Do we say they are none of our business?
Come to think of it, someone was earlier making the "over population argument" for homosexuality.

You're seriously equating helping hungry people with denying rights to gay people?

Make up your mind. You just got through telling me that what gay people do should be none of my business. Now you are asking me to consider the question. Do I ignore stuff that doesnt affect me or do I give it consideration and take a position?
That applies to every moral/ethical question - not JUST feeding the hungry or making changes to family law. Are you a humanist?

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:How about those unmarried moms who got pregnant. Their body. Their choice. Should tax payers, (I should say religious charities,) provide welfare for them? Or is that another MYOB look the other way scenario?

Yes, taxpayers should provide assistance to unmarried mums (those who need it, anyroad).

You just argued that I should not stick my nose into stuff that doesnt affect me (SSM). Now you are saying I am a stake-holder in a womans pregnancy. hock:

(October 16, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You equate homosexuality with murder, rape, and paedophila...

No. Read carefully. I equated them with the human population on this planet continuing to grow apace.
It's your logical fallacy pal. Own it.
...homosexuality must not be bad or else the human race wouldnt be where we are now.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...You understand that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, correct?

No - I contest that claim. So do the stats about partner-on-partner violence, self harm, sexually transmitted disease...

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: lol, that's EXACTLY the argument you made - the thread began with a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and you immediately brought up procreation.

Go back and read my post. I said dont blame heterosexism on Christians. Blame Darwinian sexual selection.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: See, now THAT'S a strawman, since I never once suggested beastiality.

I think you need glasses. I did not accuse you. I asked you what you thought about pet brothels and animal consent.
Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...Why do you lot always seem to resort to that - something to hide?

Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You're seriously equating helping hungry people with denying rights to gay people?

Make up your mind. You just got through telling me that what gay people do should be none of my business. Now you are asking me to consider the question. Do I ignore stuff that doesnt affect me or do I give it consideration and take a position?
That applies to every moral/ethical question - not JUST feeding the hungry or making changes to family law. Are you a humanist?

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Yes, taxpayers should provide assistance to unmarried mums (those who need it, anyroad).

You just argued that I should not stick my nose into stuff that doesnt affect me (SSM). Now you are saying I am a stake-holder in a womans pregnancy. hock:

Funny how all the things you name wrong about being gay coincide with being marginalized and discriminated against in society, and did you know that same arguments were used against the civil rights movement in the 60's?

(October 16, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: No - I contest that claim. So do the stats about partner-on-partner violence, self harm, sexually transmitted disease...

It's a good thing violence, self-harm and disease is never a factor in straight relationships!

Quote:I think you need glasses. I did not accuse you. I asked you what you thought about pet brothels and animal consent.

I think it says a lot about how hateful Christians are that so many of them resort to comparisons like this when homosexuality is on topic.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Make up your mind. You just got through telling me that what gay people do should be none of my business. Now you are asking me to consider the question. Do I ignore stuff that doesnt affect me or do I give it consideration and take a position?
That applies to every moral/ethical question - not JUST feeding the hungry or making changes to family law. Are you a humanist?

So, what you're saying is that you should have the right to harm people if you occasionally help people?

(October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You just argued that I should not stick my nose into stuff that doesnt affect me (SSM). Now you are saying I am a stake-holder in a womans pregnancy. hock:

If you are in favor of banning abortions, you have already made yourself a stakeholder in every woman's pregnancy.

(October 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians.

I like free speech. Can I post views which the Mods here might find homophobic?

Go ahead, make a thread as long as it includes something more then slurs sure they won't ban you for being a dumbass.

(October 16, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: No - I contest that claim. So do the stats about partner-on-partner violence, self harm, sexually transmitted disease...

So it's a good thing we already have laws against domestic violence and are pretty much united in thinking STDs and self harm are bad, isn't it?

This isn't an argument against homosexuality any more than it would be an argument against clothes: did you know the majority of all of those things occur to people who wear clothes?

Seriously, what's next in free association theater, Lion? Even if your stats were correct- and I doubt it- you've only made an argument against those specific bad things, you haven't gone one inch toward making a link between them and homosexuality, because those things don't always occur between gay couples, nor are they exclusive to them. The majority of rapes are committed by men, but I don't see you advocating the idea that being male is intrinsically harmful: could it be that you have a religious bias informing your opinions instead of facts?

Oh, and while you can't really link a genetic thing like homosexuality to a behavioral one like domestic violence, you can link two behavioral ones, like, say... religion and domestic violence. Care to guess which group has the most intense level of domestic violence by religious beliefs, Lion?

I'll give you a hint: it's the most fundamentalist group.

(October 15, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: By that definition every church ever founded is a discriminatory organization.

Sure. So are veteran's groups, and teen groups, and senior citizens groups, and golf leagues, and book clubs. Point is that it's silly to apply the term discrimination in such instances.

(October 16, 2013 at 8:54 am)John V Wrote: Sure. So are veteran's groups, and teen groups, and senior citizens groups, and golf leagues, and book clubs. Point is that it's silly to apply the term discrimination in such instances.

Ain't your religion supposed to be accepting of anyone who accepts Jesus into their lives?

"The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians."

And there we have it folks - the old Christian one, two, shuffle. Open with a left jab of ignorance, counter with an overhand right of bigotry and then more those feet to deny the blame.

Its like watching a 5 year old playing with matches - mildly amusing at first but it won't end well.

Well as I can't do anything on the bigotry and pointing out the evils of Christianity is pointless to a mindless follower I'll go for the ignorance:

"The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating. "

Some notes:

1. This doesn't mean every member of a species has to breed. Many mammals only have a single pair breeding with the group supporting them. In humans, which tend to produce one or two progeny at a time this is not the case, although there is biological potential advantage to non-breeding uncles (for example).
2. Homosexuality and breeding are not mutually exclusive. Opportunistic heterosexuality can occur as readily as opportunistic homosexuality does in prison.
3. Sexual selection is only a part of natural selection. Other factors apply in determining the make up of succeeding generations, often environmental.
4. Whilst the genetic function of homosexuality in the general population has yet to be established that doesn't mean there isn't one. It may well be that a healthy gene pool requires removal of older genetic material continuously through random chance / probability.

Oh - sod it - I can't resist it:

"Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians."

Right - from the people that claim we get our morality from them and their fucked up religion I give you - not our fault - it was Darwin what did it. FFS.