Are Atheists less Homophobic?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

I have to agree with my Theist friend with the unpronounceable name, even though he probably prays to the wrong invisible man in the sky.

It's very simple: love is evil when the body parts are similar.

Similar body parts: evil
Different body parts: well, still evil but not as much.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You can assert that "its an abomination against nature", but I don't see Nature sticking its hand up and tells us that it loathes anything.

Well, I'm looking beyond the fact that people are gay, but two people of the same-sex having the ability to procreate somehow outside the only way it can happen sounds pretty much like an abomination of nature to me.

I have no interest in debating someone who simply refuses to read the study already quoted.

Give me the damn study then. I'll read it and make up my own mind.

Assert Assert Assert
Fail to Produce contrary evidence
Assert.
Assert a bit more.
Assert Evidence must be wrong.
Fail to produce evidence why it must be wrong.
Dribble.

You think you can break my with your fancy, big words, friend?
Assertion. I make no assertions. The reason why I can't produce any studies here, is because they haven't probably been made. But I talk of common sense.
The common sense that works in this world.

You want to anthropomorphise nature and speak for it, why don't you call on a God instead. That way you can feel like you have a reason, even a fake one.

I don't have to speak for nature. Nature speaks for itself.
And it decrees that children can only be born from the sperm of a male, the egg and womb of a female. Is this so hard to comprehend?
Why do you insist on showing the abnormal as "normal"?

Seriously.. your entire point is about children is that they might ask questions? So what? They ask, its answered, problem solved.

And what about the social problems they'll probably face?
The reason they'll probably never speak of their parents to any of their friends?
I'm fairly certain that children and even adults would be reluctant to tell someone else that their parents are two guys, or two gals.
You're simply talking of the impossible.
I'm still waiting for the so-called study you have to show for it.

Fortunately, the real abomination, are those who still claw feebly to dark age prejudice, causing fear and emotional pain to other people on a irrational basis. I would say the more love in the world the better, and I would say that a gay family is better for a child than another bed in an orphanage.

And I think different, a kid in an orphanage would have less to be ashamed about than a child with homosexual parents.
And hell, if I were that kid, I certainly would maintain that I'm an orphan, that I have no parents. Because gays simply cannot become "parents" in the usual sense of the word. I think that the reason they want to adopt children is what I mentioned above, they need a sense of belonging, and they simply use children for their own insecurities, as pets, nothing more.
they feed them, they clothe them, they give them money, they send them to school, they probably buy them whatever they want and spoil them so they don't try to slip away from the family they'll sooner or later to find out and identify as what the rest of society identifies them as.

I have to agree with my Theist friend with the unpronounceable name, even though he probably prays to the wrong invisible man in the sky.

It's very simple: love is evil when the body parts are similar.

Family is a social construct, and must abide by the social boundaries it's set in. Gays try to stretch these for their own selfish needs, and use children for their means, and love has nothing to do with it.

It does not, like if there is *love* in an incestious relationship, and those two siblings, or whatever pairings you choose, want to get married, adopt or give birth to their own children, what exactly would you suggest that should be done, my sarcastic friend?

[KichigaiNeko]

Thing is mehmet...you are not looking at yourself.

[NoMoreFaith]

[Phil]

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Family is a social construct, and must abide by the social boundaries it's set in. Gays try to stretch these for their own selfish needs, and use children for their means, and love has nothing to do with it.

I agree completely with you about social boundaries. That's why during the 60s, the Lovings should have just shut up and married someone of their own race instead of making all that trouble suing the government and challenging the anti-inter-racial marriage laws in this country. Try to be a little more socialable in your social construct! Pick a partner that society will approve of and go with the flow.

You also keep making points about having children and I couldn't agree more. Those of us who follow the real invisible sky daddy as opposed to that imaginary one you pray to, know that sex is purely for pro-creation. That's why there's no point in old people getting married or a man marrying a woman who is infertal or can't carry. Not only do we need to mind social norms and rules when picking a partner but also should evaluate their potential to bear children.

It does not, like if there is *love* in an incestious relationship, and those two siblings, or whatever pairings you choose, want to get married, adopt or give birth to their own children, what exactly would you suggest that should be done, my sarcastic friend?

You seem to like them fancy big words yourself. I don't know what "sarcastic" means but I can only assume since you follow it with "friend" it must me "follower of the correct imaginary friend in the sky".

In any event, I notice that you're going slippery slope and red herring here. Whenever them uppity gays have the nerve to come out of their closets and make us feel insecure about our own sexuality, we Christians always use these tactics too. Good to know we have so much in common.

But to answer your question, the Bible actually doesn't seem to have much of a problem with family trees that don't fork, if the example of the holy people are to be followed. Jacob married his two cousins in Genesis. Lot had sex with his two daughters. His official story was they raped him in his sleep. Yeah, right. If you believed that you'll probably believe that while Muhammad was alone in a cave and angel talked to him.

These are holy people in the Koran too, aren't they?

I also want to applaud you for your ability to ignore all that science and logic the godless offer you. Don't let them distract you from the truth with all those facts. You don't need facts when you got Jesus! Evidently, that Muhammad feller also works that way.

[DeistPaladin]

Well, I'm looking beyond the fact that people are gay, but two people of the same-sex having the ability to procreate somehow outside the only way it can happen sounds pretty much like an abomination of nature to me.

A bit of personal information here: I'm a monogamous bisexual.

I bring this up only to stress that I have some personal experience here and can tell you from my perspective that both love and desire feel the same whether it is felt for a man or a woman. Toward the end of my single years, after I discovered my versatile nature, it made no difference to me whether my significant other was male or female. When joining online dating sites, I'd wished there could be an option for "seeking either". When friends offered to fix me up, my first question was usually "what gender?" but this was more out of curiosity.

After kissing many proverbial frogs, I finally did meet my wife and am now happily married. She can't have children due to some health issues she's fighting with. It's unfortunate as we both would like to have children but that doesn't exactly invalidate our marriage or our relationship. Would you call our marriage an "abomination to nature" or does the fact that she's a woman ease your delicate sensibilities enough to give it your seal of approval?

The couple that owned my condo before I lived there are a same-gender male couple. They're raising an adopted son together. They're a happy family but I'm guessing you'd rather they be treated as pariahs while the son gets to be raised in an orphanage?

Were I to look at sexuality from a similarly prejudiced and bigoted view as you have, I would wonder why anyone has any strong preferences at all. Love, as I've said, is the same emotion regardless. That's how I discovered I was bisexual. Even the physical mechanics are more a variation on some familiar themes than something completely different. The most significant distinction is with one you use birth control and the other you use lube. So what's the big deal?

Of course, I don't view sexual preference that way. I understand that it's about brain chemistry.

[KichigaiNeko]

[NoMoreFaith]

Well, I'm looking beyond the fact that people are gay, but two people of the same-sex having the ability to procreate somehow outside the only way it can happen sounds pretty much like an abomination of nature to me.

It's not natural, but you want to appeal to emotion by misusing the word abomination. There are lots of things that are not natural, thanks to science... is flying an "abomination", is artificial insemination an abomination in heterosexual couples? Is the computer wrote this on an abomination? The argument makes no sense. Science allows for us to do things beyond nature.

Give me the damn study then. I'll read it and make up my own mind.

Its only one page back and in my initial response to you.

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents - Gartrell & Bos (2010)

You think you can break my with your fancy, big words, friend?
Assertion. I make no assertions. The reason why I can't produce any studies here, is because they haven't probably been made. But I talk of common sense.

If it hasn't been studied, and no notable effects observed, then stating that children are harmed by having same-sex parents is a definite assertion. Especially in light of studies which have shown no problems.

By the same reasoning, all artificial insemination is an abomination. The issue is not how the child is conceived, but how it is raised.

I don't have to speak for nature. Nature speaks for itself.
And it decrees that children can only be born from the sperm of a male, the egg and womb of a female. Is this so hard to comprehend?
Why do you insist on showing the abnormal as "normal"?

Statistical abnormality does not mean inferior and that's the point. Your common sense is wrong, nothing proves that same-sex parents are less capable as parents, and nothing proves the children are harmed in any way by such an arrangement.

And what about the social problems they'll probably face?

No higher than standard level of bullying in schools. A different focus, but no better, and no worse. Once again, no discernible evidence of negative effect on grades or psychological well being.
Another words, you're still full of it. You're claiming harm against the evidence.

I think that the reason they want to adopt children is what I mentioned above, they need a sense of belonging, and they simply use children for their own insecurities, as pets, nothing more.

Good god, are you inhuman. Gay individuals have the same reasoning for wanting a child than any other human, you are asserting again without ANY evidence.
Their built-in sexuality has no effect on this need, and are no different to a heterosexual in this respect.
Like I said before, assert assert assert, fail to produce evidence, assert.. its the same pattern.

It's very simple: love is evil when the body parts are similar.

*yawn* Assertion without evidence again. Flying is evil because humans were never meant to fly mentality. Boring Dark Age minds.

Gays try to stretch these for their own selfish needs, and use children for their means, and love has nothing to do with it.

Evidence or you're pulling things out of your repressed ass again. At best, a delusion, at worst, deliberate lying.

It does not, like if there is *love* in an incestious relationship, and those two siblings, or whatever pairings you choose, want to get married, adopt or give birth to their own children, what exactly would you suggest that should be done, my sarcastic friend?

By your logic, the standard institution of male and female marriage should allow incestuous relationships does it not?
Its natural because its a man and a woman, and they can even have biological children without the need for science.

Your argument applies equally, and potentially even more than allowing gay marriage, and is therefore nonsense.

[KichigaiNeko]

mehmet isn't very bright ya know NMF... you are very patient aren't you??