Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Can't they just have sex then go to confessional? Then it's all better.

Who has been harmed in that scenario?

We do expect some people not to act on certain urges they have, when those urges result in the harm of others, such as paedophiles. This is a false equivocation with homosexuality, which harms no one.

Bingo!

[KevinM1]

I don't see why anyone should deny themselves anything, so long as:

1. It doesn't harm, or have the potential to harm, others.
2. Has the informed consent of all involved.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I don't see why anyone should deny themselves anything, so long as:

1. It doesn't harm, or have the potential to harm, others.
2. Has the informed consent of all involved.

Exactly. Gay people that don't harm anyone, can't have sex because of insanely moronic logic, but the punishment for pedophilia is, "let's cover it up, and move them to a different parish so they can do it again."

Repressing sexual urges is highly immoral no matter what orientation. This makes me so angry how people become so brainwashed by their primitive religion, and how they can think a natural act like sex, is immoral. It's ok when the many species of animals have sex outside of marriage, or have homosexual sex, but when humans do it, it becomes a highly immoral act all of the sudden. I can imagine if I was gay, how mad I'd be right now, this just pisses me off so much. People that think that's immoral, should be ashamed of themselves, and ashamed of their pure stupidity that they exhibit when they open their mouths against it.

[Homeless Nutter]

My understanding of the definition of the word bigot is this:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

source: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bigot+

That's a conveniently narrow definition of the word.

The concept of bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

I think I have been tolerant and respectful to the people who have different opinions from myself.
[...]

That depends on the meaning of the word "tolerance". You stubbornly claim that people expressing their love in a way that feels natural for them - are behaving immorally, unless they happen to want to do it the way you like it. They need to suppress their "urges", because the joy of coitus is only for "normal" people - like you. How is that not bigotry, again?

[KevinM1]

I should note, that the typical responses like "but what about potentially contracting a STD? Isn't that harm?" isn't really a rebuttal because of reason #2. If you're consenting to sex, you're consenting to the potential risk it presents. That's why, I, personally, wouldn't shack up with someone I just met. But, I'm not going to judge what another does with their body. If you don't have ownership of your own body, what do you have ownership of?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I should note, that the typical responses like "but what about potentially contracting a STD?  Isn't that harm?" isn't really a rebuttal because of reason #2.  If you're consenting to sex, you're consenting to the potential risk it presents.  That's why, I, personally, wouldn't shack up with someone I just met.  But, I'm not going to judge what another does with their body.  If you don't have ownership of your own body, what do you have ownership of?

Exactly. I don't think I'd shack up with someone I didn't trust or know either. It's immoral not to tell someone that you will engage in sex with while having an STD, and not tell that person first. If the sex is consenting between adults, whatever the kind of sex that it is, how is that immoral?

What's the difference between making someone wear a veil around her face in public because of religion, and suppressing natural sexual urges?

Christians think that's immoral, but can't seem to grasp how the other is immoral. Religion suppresses people's freedoms and natural instincts through guilt and fear. Any religion that does that, is immoral as fuck. It blows my mind how people can stand by something so immoral, and defend it against all logic and reason, because their mommy and daddy tells them that it's the word of god. Wake the hell up already!

[Redbeard The Pink]

My husband left for a trip and I'm bored. Meaning It's one of those evenings where I look for any excuse to post lol. 

I was browsing my facebook news feed today and came across this article called The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, posted by an acquaintance on my friend's list. I thought it was very out of character and was curious to hear you guys' opinions/comments/counter arguments on the points being made. Fire away!! 
  

I am an atheist, and have no religious reasons for denying gays the right to be married; but, I have very secular reasons. 

1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children. 

2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too. 

3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems. 

4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman. New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter. 

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. 

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there...024CEDB973

Let's see...

1. Various species exhibit homosexual behavior, and in general it doesn't harm the survival rate of the species as a whole because it's not common enough. Humanity has witnessed many extinctions, and not once have we documented an animal "gaying" its way onto the endangered species list.

2. First off, no, lesbians are not as likely as homosexual men to spread AIDS. The reason gay men are so prone to it is that anal sex is still the primary culprit for transmission. Second, the (primarily christian-fueled) social stigma surrounding homosexuality was part of the reason for the AIDS spread; it's just about always harder to safely engage in a practice when it's been stigmatized and in some cases made illegal.

3. This is a bigoted lie, not to mention a non-argument. Even if gays were more prone to drug use (citation?), how would the legal status of gay marriage have any impact on that whatsoever?

4. There's a lot of debate as to whether being raised in a gay household negatively affects children, but even if it does, it's not evidence of causation. It's possible that the disadvantages of being raised in a gay house stem from the stigma and societal treatment of such children, not to mention that gays are themselves a culturally disadvantaged group (children of societal fringe tend to suffer just for being in their demographic; this is not an inherently gay problem). Basically, even if children raised by gay parents do suffer for it, it might be because society treats them like shit and not because their parents did a poor job raising them.

The assertion about marriage and procreation is just wrong. Historically, marriage has been more about wealth-sharing and interpersonal dynamics than it has ever been about children. The shift toward a procreation-based value of marriage is the phenomenon that's actually more recent.

Divorce, while usually painful and probably in need of reform in America, does not always represent failure or destruction. In fact, it's often a positive thing for one or both parties involved, depending on the situation. Religious and non-religious people have roughly equivalent rates of divorce and infidelity in most Western countries. The countries with the lowest divorce rates tend to actually be the countries with high religiosity, arranged marriages, and practically no gender equality to speak of; divorce is not a product of anything but freedom and choice, in a broad sense.

As for whole thing about the state hurting itself by supporting "sterile" relationships, that's a crock. Lots of gay people can and do have biological children, and lots of heterosexual couples can't. The simple fact is that if sterile heterosexual couples can get state benefits for being married, then homosexuals should get those benefits, too. Period. There is no logical reasoning to the contrary.

The polygamy thing is kind of a slippery slope argument, and I'm honestly surprised this dude didn't throw pedophilia in there as well. It sounds like someone from a right-wing, religious upbringing that's an atheist but still hasn't shaken a lot of the hang-ups that come with being taught bigotry against certain groups from a young age. He thinks it's icky, so he spouts a bunch of fallacy and emotional arguing because he can't just admit he thinks it's icky.

[Whateverist]

I already have people who bug me on ignore.

I only have one person on ignore. He's no theist and only an occasional poster. But for me he's the embodyment of an ignorant presumptuous idiot.

Otherwise I take what's dished out. If I don't feel like reading posts of a certain member at a certain time, I just skip over them.

Oh do tell, who is it?

[Whateverist]

What cases are those?

Pretty much anything that is illegal or legal but not socially acceptable but would require someone to refrain from acting on deep seeded desires/parts of themselves. 

I am reluctant to give examples because then people will just be like "omg, you're comparing ____ to homosexual sex!" Which is not what I'm doing at all. I'm merely pointing out that there are instances where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves. Not that the behaviors themselves are similar in any way. But Esq made it sound like it's wrong in general to believe a person should ever do this, so I wanted clarification.

But if you think there is a class of people who are not deserving of fulfillment in this life because of a basic flaw in their make up .. that does sound pretty bigoted to me. I'm quite sure you'd still donate a kidney to them if your gay friend asked but it still seems like a pretty qualified sort of acceptance.

[Catholic_Lady]

Can't they just have sex then go to confessional? Then it's all better. People sin all the time, it's designed to be unavoidable. Why is this any different?

Who has been harmed in that scenario?

We do expect some people not to act on certain urges they have, when those urges result in the harm of others, such as paedophiles. This is a false equivocation with homosexuality, which harms no one.

You are correct, it is not any different at all. Confession doesn't work unless you're truly sorry though, and that counts for everything as well. 

I agree it's a false equivocation.