Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Minimalist]

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.

1.  Has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.  People were fucking and producing kids long before there was any concept of marriage.

2.  Well then better reason to tie them up in a long-term relationship instead of being out on the prowl.

3.  Where is his evidence for that comment?  Sounds like one he pulled out of his ass.

4.  Says who?  Bigots of Amurrica, Inc?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24...48320.html

Children With Same-Sex Parents Are No Worse Off Than Those Raised By Straight Parents, Study Finds

Just because someone writes something down does not make it true.  You should have learned that lesson from you gospels.

[Simon Moon]

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

This atheist's case is nonexistent.

If point 1 is a reason against gay marriage, it is also a case against heterosexual people past their child bearing years getting married, people that are infertile getting married, or people who just don't want to have children getting married. 

Not to mention that gay people can still have children by natural means.

Point 2 is idiotic. So, if gay men aren't allowed to marry, they will stop having sex and spreading STD's?

Point 3 is a case for advocating better mental health care, not a case against gay marriage.

Professional athletes are also more prone to substance abuse problems. Is this guy also advocating to end heterosexual marriage when a professional athlete is one member of the couple?

Point 4, even if true (which I doubt) is far from telling the whole story. Would an abusive, alcoholic heterosexual father or mother be better role models for their children than a psychologically healthy same sex couple? 

There's a lot more to say on why this guys is wrong, but my above points are enough to demonstrate he has not case.

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

Oh, the 'slippery slope' idiocy.

This makes about as much sense as saying, "if we raise the speed limit to 70, then upon what basis can we deny the speed limit being raised to 105 mph?"

"We allow 16 year old people to drive, then on what basis do we deny 12 year olds or 10 year olds?".

Just because we make some allowances, does not mean all hell will break lose

[Pyrrho]

Bold emphasis is added:

...

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

Curiously, according to the CDC, lesbian sex rarely results in the transmission of HIV.  Women who get HIV almost always get it from sex with a man or injection drug use ("IDU" in their chart).  In fact, transmission of HIV via lesbian sex is so rare it does not even appear in the CDC's chart of how HIV is transmitted:



"MSM" in the chart is men who have sex with men, which obviously is not about women.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics.html

(At the above link, click on "How does HIV affect different groups of people?" to see the chart.)

See also:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs...7-2010.pdf

Basically, your source is an idiot who does not pay attention to actual facts.  If you want to avoid HIV, your best bet is to never use injected drugs and never have sex with a man.  Especially, never have sex with a man.

It is worth noting, however, that it is possible to get HIV via lesbian sex, so one is not necessarily safe if one is a lesbian who does not use injectable drugs.  See:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6310a1.htm

[Catholic_Lady]

Bold emphasis is added:

...

Curiously, according to the CDC, lesbian sex rarely results in the transmission of HIV.  Women who get HIV almost always get it from sex with a man or injection drug use ("IDU" in their chart).  In fact, transmission of HIV via lesbian sex is so rare it does not even appear in the CDC's chart of how HIV is transmitted:



"MSM" in the chart is men who have sex with men, which obviously is not about women.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics.html

(At the above link, click on "How does HIV affect different groups of people?" to see the chart.)

See also:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs...7-2010.pdf

Basically, your source is an idiot who does not pay attention to actual facts.  If you want to avoid HIV, your best bet is to never use injected drugs and never have sex with a man.

Yeah, I thought that was weird too. Men have more juices, so how 2 women can spread disease easier than a man and a woman makes no sense to me.

[Pyrrho]

Bold emphasis is added:


Curiously, according to the CDC, lesbian sex rarely results in the transmission of HIV.  Women who get HIV almost always get it from sex with a man or injection drug use ("IDU" in their chart).  In fact, transmission of HIV via lesbian sex is so rare it does not even appear in the CDC's chart of how HIV is transmitted:



"MSM" in the chart is men who have sex with men, which obviously is not about women.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics.html

(At the above link, click on "How does HIV affect different groups of people?" to see the chart.)

See also:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs...7-2010.pdf

Basically, your source is an idiot who does not pay attention to actual facts.  If you want to avoid HIV, your best bet is to never use injected drugs and never have sex with a man.

Yeah, I thought that was weird too. Men have more juices, so how 2 women can spread disease easier than a man and a woman makes no sense to me.

Since you have quoted me, I have updated my post.  It is possible to get HIV from lesbian sex, but it is extremely rare.  Here is a link on it:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6310a1.htm

I add that because I want to be clear that I am not saying that one is perfectly safe regarding HIV if one has lesbian sex.  But it is much, much safer than heterosexual sex.

[Alex K]

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary purpose". I gather the author made the term up?

[Pyrrho]

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary purpose". I gather the author made the term up?

Why not?  The dangers of lesbian sex are made up, so why not make up a bunch of other foolishness, too?  In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Alex K]

It is well known that the primary danger of lesbian sex is that the wife finds the video...

[Pyrrho]

My wife would not care that much if I had such a video.  Come to think of it, I do have a movie that does have such scenes in the full version, though not, I think, in the pre-release version of the film, which is supposed to be better (not "better" for those of you who want to watch pornography, but better as a cinematic work).  However, I have not yet watched the discs I acquired.  It is this, if anyone is curious.  It is on a shelf with other movies I have, and my wife is fully aware of its existence and has a good idea of what is on the discs, even though we have not yet watched them.  I have several films that are unrated, but I think that is the only movie I have that has hardcore pornography in it.  And that is not why I got it.  I want to see the pre-release version of the film.  I will probably at some point watch the pornographic version as well, but I have had it a while and I still have not gotten around to it.  It would not be surprising if I still have not watched either version, or any of the extras on the third disc, during the next year either.  But, someday, I expect to watch at least the pre-release version and maybe an extra about it.  Tinto Brass (the director of the pre-release version without the pornography that was added by Bob Guccione) was, I think, interviewed for this and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about it. If my memory of the story of this is correct, Bob Guccione fired Tinto Brass from the project, re-edited the film and added hardcore pornography to it. That is why the original released version is a bit of a mess. And why the pre-release version is probably much better as a story. But, I have not seen the pre-release version and am going by what I have read on the subject.

[Simon Moon]

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary purpose". I gather the author made the term up?

I wonder what the author would say the 'evolutionary purpose' is for homosexuality among: male lions, male bison, female penguins, male dolphins, male elephants, brown bear and other species?