Survey: Do you know of any atheists who oppose gay marriage? If so, I would like to know why. Gay marriage has always been a religious issue because the gods don’t like gays to marry. Why would an atheist support making gay marriage illegal?

Views: 1456

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I know a Buddhist Daoist ... (as though Buddhism and Daoism were somehow miscible)

. . . Aren't Buddhism and Daoism spectrum opposites?

I say spectrum, because "polar" makes one seem bad and one seem good, to me.

I called him selfish and left it at that.

My view is, heterosexuals claim that homosexuals are ruining marriage. I say, heterosexuals have spent the last gazillion years ruining marriage; it's the homosexuals' turn to swing at that pinata, darn it! :D
LarissaFae, why the negative interpretation of "polar"? Were you attacked by a polar bear? Don't like the cold? Had a bad experience with magnets? I'm genuinely curious. I can't think of a reason why "polar" would have bad associations.

And yes, thanks to Jack, I had to look up a new word. Kind of an odd one. Sort of like somebody mispronounced "mixable" and it stuck.
Actually, I can't stand the cold. :P That might just be it.

I suppose I equate polar with, well, polar opposites, which brings to mind black and white, good and bad . . . Extremes, I guess you could say.

Though I do hear that the Magnet Mafia has a hit out on me, for some reason . . .
I say, heterosexuals have spent the last gazillion years ruining marriage; it's the homosexuals' turn to swing at that pinata, darn it! :D

hahaha! I wish my copy of Photoshop hadn't disappeared, because I would SO make an appropriate image.
I absolutely agree with gay marriage. I don't believe I know a single atheist who opposes gay marriage.
Haven't met an anti-gay atheist yet. There must be a few, but pretty rare.
I oppose all marriage.

Won't catch me with that ole ball n chain!

Kidding aside, stop treating gays as second class citizens. Let them get on with their damn lives.
I know it's different but...
Right there is where you undermined your entire argument.

Hallucinating is a result of a mental disorder and in some cases, gay marriage is a result of a mental disorder for the gays who became gay due to some kind of trauma and THAT'S been verified.
You might want to cite evidence for that. I mean, it's only entirely contrary to everything we know about why gay people are gay. Anecdotes aren't going to support that one. Neither are bad studies that don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

(I swear I'm gonna stop linking now. It isn't as if homophobes will read them and learn anything. =P)
Nice, I ask for real evidence and you link me to a retarded fundamentalist Xian website.

You're either a troll or you're too stupid to read up on your own sources.
The founder of NARTH is a regular on Focus on the Family.

Dr. Nicolosi, founder of NARTH who claims the APA is an evil homosexual conspiracy:
Dr. Nicolosi regularly jokes with audiences at Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conference that, “If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he’ll be straight. Small price to pay.”

From NARTH's newsletter, sent out after a regular large donor was going to pull his funding because he didn't think they had enough popular support:
“I think there is a rather simple solution. On August 30th we want to take them a list of 1,000 people who believe in NARTH enough to contribute $20. … Donate an additional $20 in the name of your spouse, child, or grandchild. Donate $20 in the name of someone NARTH has help overcome unwanted homosexuality, but please donate! “

Yeah, awesome sources you got there.

So I cite reliable sources that quote from peer reviewed research and you cite a retarded fringe group that loathe science and yet *I'm* arguing like a theist?
(Yes, I generally bother to check my sources, which I'm sure you didn't read. I'm going to check yours too.)
Logic fail.
You are sadly (and almost undoubtedly, deliberately) misinformed about the causes for homosexuality. The overwhelming majority of mainstream doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is not a disorder, is not chosen, and cannot be changed.

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: “Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth”. The brochure warns:

The most important fact about these ‘therapies’ is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions … the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.

… Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured”.

In 1994, The American Psychological Association, representing at that time, over 132,000 mental health professionals, released a “Statement on Homosexuality” Its first two paragraphs read:

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accoutrements."

In Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation (2005), Glenn Wilson, a reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, reveal their findings after extensive study into the psychobiology of sex orientation and the existence of a ‘gay gene’. According to Wilson and Rahman:

the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored . . . our sexual preference is a fundamental and immutable component of our human nature.

Further, Wilson and Rahman assert categorically that ‘the research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait’. They insist that children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality regardless of how overbearing the mother or absent the father – ‘no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality’. According to these mental health experts:

… the biological origin of sexual orientation means that discriminating against gays and lesbians is as justifiable as discriminating on the basis of eye colour or ethnicity”.
(Ahuja, 2005)
[emphasis added]

On the other hand, the 'authority' you quote, NARTH's, approach stands completely outside this scientific consensus. While NARTH claims to be secular, at least one of its most vocal representatives, George Alan Rekers, has testified in court that he believes the Bible to be the infallable word of God and that homosexuality is a sin. His personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, according to the ACLU, interferes with his being able to give an unbiased professional opinion on LGBT topics, including gay adoption.

In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy." (Source: Wikipedia)

The American Psychiatric Association has branded such ex-gay and conversion therapies as unethical. Personal testimonies of people who have been through these programmes provide heart-wrenching stories of psychological abuse which often drives participants to suicide.

In its 1994 Statement on Homosexuality The American Psychological Association said: “Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accoutrements.”

If the overwhelming weight of this evidence does not convince you that homosexuality is a naturally occurring and completely normal aspect of human sexuality, then you are, indeed, both irrational and homophobic.
You will believe what you want to believe and no rational argument will change your mind. You are, as I suspected, irrational and homophobic. You want to believe the argument that suits your prejudice - not the argument that has been proven time and time again, in study after study, to the satisfaction of more than 500,000 American health professionals, not to mention the millions more world wide.

I wonder what other conspiracy theories you believe in. Are you a 9/11 truther? Do you think the moon-landing was faked? Are you convinced that the Bilderberger institute is plotting a one-world government? Come on Charles, educate us. What other things that the vast majority of educated people believe has been proven beyond reasonable doubt do you refute?
NARTH are the very group I was talking about were one of the worst things you could've cited. Not only did you not bother checking your references, but you linked to it again after you were told it was a crap source? Fine, time to cut your shaky legs out from under you.

Your hero, founder of NARTH, speaking at Love Won Out.
And who runs Love Won Out? Why, I do believe it's Focus on the Family!
(I forgot, we're supposed to take your "proof" on faith alone.)

As an added bonus, I give you Gerald Schoenwolf, one of NARTH's scientific advisory committee:
It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa.
Logic test: Making the argument black people should be grateful for slavery makes a source realiable/unreliable?
You picked a damned fine horse to hitch your wagon to. As long as they share your irrational disgust for gay people, anything else is cool, right?

You keep shrieking everyone that disagrees with you sounds like a Christian, which is ironic, since in the same breath you're screaming science is a lie.
Do you not understand peer review? Of course you don't.

If a group of Scientists who are Christians claimed the bible is factual and they claimed studies have been done to prove it, would you be skeptical of possible biases, fraud or scams?
If nearly every scientist in the world were able to prove it true, ran it through peer review, and published it so that I could read the evidence and check their methodology myself, no I would not be skeptical.
You're using the word "skeptic" in the same way climate change deniers, 9/11 truthers, birthers, flat earthers, moon hoaxers, creationists, IDers anti-vaxxers, and contrail morons do. You seem to think it means "I reject all evidence I don't like and cherry pick what I do." On the upside, you've probably got a bright future as a speechwriter for Jenny McCarthy if you just change your focus. Instead of "I'm not anti gay, I just think they're disgusting abominations." you just have to say "I'm not antivaccine, I'm antitoxin!"

I seriously considered linking to a bunch of random stuff that had nothing to do with the topic at hand just because I *knew* you weren't going to check the sources.
You aren't even bright enough to check your OWN damn sources, let alone anyone elses'. Did you just google "gays are bad" and link to the first thing that didn't have Jesus in the title?
I could link to things that prove you wrong until the end of time and you'd never even consider you might be wrong. You'd just keep linking to a citation that's already been shown to be about as questionable as they come and declaring peer review is for suckers.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Patricia commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
4 minutes ago
Chris commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
40 minutes ago
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Tom Brock replied to jlaz's discussion Is "God" possible?
5 hours ago
Mel Quay commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
5 hours ago
Tom Brock posted a status
"Technology is the new religion and Artificial Intelligence may be our new god. Leave your epitaph for humanity at"
5 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service