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?
OVER 300 RESPONSES! FABULOUS, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH!
Several gay men have came on to me and they seem to believe everyone has the potential of being gay which makes the gay men even more aggressive.
Several straight men have come on to me, and they seem to believe that I have the potential of wanting sex with them, which makes them even more aggressive.
Usually, I find that a simple, "No, thanks" is enough to deter them. The ones who won't take no for an answer? Assholes. There are assholes of every orientation, who won't take a polite "no" and walk away.
Also, atheism and sexuality aren't things you can turn off. It's not like changing your underwear from the Tuesday pair to the Wednesday pair. "Oh, it's Atheism Tuesday! Can't be gay today!" . . . "Oh, it's Gay Wednesday! I can't be an atheist today!"
. . . Look, troll, it doesn't work like that. And atheists' primary concern should be everyone's rights. The right to belief what they want, and the right to love whomever they love and marry whomever they want.
First of all, a gay man is in violation by coming on to me in the first place.
In violation of WHAT, other than bruising your obviously tender masculinity? How does he KNOW that you're not gay? What do you define as coming on to you? Do YOU ask every single woman you meet if SHE'S gay before you hit on her? I can't see THAT getting you many women.
But gay men aren't even a considered category for me.
Then say, "No thanks, I'm not interested" and WALK AWAY. Of EVERY GENDER that's ever hit on me, when I wasn't interested, I uttered several variations of, "No thanks, I'm not interested" AND THEN I WALKED AWAY. I didn't get butthurt because ZOMG, I DON'T LIKE THAT GENDER!!1!!eleventy!!!1
So you believe anyone who opposes your views is a troll? You're acting like a Christian again.
No, your illogical, unreasonable, persistent, virulent nastiness is what makes you a troll. And by the way, you call people Christian like you were wailing about people calling you a homophobe. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
The truth to the matter is, gay Atheists don't seem to give a DAMN about everyone's rights. As a matter of a fact, I've witnessed gay Atheists not giving a damn about Atheists rights if the Atheist opposes their views about gays.
Well, I'm queer, I'm an atheist, and I give a damn about people's rights, and I've seen no rights violations happening in any of these arguments. No one has the right to not be offended. No one has the right to a world free of stupidity.
It's addictive like potato chips, isn't it?
First you're going to post a single rebuttal, the next thing you know you've posted half a thread and have to force yourself not to post any more.
At this point I'm just forcing myself to be silent so I don't add anymore to the flames.
Clearly the people that made AD&D were wrong. Fire doesn't destroy trolls, it just makes them angry. ;)
Me for one. I find that having civil unions insted of gay marriages, makes a few things easier when dealing with issus such as adoption and international recognition. Basicly if you know that civil partnerships are for gays and marriages are for straights, then you avoid any confusion.
This does not mean that civil partnerships contain many of the same rights(again adoptions and a few other things could be issues).
We have had this arrangement in Denmark for 20 years and there is basicly nobody who debates for full gay marriage, it's a non-issues.
My uncle's opposition to gay marriage is that only opposite-sex pairings produce children, and that the whole institute of marriage was created to provide a stable family. Even with infertile couples, he still thinks they should be able to get married because they "fit" together as nature intended the majority to do. He also throws in that kids need role models of both genders. Even with couples who don't want kids, there's a small chance of an accident happening. I pointed out that not every opposite-sex couple has kids, and he said that they were a minority, thus easily included into the majority's marriage-for-kids rights.
He claims that homosexuality occurs largely because of an excess of oestrogen whilst in utero. That may or may not be true, but he's still saying that it's not natural, that it's a defect that can be corrected through testosterone treatments. He compared it to having a kid with Down's Syndrome and being given the opportunity to give the kid some in utero therapy that would cure the Down's Syndrome. I said that that was a crap argument, since Down's Syndrome is a quality of life issue, and other than the threat of having your head bashed in at Ft. Bragg, homosexuality has no ill-effects on homosexuals.
He brought up that the line had to be drawn somewhere; first it's heterosexual, non-incestuous marriage. Then it's gay marriage. Then it's incestuous marriage, where two relatives want to raise a child together, therefore they get married in order to get all the financial breaks of raising a child. Then it's people marrying their pets.
I pointed out that bestiality is animal abuse, that animals can't have the same sort of relationships with humans that humans seek out in life partners. He said that there are animals who will go up to a human woman and try to mate with her, and that animals COULD have the same sort of relationships with humans that humans seek out in life partners.
Then he went off on a tangent about women raising wimpy boys. I understand that children emulate their parents, so a child raised by only one would tend to emulate them, regardless of gender, but I also think he's pissed that Dad ended up more traditionally masculine than he did.
How interesting. It seems our 'atheist' friend Charles has a penchant for Christian music. On his Amazon wishlist is a CD called "A Worshippers Perspective" - playlist includes:
1. Holy Spirit
2. Father I Worship You
3. Song of the Lord
First review of this CD: "I am sooooooo glad that I found this CD. It is absolutely a good product. I love to hear the worship that oozes from the CD. I wish he would do more of the prophetic worship."
He also wants "God's Property" - so he can bop along to classics like "My Life is in Your Hands", "Sweet Spirit", "Faith", and "He Will Take the Pain Away".
First review of this one: "I have to say that KIrk's album has blessed me during some of the darkest days of my life. This album has restored my joy many times in the last few months. Kirk has been ridiculed about his success in his style. I feel it works, and his music makes me feel good in the Lord. As Larry Norman once said, "Why should the devil get all the good music"? God Bless you Kirk Franklin, your music has blessed me with joy."
Charles also covets two books "God's Plan for Your Money" and "God's Plan for Your Finances"
Charles has tagged several Amazon articles:
"Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs" apparently has "good variety"
While others are "Great for meditation and worship" and "Great praise and worship".
Could it be a different Charles Claybrooks, you ask? Possibly, but it all seems a bit too coincidental doesn't it? A different Charles Claybrooks could well be on Amazon, but you would assume that someone who just 'happened' to have the same rather unusual name as someone posting a transparently Christian view on homosexuality on an atheist website would be unlikely to 'just happen' to have a penchant for transparently Christian CDs and books.
Is it definitive proof that Charles is a troll. Probably not. Does it put my bullshit radar into overdrive? Definitely.