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!
Mr. Claybrooks, the arguments you have made throughout this thread suffer from several major and fatal flaws. Among these are value judgments, opinion expressed as fact and use of non-objective and marginally credible sources. I will use your own words to demonstrate these flaws.
You state: "Something has to be wrong with their brains and NO, religion has nothing to do with it.". The use of "wrong" is a value-judgment. Use of "different" would have been both accurate and non-judgmental. Your numerous posts are well-larded with other examples of your use of value-judgments.
You state: "That would explain why they label anyone who admits that gays are attracted to the wrong gender as "hateful". The truth is, Gays are hateful towards anyone who might say ANYTHING that will interfere with gays attempting to seduce the straight person of their choice. Of course gays like gay people also but if they see an attractive straight person, they want a fair shot at seducing the person. The last thing gays want is more heterosexuals viewing gay people as misfits." and; "They're more concerned about their image than anything. Gay marriage only improves their image."; and, "If gays can marry, that would be unfair to siblings who want to marry each other. So in order to prevent marriage chaos, we need limits. The incest claim is irrelevant because siblings can siimply (sic) adopt just like gays.". All of the foregoing statements are opinion yet you make them as though they are established fact . Nothing you have stated is backed up with a single shred of evidence. When you do this, you are operating on the theory that the person who yells the loudest wins the argument. You are wrong.
Finally, the sources you quote to back up your assertions are scarcely credible. MARTH is not a credible source; I have reviewed their web site and find that their obliquely stated agenda is to show that homosexuality is a choice. Virtually none of the sources they quote are from objective, statistically valid studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, throughout this thread, you cherry-pick your sources and cite only the evidence favorable to your argument.
You clearly have an agenda here. But, your arguments are disingenuous at best, and, in my mind, are intellectually dishonest. You are certainly entitled to your own, anti-gay, opinion but, to quote William Buckley, "you are not entitled to your own set of facts.".
Are you telling me it's not a fact that plenty gays would have a sexual relationship with a a straight person who they find EXTREMELY attractive if they are able to convince them? The gay community have people call "recruiters". These are gays who specifically prey on heterosexual people. This is a fact.
1) There are a lot of men who would have a sexual relationship with a lesbian who they find EXTREMELY attractive, if they were able to convince them. There are a lot of women who would have a sexual relationship with a gay man who they find EXTREMELY attractive, if they were able to convince them.
Pressuring someone into sex, trying to convince them to have sex with you after they've stated that they're not interested, is morally wrong. It's an asshole thing to do. By any gender. By any sexuality. Homosexuals are NOT sexual predators any more than heterosexuals are.
B) The gay community have people call "recruiters". These are gays who specifically prey on heterosexual people. This is a fact.
This is NOT a fact. NO ONE that I have EVER met, and I've met a lot of gay people, has EVERY seriously told me that they were a "recruiter". It's a myth made up by people who believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that you can change/be persuaded to change your orientation.
People who prey on other people sexually, regardless of ANY party's sexual orientation, are horrible people. ORIENTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Your reply to my post simply validates the assertions I made. You did not respond objectively to my critiques, you simply provided another broadside of opinion.
No, I likely did not check all of your sources but I'm also willing to bet that you have not checked all possible sources, just the ones that favor your story. I would find that amusing if I didn't know that you were serious.
Really! You do need to learn to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I'll check back occasionally and see whether you ever learn the rudiments of argumentative discourse. Good luck with it! Frankly, right now, in any reasonable intellectual discussion, you would be eaten alive.
To me, the whole idea behind marriage is to make your union right with god. That's why I'm not married. I don't believe in god and don't feel a need for him to bless my union. That said, if there are atheists, be they gay or strait, who want to be married, they should always be allowed. I don't get it, but that's sort of the point. It's not my choice to make for other people. Most atheists I know have no problem with gay marriage or gay lifestyle at all. I also think that maybe we shouldn't get too stuck on the word itself, which carries certain religious connotations as it is. If I wanted the state to recognize my partnership, I would be happy enough with "civil union". But as stated, that is only my belief, therefore it only applies to me.
I hope you will reconsider. I am forwarding your post to Brother Richard. I believe that Check'm Charlie should have been banned from this site days ago when this shit began. While Nexus does try not to censor its members, I hope we can implement better strategies to deal with this kind of troll.
I second this, and thank you for your unbending support and levelheadedness.
While I am a beleiver in free speech, frankly, substitute any other category of human for Charlie Check'm's slurs, and I suspect that he would have been thrown off Ning already. The homophobic posts might be OK on fox, but not here. Then his final copy and paste of the same post, over and over, is nothing but spam.
This bully put a true damper on A|N. Anyone following the thread got hundreds of email notices about new postings, all of which were the same homophobic tyrade, over and over and over. It was very disillusioning.
This was truly sickening. I'm glad that some members benefited from the resources, many of which you posted. Even a shitcloud can have a silver lining. I am grateful for the phenomenal support that many A|N members showed for the enlightened side.
Im not planning to give up on A|N, but I need to learn to stay away from the home page and try to stick to groups, where I can focus on more civil discussion. The several 'noise-making' threads, insulting to A|N and it's members, are like shitting on a restaurant table and calling it "free speech". The only way that I know to avoid it is to stick where people are more civil.
It makes absolute sense and trust me, it is being taken seriously and Brother Richard is well aware of the situation. Please stay Jacqueline. We need people like you here. This site is still evolving and we do have to work through issues like this. Give us a chance.
Jacqueline, I've been a member for a little over two months now and put my two cents in here and there. What I find very encouraging is when someone (like Chuckie) drags out a thread well past it's "sell-by" date, there's an overwhelming number of members who really are reasonable, rational people - just like yourself. I've also noticed these mega-threads tend to be one person (like Chuckie) arguing some moronic point and everyone else is trying to reason with them. I'm learning to avoid these threads (although it's fun to lob a backhanded insult at the moron - I've read and enjoyed yours).
I'm sure there's many discussions on A/N you've had that don't end up in the crapper. Don't let some trolls end those other discussions. Some people, including me, will miss your comments.