This is a little routine I posted on another site a while back, regarding how easy it is to argue in defense of the right for same sex marriage.  The argument against it always devolves into the biblical realm, which makes it very simple to triumph over.




Random bigot:  I wish those gays would shut up about not being allowed to marry each other.

Rational straight person:  I don't understand it either, but then again I'm straight, so it just isn't my thing.  Hey, do you like anchovies on your pizza?

Random bigot:  God no.  Anchovies are disgusting.

Rational straight person:  I don't either!  Hey - will you sign a petition with me to outlaw anchovies on pizza?

Random bigot:  Uhhh, no.  That's a stupid idea.  Why the hell would I care what some idiot puts on their pizza?

Rational straight person:  Then why would you care if two men or two women get married?

Random bigot:  Because that's disgusting.

Rational straight person:  Disgusting like anchovies on a pizza?

Random bigot:  Don’t gimme that crap.  That’s totally different.

Rational straight person:  I don’t get it.  Neither of these things impacts you personally, you just think they are both gross.  So why is one not legal while the other one is?

Random bigot:  The Bible says it’s wrong – that’s why.

Rational straight person:  That’s true.  Hey - will you sign a petition with me to outlaw divorce?

Random bigot:  Uhhh, no.  That's a stupid idea.  Why the hell would I care whether people get divorced? I’ve been divorced twice myself.

Rational straight person:   The Bible says it’s wrong – that’s why.



Done and done.

Views: 497

Replies to This Discussion

Shades of the conversation in the film Spartacus between Crassus and Antoninus about oysters and snails ... except that the purpose of that conversation was rather different!

When you take away the Bible as justification to ban gay marriage (or any gay activity), those opposed to it are flummoxed to come up with a reason to support their position.


As that shows they only have a religious reason to do it, and not a secular one, there is no room for that in law.


I would sign a petition outlawing anchovies.


As reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Garfunkel and Oates video Sex With Ducks (a commentary on Pat Robertson) with over two million hits. It explains quite succinctly the religious argument against gay marriage (what a hoot)

Nice conversation.  People are starting to understand that their own marriage is not threatened by someone else's, and there's no rational reason to discriminate.

There actually are antigay atheists.  They pop up on nexus once in a while.  Basically their argument is that gays are evil criminal perverts who rape children, and gay is unnatural, and they're icky.  Then there's a flurry of back and forth heated discussion, they usually wind up violating the terms of service, posting spam and hate language, and wind up being kicked off.  Charlie Check'm is a fine example - you can google on him for some laughs, he's vile and stupid at the same time.  I won't link to him.  He seems to have faded into obscurity.  One or two are others are around but are more muted, basically thinking the gayz iz icky.

There are also atheist people who are sexist, or racist, or both.  I wish there were not, but there are.

Jeez - I don't think I've ever encountered someone ignorant enough to advocate discrimination of gays yet free thinking enough to admit there are no gods.  Thanks for the warning - that would probably have blown my mind if I weren't prepared.  Your comment makes we wonder how sincere these clowns are in their atheism.  Last night, I happened upon this article from 2008 by PZ Meyers, which was intriguing.  Is there any truth to this?

Hmph.  Why PZ would be dissing us is beyond me.  One thing he has wrong is the founder of this site, being Brother Richard.  What's up with the rest of his and the commenters' claims is beyond me.

Fact is, with this whole Atheist+ business going on, PZ's credibility ain't that great with me, so if he wants to cast asparagus without really checking his facts, it's a horse on him.

Funny thing is, I got so disappointed with the ever increasing level of stupidity at a blog site I used to frequent, that I figured it was time to find a new one.  One that focussed on atheism just made sense, and I knew PZ was big on blogging so I googled him.  Eventually I noticed that he was a member of AN, which I was unfamiliar with, so I joined it myself.  PZ is indirectly the reason I am here, and the first potentially negative article I see about AN is authored by PZ - go figure.

I attended the Reason Rally in DC last March, and while I didn't get the opportunity to talk to him myself, I heard several people talking in the crowd about how approachable and friendly PZ was.  He gave a decent speech too.  I'd still rather listen to or read Sam Harris any day, however.

Future, I wouldn't worry about that 4 year old PZ post.  I've been on since 2008.  I don't have the details any more, but there was an initial controversy about the original AN team having a connection to a christian group.  Im not sure what it was, but in my mind it's something about having shared the same web developer.  As things progressed, they were actually openly atheist, but left and that is when Richard Haynes (Brother Richard) took the reins.  He's strongly atheist, speaks at meetings, and advocates for atheism.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service