20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 5)

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 5) December 11, 2018

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative Christian radio host Frank Turek provides most of the arguments. (Part 1 here.)

12. It’s a slippery slope!

Today same-sex marriage; tomorrow, who knows what?! Frank demands:

Why are [homosexual activists] so “bigoted” to rule out groups and other arrangements they disapprove of? The same logic that seeks to justify same sex marriage—“I should be able to marry whomever I love”—can be used to justify any preferred arrangement.

We don’t need to worry about what would happen if the definition of marriage changed since it already has changed—for example, in the cases of mixed-race marriage, no-fault divorce, and laws against marital rape. Frank makes clear that he’s glad that it changed to allow mixed-race marriage. With no concern about change, where’s the problem?

Frank says that everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage, and again we agree. No definition of marriage would make sense if it weren’t clear what things were not included in that definition. Since the conservative and liberal positions are now symmetrical—both limit the definition and both accept that the definition changes—how does he imagine that the slippery slope problem applies only to liberals? When there is a critical mass demanding another change to the definition, let’s consider it. Until then, this is just an irrelevant red herring.

The slippery slope hypothetical put forward by conservatives usually involves incest, pedophilia, or other relationships that cause harm. Yeah, I get it—things that cause harm are bad. Let’s continue to prohibit harmful relationships. Since consensual homosexual sex or romance cause no more problems than the heterosexual kind, this objection fails. (More here and here.)

13. The gay argument defeats itself!

Frank opens a can of logical whoop-ass on same-sex marriage proponents. So there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, you say? Then consider this:

If men and women were really the same, the activists would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it. The very reason they are demanding same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different.

Yes, men and women are different, and homosexuals are romantically attracted to one and not the other, just like you.

14. Don’t like divorce? Same-sex marriage will make it worse!

Before no-fault divorce, one party in a marriage had to show that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, a felony, or a similar offense to get a divorce. Frank prefers those good old days.

[No-fault divorce] laws make dissolving a family too easy and should be repealed. They also help teach people that marriage is only about the desires of adults, not the needs of children. If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I’m not “happy.” . . . Making marriage genderless through same sex marriage will further hurt children by annihilating their connection to marriage completely.

Marriage is about a lot more than children, as we discovered in argument 5. Sometimes a bad marriage should be endured for the sake of the children, and sometimes it’s best for everyone if the marriage ends. I’m surprised to hear a conservative like Frank advocate for a nanny state solution, where laws tell people how to live their lives, rather than encourage them to be responsible adults and decide for themselves what’s best.

Divorce laws aren’t the reason why marriages suck. They’re a symptom, not a cause. And at last we’ve stumbled across something that actually is an attack on marriage. Why not focus on the social conditions that injure marriage rather than on homosexuals, a category of people trying to embrace marriage?

Same-sex marriage is a celebration of marriage, not an attack. It’s divorce (actually, the poor conditions that bring on divorce) that is the attack on marriage. Go worry about that.

15. Homosexuality causes health problems!

Frank doesn’t want to hear that homosexual sex is about love.

What’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8–20 years? . . . If the sex act is medically dangerous, the best way to love the other person is not to have sex with him. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.

Presumably the issue Frank vaguely alludes to is AIDS, but he seems to imagine that AIDS is a gay men’s disease. No, it’s a sexually transmitted disease. Worldwide, almost as many women as men are HIV positive.

But let’s find the silver lining here. Frank is encouraging everyone to practice safe sex, and that’s good advice. There you go, Frank—problem solved.

But what’s that last line, the one about “most of our loving relationships are non-sexual”? When Frank’s “marriage is all about screwing and making babies!” argument is inconvenient, he suddenly becomes reasonable. That’s right, Frank—the relationship between two loving adults is important and should be supported by society.

16. There goes free speech!

According to [homosexual activists], same sex marriage is now not only a “right,” no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I suppose Frank’s breathless anxiety helps wind up his supporters, but Constitutional freedoms are still firmly in place. Frank frets that the right of free speech is gone and same-sex marriage can’t be criticized . . . while he’s speaking freely and criticizing same-sex marriage.

Tell you what, Frank: you show me any instances where your free speech on this subject has been prohibited, and I’m on your side. When your free speech rights are curtailed, impositions on mine are likely to follow. Note, however, that public critique of your position doesn’t count, getting your feelings hurt doesn’t count, and not being able to impose your will on others by law doesn’t count.

Liberals can’t justify why same-sex marriage is right. Nevertheless, they want to legislate it as a right and will convict you of heresy if you fail to bow to it.

It’s amusing how Frank is all a-flutter with fears that he will be imposed upon. In fact, legalized same-sex marriage does nothing to him. He won’t be forced to have gay sex or get gay married. The only risk of imposition is his eagerness to impose his views on others and constrain others with his definition of marriage.

Concluded in part 6.

The Bible is basically the longest set of Terms & Conditions ever,
which is why so many people agree with it
without knowing why.
— seen on /r/atheism

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/19/15.)

Image credit: Wikipedia

.

"You really can't argue with the red Queen"

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"If you're having a bad day, remember, Dog Loves You."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"The atheists's conception simply eliminates the husband and substitutes Big Bother [sic] for God ;-)"

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"Well, except for Hiccup/Jay Baruchel."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Anat

    The Bible is basically the longest set of Terms & Conditions ever,

    which is why so many people agree with it

    without knowing why.

    Well, the Children of Israel allegedly agreed to obey the rules before they were even given. So yes, sounds just like that.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      And then Moses killed a bunch of them for breaking the rules he never gave them

  • RichardSRussell

    Turek: Liberals can’t justify why same-sex marriage is right. Nevertheless, they want to legislate it as a right and will convict you of heresy if you fail to bow to it.

    Heresy isn’t a crime. Religiots may think of it as a sin, and in theocracies they can pass laws making it a crime, but in America it’s not, and nobody will ever be convicted of it.

    • Herald Newman

      Turek (and many other conservative Christians) seems to have a hard time understanding what public accommodation laws are about. He doesn’t have to like SSM (I doubt anybody is trying to force him either), but anyone who operates a business can’t refuse service to somebody because their SS marriage doesn’t meet with approval.

      • However, I do think that the person isn’t discriminated against unless it’s because they’re in a protected class (race, religion, etc.).

        But double check my math on that one. Does this mean that you can have a shop that discriminates against ugly people?

        • Herald Newman

          However, I do think that the person isn’t discriminated against unless it’s because they’re in a protected class (race, religion, etc.).

          From a legal standpoint, I’d agree with this. Shops sometimes offer discounts to people who buy in bulk. Technically this is a forms of discrimination, but I doubt anybody will raise a stink over it.

          But double check my math on that one. Does this mean that you can have a shop that discriminates against ugly people

          IANAL, but this may be legal, since I’m not aware of any laws that protect people based on what they look like. That said, to deny somebody service because you think they’re ugly is a bit of a shit bag move.

        • It might simply be that you can discriminate against unprotected classes–ugly, red hair, beards–but that would be stupid economically.

        • Herald Newman

          Agreed. So what is the difference between that and discriminating against protected classes? Why isn’t that stupid economically? This is the argument against civil rights put forth by some Libertarians, but I don’t really buy it. We create specific non-discrimination laws because particular kinds of discrimination are common. If we suddenly had a rash of people refusing to serve people with red hair, I’m willing to bet that we’d create anti-discrimination laws around red hair.

        • eric

          Agreed. The reason we have ‘protected classes’ is not because there is some intrinsic good in preventing people from discriminating for those reasons (race, religion, whatever), but because those are the groups historically targeted or reasons historically used to justify discrimination. I.e. they are the largest ‘problem’ cases. But if suddenly tomorrow a lot of society suddenly decides they want to discriminate against redheads or lefties or whatever, we’d likely just add another protected class.

        • That’s my understanding as well. Still, it does seem weird that a shop could legally have a sign out front that said, “No one with a Body Mass Index higher than 30 allowed!”

        • Herald Newman

          Maybe they’re into fat shaming? 😉

        • Yes, Libertarians argue that no anti-discrimination laws would work because economic pressures would drive shops to cater to anyone. I’m skeptical.

        • Illithid

          History causes me to doubt their claim.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          because like many extreme political ideologies, an initial assumption is that people will not act like people

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          not if you can make a big spectacle of it and drum up trade / donations from people who will support your bigotry, Also standing in your particular group, sometimes the regards are not monetary

        • Fancy night clubs do it all the time.
          Nobody’s paying $100 at the door to party with normies.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          (I am not a law speaking guy however i believe) You sure can, you can just refuse service without giving a reason, however if you have a pattern of behavior that shows that you really are discriminating a protected class but pretending otherwise you are shafted.

          That’s what gets me with all this gay cake nonsense, if they just refused with a pretense (sorry we are fully booked up right now) they would be almost bullet proof, but they have to shout there idiot bigotry from the rooftops. it’s almost like being seen to be a bigot is more important than being a bigot, like people who have to be seen to give to charity.

        • Pofarmer

          it’s almost like being seen to be a bigot is more important than being a
          bigot, like people who have to be seen to give to charity.

          Just showing how good of a true believer you are. Being part of the herd.

        • TheNuszAbides

          like being seen to be a bigot is more important than being a bigot

          of course their rhetoric will be something like “taking a stand!!!” to flip the oppression script. and when that’s exposed, “hey, i can’t oppress anybody, i’m just the little guy!”

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          The fact that a number of these ass clowns have set up kickstarters and made tons of cash probably doesn’t hurt either

  • Michael Neville

    Another conservative Christian whining that his religious privileges are eroding.

    According to [homosexual activists], same sex marriage is now not only a “right,” no one has the right to oppose it.

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/001/865/wikipedian_protester.jpg

    • The very fact that he made that statement without legal repercussions gives lie to it.

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    Simultaneously trying to argue that same sex marriages are invalid because there no children and that those children that they argue don’t exist will be hurt by the divorces that will happen because there are no children….

    • I’m still stuck on them whining (in another context) that divorce is destroying marriage and this group comes along that wants to celebrate and expand marriage, but they won’t have it.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        I refuse to accept their claims to be pro-family

    • No doubt he opposes LGBT adoption too, so if there were children he’d still want to exclude them.

  • aCultureWarrior

    Regarding the slippery slope argument: In order for there to be a slope, the behavior at the top of the slope would have to be morally superior to those behaviors at the bottom. Heterosexual incest and bestiality aren’t nearly as disease ridden and deadly as homosexual behavior, therefore there is no “slope”, just a doorway that was opened for other sexual deviants.

    • Heterosexual incest and bestiality aren’t nearly as disease ridden and deadly as homosexual behavior

      Huh? I’ve already discussed HIV above. What are you talking about?

      • aCultureWarrior

        CDC reports show that homosexual males disproportionately contract HIV/AIDS (I believe the latest statistic was around 70% of new infections are MSM). Others that contract it are prostitutes (it’s doesn’t necessarily say heterosexual prostitutes) and intravenous drug users (those who engage in same sex behavior also disproportionately use and abuse drugs and alcohol). The ‘heterosexuals’ that represent the small portion of people contracting HIV/AIDS are black women (for the most part) who unfortunately had sex with a male who was “on the down low” (a bisexual male).
        It’s all in CDC reports Bob.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          My bet is your CDC reports are decades old.

          If I’m wrong, post them.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Hey Harold; sorry that I didn’t respond to your other posts, but someone didn’t like what I had to say and silenced me.
          I linked this 2016 CDC report to my reply to Bob.
          https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So…

          – less than 500,000 of 330 MILLION
          – of a group that’s still marginalized and demonized by many segments of society, and who have to keep their identities hidden in fear of their jobs, housing and often their very lives
          – which would TEND to lead to a high-stress existence and all the maladaptive behavior caused by stress (look at all the US soldiers who used heroin when they were in Vietnam but went clean as soon as they came back to the US as an example)
          – and YOUR KIND is trying to blame it on the fact they’re LGBTQI, rather than your hateful discriminatory actions against it CREATING STRESSES ON LGBTQI people TO THE POINT of maladaptive stress release (meth-fueled orgies, etc.)??!!

          The mind boggles

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, haters gotta hate anything different from them.

        • TheNuszAbides

          the same cascade of error that had homosexuality in early editions of the DSM – mistaking symptoms of being demonized/oppressed/repressed/suppressed for symptoms of Doing It Wrong.

        • TheNuszAbides

          but someone didn’t like what I had to say and silenced me.

          liar.

        • aCultureWarrior

          While you Libertarians claim to want less government, you’re always the first to dial 911 when some kid steps on your lawn to retrieve his baseball. If you don’t understand my analogy, I’ll find some crayons to draw it out for you.

        • It’s all in CDC reports Bob.

          Then show us.

          And the only conclusion that I can see you driving toward is, “Practice safe sex, people!” with which I agree.

        • aCultureWarrior

          How many CDC links does this website allow? I’ll start with one with the most updated statistics (2016).
          https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

          Safe sex involves “one man, one woman, united in matrimony” Bob. You’ll rarely if ever find a monogamous heterosexual couple contracting STDs.

        • You’ll rarely if ever find a monogamous heterosexual couple contracting STDs.

          You’ll rarely if ever find a monogamous homosexual couple contracting STDs.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Anal sex spreads many diseases Bob. Unless the monogamous homosexual couple (and monogamy has a different meaning in homosexual relationships, just ask homosexual icon Dan Savage) are shaking hands with one another, they’re prone to all kinds of STD’s.
          Again, check CDC reports, it says NOWHERE that (supposedly) monogamous homosexuals don’t need to “get tested”.

        • Anal sex spreads many diseases Bob.

          Are you alerting the straight couples who are doing it? There are a lot more straight couples than gay couples.

          it says NOWHERE that (supposedly) monogamous homosexuals don’t need to “get tested”.

          If two partners are STD-free and are in a monogamous homosexual relationship, they will not contract STDs. It’s pretty simple science.

          Why are we talking about this? You’re making clear that people should practice safe sex. Yeah, I get it. I already told you I’m on board.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          i believe some one is mistaking the vicious assault of a dead horse for an actual argument.

        • TheNuszAbides

          not only flogging it but using the rotting parts to make a sculpture representing the pretense of an actual argument and pretending that that’s an argument.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          as an aside, heterosexual sex tends to pass women the HPV virus which causes cancer, quick ban all sex in the interests of safety.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Really?

          That’s ANOTHER assertion.

          And the CDC report doesn’t support it, from what I read.

          Show me the EXACT CITATION that demonstrates that anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal sex…and then demonstrate why oral sex (which would be more likely to be practiced by lesbians, statistically) shouldn’t be the baseline because it’s safer *still*…

        • TheNuszAbides

          and monogamy has a different meaning in homosexual relationships, just ask homosexual icon Dan Savage

          like basically everything else you’re shoveling, factually incorrect. Savage coined ‘monogamish’ and it’s applicable to all consensual relationships.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Savage is still an adulterer, in this case one who also engages in same sex buggery.

        • Pofarmer

          You’ll rarely find a monogamous anything couple contracting STD’s.

        • Definitions might be a challenge for CultureWarrior.

        • Phil

          I wonder how rare totally monogamous couples are?

        • What does your CDC link show? Maybe you should give us life expectancy of various categories.

          But again, all I hear you saying is that safe sex is important. That’s great advice, my brother, but then what has become of your homophobic argument?

        • aCultureWarrior

          *In 2016, gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% (26,844) of all HIV diagnoses and 82% of diagnoses among males aged 13 and older.
          That’s what it shows.
          Life expectancy? The Bay Area Reporter ‘AIDS Obituary site gives a pretty good example of that.
          http://obit.glbthistory.org/olo/index.jsp

        • AIDS has become a chronic disease, Sherlock–it doesn’t kill people in the West like it used to.

          I’m not sure what the obituary listing does–you’re informing us that gay men die? OK, thanks for that.

          You’re telling gay men to practice safe sex. I’m sure they’re happy you’re out their fighting for their health. Is that all you have to say, or is there a larger point?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Homosexuals (MSM who disproportionately contract HIV/AIDS) are living longer due to HAART medications, BUT are eventually succumbing to AIDS related diseases (I..e “opportunistic infections”) :
          https://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/diagnosis/OI-common-illnesses.asp
          While this is a discussion for another day: The AIDS scare in Africa is a HOAX!

        • “Practice safe sex.” Yeah, I get it. That’s good advice for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The WHO African region remains most severely affected, with nearly 1 in every 25 adults (4.1%) living with HIV and accounting for nearly two-thirds of the people living with HIV worldwide.

          So *you*, and by definition YOUR KIND, claim to know better than the World Health Organization?!?!? :

          https://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/

        • Pofarmer

          Holy shit but these jackoff’s circular, cherry picked arguments get old

        • Lark62

          You missed the unsaid part. aCult is implying people in Africa don’t matter as much as European-Americans with that dark skin and all. The ratio is 3/5 to 1 according to the Constitution.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          🙁

          You’re probably right, for aCult…

        • I believe the term is, “concern trolling”.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Safe sex involves “one man, one woman, united in matrimony”

          Wrong.

          If that were the case, there would NEVER be a case where a spouse (USUALLY male) infected their spouse (USUALLY female) with HIV…and the record is *filled* with such cases.

          TRULY safe sex involves informed (of any health risks) and enthusiastic consent of the adult parties involved, with appropriate protection measures taken from condoms do dental dams to IUDs/Norplant/birth control pills.

          Your problem is with furtive *lying* in sexual relationships, which you’re trying to claim *only* happens in non-marital sex, and never IN marital sex.

          The statistics show your assumption is faulty….so back to the drawing board.

        • eric

          The rate of HIV transmission for lesbians (in CDC terms, ‘women seeking women’ or WSW) is so low we can’t even quantify it. There are essentially *no* confirmed cases of a lesbian contracting HIV through gay sex; when lesbians do contact it, it’s because they’re also illegal drug users.

          So since your entire argument is about HIV, we can now expect you to support lesbianism and proclaim here on this site that it is imperative and moral for women to stop having sex with men and start only having sex with women?

          Don’t worry, we can wait.

          Funny how you only report the statistics that support your beliefs, and not the ones that undermine it.

          [edit] Moreover, “its risky” is a reason to encourage monogamy, not discourage it. If you really really thought this was all about disease transmission (we all know it isn’t, I’m not even sure what you hope to gain by pretending that), you should be wanting as many gay people to get married as early in life as possible.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Women who partake in homosexual behavior (WSW) have all kinds of disorders and are not immune to STD’s, HIV/AIDS included.
          “HIV Risk for Lesbians, Bisexuals & Other Women Who Have Sex With Women”
          http://www.gmhc.org/files/editor/file/GMHC_lap_whitepaper_0609.pdf
          Note that Women’s Institute at Gay Men’s Health Crisis, is not a right wing source.

        • From your link: “The objective of this paper is not to argue that lesbians/WSW are at the same risk as their heterosexual counterparts, but to acknowledge that there is significant risk of HIV, other STIs, and other health disparities for lesbians.”

          Thank you for clarifying that lesbians are at lower risk for STDs. I don’t see how this fits into any argument that you’ve made, but that must be my fault. I must’ve misunderstood your argument.

        • eric

          Irrelevant and a non-sequitur. If you’re going to base your opposition to gay marriage on disease transmission risk, then it’s hypocritical to oppose marriage and sex practices that lower disease transmission risk. Christians should, for instance, wholeheartedly support giving the HPV to women and children. But, again, we all know disease risk is just a front. This is patently clear from fundie opposition to vaccines that prevent cervical cancer.

          Tell me truthfully: if, tomorrow, all STDs were eliminated, you’d still oppose gay marriage and gay sex. Yes, or no?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Have I mentioned how I get a great laugh on how you rainbow flag wavers borrow off of Judeo Christian doctrine (marriage, monogamy) without giving God credit for it? While disease is still a problem in homosexual so-called monogamous relationships, disease is only one aspect of homosexuality and the case can be made from a secular point of view that homosexuality should be recriminalized because of what it’s done to society since becoming legal (it’s still illegal in around 12 States, no matter what Lawrence v Texas says). Institutions are invaluable to society. The traditional family is the nucleus of society and since the decriminalization of adultery, cohabitation laws, and now homosexuality, (not to mention the instigation of no fault divorce) our once great institutions (marriage, the family, civil government, the Church, Education, youth mentor groups), have gone down into the proverbial sewer.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Homophobic religions have lost power, and there are now MANY happily-married gay and lesbian couples bringing up their children openly in the world.

          MANY are so successful that the children are capable of running and winning elective office to protect THEIR families, while YOUR KIND attempts to demonize loving families that don’t meet your narrow, patriarchal, power-mad and hateful strictures.

        • eric

          First, thanks for demonstrating my point; this whole ‘risky behavior’ claim was nothing more than a thin secular veneer you threw over your actual beliefs to hide them. Glad to see you’re out of the closet now.

          Have I mentioned how I get a great laugh on how you rainbow flag wavers
          borrow off of Judeo Christian doctrine (marriage, monogamy)

          Cultures entirely separate from (and preceding) the Jews practiced monogamy. Moreover, the Jews practiced polygamy; it’s right there in your bible. So monogamy was neither invented by them, nor unique to them, nor even wholly endorsed by them. So the concept was never ‘theirs’ in any substantive way to begin with.

          since the decriminalization of adultery, cohabitation laws, and now homosexuality, (not to mention the instigation of no fault divorce) our once great institutions (marriage, the family, civil government, the Church, Education, youth mentor groups), have gone down into the proverbial sewer.

          Again, thank you. It’s refreshing to see you dispense with your pretend reasons to object to it and let the real you come out. Shouldn’t you have just been honest about your reasons to start with?

          If your marriage goes down the sewer merely because two other people (in a different state!) get a marriage license and cohabitate against your objections, that means your marriage was built on an incredibly weak foundation – normal couples don’t separate or get divorced merely because people they don’t know do things they don’t agree with.

          As for the Church, going downhill in recent times, I beg to differ. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue…and Pope Alexander VI held orgies at the Vatican. Stephen VI dug up the dead body of his predecessor so he could try him for blasphemy. Pope John XII was killed by a husband when the man found him in bed with his wife. And Urban VI rounded up a bunch of Cardinals who opposed him, had them tortured, and complained to his torturers that the victims weren’t screaming loud enough. The church has always been downhill.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *Simply put Eric: the anus was designed to expel human waste, not to be used as a sex object. When it is, very very bad things happen.
          *If you want to go back to biblical days to understand why God allowed polygamy, you’d have to understand that men often died young (war, disease, etc.) and that women didn’t fare well being single due to lack of men to marry.
          *Sexual anarchy rots the foundation of the nucleus of society: the traditional family (if you need to research how important the traditional family is and why it is considered the nucleus of society, I’ll help with links).
          *Heck, the vast majority of so-called Christians don’t even think that homosexuality is a sin these days. Did you see Christian singer Lauren Daigle on Ellen the Degenerate’s tv show in late Oct? She did an interview a month after that saying that she wasn’t sure is homosexuality is a sin. If so called “Christians” can’t get something as simple as God’s standard for human sexuality right (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) and the fact that the Bible talks about the sin of homosexuality in both the OT and NT, what can they get right when it comes to Christian doctrine?

        • *Simply put Eric: the anus was designed to expel human waste, not to be used as a sex object.

          It’s like you’re closing your eyes in the scene in Peter Pan when Tinker Bell drinks the poison, wishing and clapping to get her well again. Cute. “Ooh, I just know homosexuality is wrong, I just know it, I just know it …”

          Let me explain it by quoting a t-shirt slogan: “1500 animal species practice homosexuality. Only one practices homophobia. Which one seems unnatural now?”

          Try to stay in the real world, OK?

          *If you want to go back to biblical days to understand why God allowed polygamy, you’d have to understand that men often died young (war, disease, etc.) and that women didn’t fare well being single due to lack of men to marry.

          Giving it the ol’ kindergarten try? Bravo. That’s sort of like “slavery was OK because it was an economic response.” I guess then you’d be OK with polygamy in regions of the world with fewer men? And slavery where economic conditions warranted it?

          Is that your final answer? Or do you want to try again?

          *Heck, the vast majority of so-called Christians don’t even think that homosexuality is a sin these days.

          Times change. Must suck to have your head in the sand as morality changes.

          If so called “Christians” can’t get something as simple as God’s standard for human sexuality right (one man, one woman, united in matrimony)

          Why does this surprise you? There’s a lot of that going around—the Bible talks about slavery, genocide, and polygamy, and modern Christians like you can’t admit that God was morally wrong for demanding, allowing, or regulating those.

          and the fact that the Bible talks about the sin of homosexuality in both the OT and NT, what can they get right when it comes to Christian doctrine?

          I’ve looked at those and haven’t been impressed.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Shorten your posts Bob, I just aint gotz time to reply to long ones.
          *Homosexual animals? Even if that were true (and it’s not, it’s usually a dominance trait), should people do things that animals do? Some animals amongst other things murder their young and gang rape (kinda sounds like what you secular humanists do today).

        • should people do things that animals do?

          Humans are just another animal, Einstein.

          Shorten your posts Bob

          Stop writing so much uninformed bullshit so I have less to correct.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I usually call the LGBT movement “barbarians”, as they do barbaric things that not even animals do.

        • Humans are animals. Animals engage in homosexuality, including other primates, so it’s unsurprising that humans do.

          Are you following the plot?

        • Damien Priestly

          Sounds like your own self-hatred is getting projected here. Are you a member of the LGBT community yourself?…And just can’t stand it?

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’m a follower of Christ, one of the few it appears that hasn’t sold Him out in these morally depraved days that we’re living in.

        • Given the thousands of Christian denominations, how lucky for us that a representative of the one correct denomination is here to set us straight.

        • aCultureWarrior

          When I get in discussions like this (i.e. “My church is better than yours!”) I turn to an article by syndicated columnist Selwyn Duke entitled “Why American Christians are really Un-Christian”:

          “There are many doctrinal differences among the denominations, and good people could debate them ad nauseam and still not settle every one. Yet, if anything is central to Christianity, it’s the belief that Truth is spelled with a capital “T,” that it is absolute, universal and eternal. And also central is a corollary of this belief: that there is an absolute, universal and eternal answer to every moral question; that right and wrong are not a matter of opinion, that they don’t change from time to time and place to place…”
          http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/100301

          God’s plan for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) is one of those absolute, universal and eternal Truths. If Christians can’t get something as simple as that right, there are plenty of pagan religions out there that can meet their moral relativist needs.

        • if anything is central to Christianity, it’s the belief that Truth is spelled with a capital “T,” that it is absolute, universal and eternal.

          So there is a capital-T Truth, but we’re danged if we know what it is.

          Yeah, that sounds like the Perfect Message® that a perfect god would leave us.

          And also central is a corollary of this belief: that there is an absolute, universal and eternal answer to every moral question; that right and wrong are not a matter of opinion, that they don’t change from time to time and place to place…”

          If morality doesn’t change, explain how the moral stance on slavery in the OT seems dramatically wrong today. And God’s genocide, and human sacrifice, and so on.

          God’s plan for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) is one of those absolute, universal and eternal Truths.

          Except for the polygamy. But ignoring that, yeah, it’s all about one man, one woman.

          If Christians can’t get something as simple as that right, there are plenty of pagan religions out there that can meet their moral relativist needs.

          No need—they can just come to you and you’ll tell them the Way®.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *You are correct Bob: you atheists refuse to want to know the Truth.
          *Do your homework Bob, there are different kinds of enslavement (indentured servitude, prisoners of war, convicts in a prison, etc. The only one NOT allowed in the Bible is stealing an innocent man and either keeping him as your own slave or selling him:
          “16 r“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.”
          Exodus 21:16
          *Was it you that I had the discussion on polygamy with or someone else? In any event, during biblical days men often died young (in war, disease, etc.) and since it was pre Gloria Steinem days, single women didn’t fare well on their own. With a limited amount of men to go around, polygamy was the only answer at the time.

        • *You are correct Bob: you atheists refuse to want to know the Truth.

          Yup, not a single atheist wants to know the Truth®©™.

          But of course that just changes the subject:
          1. Your “absolute, universal” TRUTH is inaccessible to most Christians since they can’t agree on fundamental tenets of the religion.
          2. The ambiguous collection of dogma that the Church needed 20+ ecumenical councils to figure out isn’t what an actual omniscient god would give us.

          *Do your homework Bob, there are different kinds of enslavement (indentured servitude, prisoners of war, convicts in a prison, etc. The only one NOT allowed in the Bible is stealing an innocent man and either keeping him as your own slave or selling him:
          “16 r“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.”

          Do your own homework. The fun passage for slavery is Ex. 25:44-46. Why didn’t you share that one? “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”

          *Was it you that I had the discussion on polygamy with or someone else? In any event, during biblical days men often died young (in war, disease, etc.) and since it was pre Gloria Steinem days, single women didn’t fare well on their own. With a limited amount of men to go around, polygamy was the only answer at the time.

          The only answer? What about magic? And why is it always the atheists that need to bring this up? It’s like Christians don’t know what “omnipotent” means.

          So what I hear you saying is that polygamy is fine, just that the conditions need to be right. So if we had another situation where something cut the male population, like Europe in 1945, you’d be fine with polygamy. You’ve got some laws to change, because they don’t reflect this truth of yours.

        • Phil

          So what you are saying is the absolute morality of polygamy is relatively dependent on the times and the absolute morality of slavery is relatively dependent on circumstances? Genocide is moral if you are one of the chosen tribes but not for others? In a nutshell you are saying absolute truth is relative and doesn’t change over time.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?
          https://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html
          *Stealing another human being for enslavement is always wrong. As mentioned, there are other types of enslavement such as indentured servitude (one party agrees to work off his debt to the other party) and prisoners, be it criminal prisoners or prisoners of war.
          *Wow, atheists have murdered between 100 and 200 million human beings in the past 100 years and you want to talk about Old Testament times and the wars that went on then?
          Justify Stalin starving to death 10 million of his own people or Mao murdering between 18 and 45 million people for starts. You atheists seem to have a special knack for death.

        • *Stealing another human being for enslavement is always wrong.

          Then why did God allow slavery for life (Lev. 25:44-46)?

          *Wow, atheists have murdered between 100 and 200 million human beings in the past 100 years and you want to talk about Old Testament times and the wars that went on then?

          They did this because they were atheists? Or is this atheists who just happened to be dictators?

          You atheists seem to have a special knack for death.

          You Christians seem to have a special knack for twisting the facts. Or maybe not caring about the facts. Or maybe lying for Jesus.

        • Phil

          Sheesh, what drugs are you on?

        • aCultureWarrior

          The drug known as Truth Phil. BTW, it will set you free if you take it.
          John 8:32

        • So then Truth, not truth? I guess that means you rationalize to support your preconception rather than actually say truthful things. And that’s certainly what it looks like.

        • Phil

          Oh dear, yes, the truth will set you free, if only you understood what that means and stop lying. So sad to to see.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Explain what truth means to an atheist Phil.

        • Phil

          Your question confirms that you have no idea what truth means.

        • Greg G.

          Indeed, the fact that he spells his version of “truth” with a capital T shows he knows his version is something that is not truth. He doesn’t care what is true, only that is religiously installed fear of death is calmed.

        • He could be channeling his inner Neils Bohr.

          “There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          while that’s a superb quote (hinting at “deepity” decades previously), i fear it’s the sort of thing we must keep to ourselves – tools like aCW will just waste ones and zeroes pretending it’s a diabolical confusion tactic of ~Scientism~!

        • aCultureWarrior

          I must have missed your answer to my question Phil. Obviously you want the Truth to be whatever you feel it should be. Your morals fluctuate from one day to the next, there are no moral absolutes in your crazy mixed up world.

        • Greg G.

          Like your moral system doesn’t fluctuate? According to Christianity, there was a time when there was no covenant but God put in a condition that the people could not understand because they had no knowledge of Good & Evil. That made it objectively moral to condemn everyone who would ever live.

          Then God had a whim to make a covenant with stuff that was absurd and too difficult to follow, like stoning a child for sassing his parents, forcing rape victims to marry the rapist for life, sanctioned slavery, sanctioned the beating of slaves, sanctioned beating slave to death if they suffered until sundown. That was then objectively moral to do it and objectively immoral to not follow that covenant.

          Then God changed his mind and decided that if he had his son/himself killed temporarily, he could forgive some folks if they were gullible enough to believe it, and the new covenant changed some things that had been objectively moral to do to immoral things and some immoral things became objectively moral and some things that were objectively immoral to fail to do became objectively immoral to do.

          How do you know what is objectively and absolutely immoral when it might be changed tomorrow? If a thing is arbitrary to God, it is not absolutely moral or immoral. It is God’s whim. If you try to say it’s God’s nature, then his nature is arbitrary, so your argument for absolute or objective morality fails. You need a new religion.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *” According to Christianity, there was a time when there was no covenant but God put in a condition that the people could not understand because they had no knowledge of Good & Evil.”

          Biblical Passage(s) and/or verse(s) please.

          Here, let me help:
          https://www.gotquestions.org/knowledge-good-evil.html

          *Shouldn’t you be over at a Muslim site belittling the Quran and Sharia Law, cuz those sort of things go on to this day in Islam (perhaps Greg doesn’t want to be beheaded for mocking Islam or perhaps he’s loyal to his Muslim allies that HATE Judaism and Christianity as much as atheists do).

          *Let me give you an example of moral absolutes that you can relate to Greg: When you go sodomizing your boyfriend of the minute, hour or day (the latter is a very long term relationship), God has always said that it’s wrong.

        • Greg G.

          *” According to Christianity, there was a time when there was no covenant but God put in a condition that the people could not understand because they had no knowledge of Good & Evil.”

          Biblical Passage(s) and/or verse(s) please.

          All of Genesis and a good part of Exodus until Moses went up Mt. Sinai.

          *Shouldn’t you be over at a Muslim site belittling the Quran and Sharia Law, cuz those sort of things go on to this day in Islam (perhaps Greg doesn’t want to be beheaded for mocking Islam or perhaps he’s loyal to his Muslim allies that HATE Judaism and Christianity as much as atheists do).

          I live in a country that is 80% nominal Christians who don’t know what is in the Bible but believe it anyway. Muslims get hassled enough by Christians.

          *Let me give you an example of moral absolutes that you can relate to Greg: When you go sodomizing your boyfriend of the minute, hour or day (the latter is a very long term relationship), God has always said that it’s wrong.

          Now you are fantasizing. Stop it. You are getting creepy from lack of sex.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *Sorry to break the news to you Greg, but Christianity (“according to Christianity…”) wasn’t even around during Genesis or Moses for that matter (Sigh, the bible in the hands of a God hating atheist is such an embarrassing thing to have to watch).
          *Thanks for acknowledging that you’re a strong ally of the barbarians of Islam.
          While I know this article is above your head (it wasn’t written in crayon), it does explain your ignorance of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
          Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?
          https://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html
          *I see my example of moral absolutes caught your attention.
          What is moral absolutism?
          https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-absolutism.html

        • Greg G.

          There are 45,000 different denominations of Christianity. Many of them take the whole Bible literally right down to the world and universe being 6000 years old. They take Genesis as part of their Christianity, as if it is all part of the plan.

          Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

          No, it commands the man to marry her. The woman’s wishes and desires are not considered. Women could not divorce. See Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for the rules on the divorce. There is nothing in there about a woman initiating a divorce. Deuteronomy 22:29 prevents the man from divorcing the woman, so they cannot divorce even if they both want one.

          *I see my example of moral absolutes caught your attention.

          I am not the only person who has noticed your obsession with anal sex. Your religion makes it your forbidden fruit.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *As Christians should take Genesis literally:
          Adam and Eve: Genetic science confirms Bible again
          http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/181130
          (sigh, now if we could only get all of those 45,000 denominations to take God’s plan for human sexuality literally, i.e. believing that homosexuality is a grave sin that should be recriminalized).
          *Read into as you wish; I don’t take Bible lessons from an atheist who doesn’t believe in God yet thinks he knows about His teachings. Besides, those were Jewish Civil Laws abolished under the New Covenant.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomic_Code
          *You might note that the subject heading of this thread involves homosexuality. I understand that buggery is a sensitive issue to you and others on here, as many of you have contracted HIV/AIDS due to homosexuality. And yes, while sodomizing another male is “forbidden fruit” in Judeo-Christian doctrine, common sense also dictates that the anus was only made for expelling human waste, not for sex.

        • epeeist

          Adam and Eve: Genetic science confirms Bible again

          http://www.renewamerica.com

          Seriously, you want to claim an article which references the tabloid rag the Daily Mail as authoritative. As it is you miss this bit out from the bottom of the DM article:

          Since publication of this article we have been contacted by Drs. Stoeckle and Thaler who have made the following statement:

          ‘Our study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.

          ‘Our study follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single ‘Adam’ or ‘Eve’. We do not propose any catastrophic events.’

          Besides, those were Jewish Civil Laws abolished under the New Covenant.

          But Jesus is supposedly part of your triune god, the laws in the OT must therefore be the laws that he promulgated. As part of this triune god Jesus is responsible for the Noachic flood, part of an entity that has no problem committing omnicide.

        • aCultureWarrior

          This is where you refute the Adam and Eve article with evidence. Wait, since you’re an atheist I should add something more:
          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

        • epeeist

          This is where you refute the Adam and Eve article with evidence.

          Your claim that they exist, your burden to demonstrate that this is so.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Which is it? First you say that the periodical that published the findings isn’t reputable, and then you use some of the disclaimers that the researchers used to pacify their atheist followers (maybe the researchers don’t like death threats).
          Since I’m here to edjumacate you atheists:
          https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/did-we-all-come-from-adam-and-eve/

        • epeeist

          First you say that the periodical that published the findings isn’t reputable

          If you are going to quote an academic finding then you should quote the original paper not a commentary on a populist article in a tabloid with a dubious reputation.

          then you use some of the disclaimers that the researchers used to pacify their atheist followers (maybe the researchers don’t like death threats

          Truth really isn’t important to you is it. Evidence required that the researchers published their disclaimer to pacify atheists and that death threats were made against them. Otherwise it is going to get ranked

          https://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_full_width/public/field/image/articles/screen_shot_2013-10-30_at_9.25.13_am.png?itok=jxz6Ooob

        • Sophotroph

          There are 45,000+ denominations. Odds are overwhelming that one of them has figured out God’s true plan and you’re just in one of the hellbound false ones. The fact that it’s even possible to be living one’s Christianity to the absolute limit and still actually be going to hell because you chose (or were born into) the wrong one makes any case for Christianity unforgivably weak.

          Come back when you’ve beaten those 45,000 other denominations in theological argument and then tell us about “God’s true plan”.

          The fact that you can’t see how you lack any credibility is the most stunning display of why the religion is in decline that I have witnessed this morning.

          Thank you for all the work you do to help bring others to atheism. Your showcasing of bad arguments is invaluable to our cause.

          We are truly blessed to have such an ally in you.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Sigh, yet another lost soul who doesn’t believe in God but seems to think he/she or shim? is an expert on Him.

        • Greg G.

          Adam and Eve: Genetic science confirms Bible again

          Fischer’s article links to the Daily Mail article at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html?printingPage=true which says:

          The study has been misunderstood by some religious parties who thought it meant that we all came into being in some seminal Big Bang-typed event 100,000 ago (sic), but this isn’t what the findings actually suggest.

          *Read into as you wish; I don’t take Bible lessons from an atheist who doesn’t believe in God yet thinks he knows about His teachings. Besides, those were Jewish Civil Laws abolished under the New Covenant.

          I do not care what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself and not try to force it on others. But you really should read the Bible for comprehension. You will not get a fair reading of it from fellow believers.

          1 & 2 Kings are spin-doctored versions of history. They show that different kings had different policies. Some favored having temples/tabernacles throughout the kingdom (like States Rights activists) while others favored it being centralized in Jerusalem (like Federalists). It was as if there were two political parties, one run by the Jerusalem priests and one by the priests from outside Jerusalem. The Jerusalem priests were apparently in power when Babylon took over, so their accounts survived and the kings were rated by how well they toed the party line.

          2 Kings 22 tells how they were renovating the temple during Josiah’s reign and found a new covenant tucked away somewhere. Conveniently, it favored the position of the priests of the temple.

          So if you are making a distinction between Deuteronomy law and Exodus/Leviticus law, then you have three covenants, though two of them are usually portrayed as one.

          You might note that the subject heading of this thread involves homosexuality.

          Many of us have noted your fixation on homosexuality. Bob has posted two or three articles a week for about seven years but your comments are concentrated on this series of articles.

          People tend to think about sex often. It you tend to think about sex with men, it tells you who you are. Instead of adopting a hateful religion that teaches you to loathe yourself for the way you were born, you need a new religion, one that will accept you the way you are.

          If your preacher is constantly preaching against homosexuals, he may be fighting his own “demons”. It happens fairly often that such vehement anti-gay preachers get caught with a male prostitute.

          17 Antigay Leaders Exposed as Gay or Bi
          https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/11/21/17-antigay-leaders-exposed-gay-or-bi

          Anti-Gay Activists Who Were, In Fact, Gay
          https://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne

          20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals
          http://www.newnownext.com/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex/12/2016/

          Haggard’s Law
          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Haggard%27s_Law

          You really seem to fit the stereotype. I do not care what you are as long as you do not try to force it on others without consent.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *The article was originally posted in a periodical called “Human Evolution”, so needless to say, the researchers had to do their best to camouflage the truth behind their findings.
          *Regarding the homosexual practices of many republicans (or as I call them “Republicrats”). Since the now “Gay Ole Party” invited openly homosexual men and women into their ranks (i.e. homosexual/homosexual activist Peter Thiel speaking out against the culture wars at the Republican National Convention) I disowned them and am doing my best to expose Donald Trump and fake Christian backers for what they are: frauds.

        • Greg G.

          *The article was originally posted in a periodical called “Human Evolution”, so needless to say, the researchers had to do their best to camouflage the truth behind their findings.

          Is it not clear to you yet that the original article does not say what Fischer thought it meant? epeeist and I quoted parts of the Daily Mail article that spell that out for you. We can’t read it for you, not understand it for you. Read for comprehension.

          *Regarding the homosexual practices of many republicans

          The point is that those who are the most active anti-homosexual seem to have been caught being homosexuals or not caught yet. Consider why you surf the internet to rant about homosexuality. Most people do not think about it all that much. You should just come out of the closet. I hear there is a bi now, gay later plan.

        • Susan

          Now you are fantasizing

          He sure seems obsessed with talking about anal sex.

        • MR

          I’m always amazed that these types claim to be Christians. What’s the message here? “You, too, can be a douche bag for Jesus!” Some selling point.

        • epeeist

          You are getting creepy from lack of sex.

          And given his fulminations against gay sex we know what kind of sex that he is lacking.

        • Greg G.

          He pointed out that the article relates to homosexuality… as if that wasn’t what drew him to this blog.

        • epeeist

          So we’re expecting newspaper revelations that include phrases such as “toilet cubicles” and “rent boys”.

        • Phil

          Do you really think that making stuff up and telling lies demonstrates your grasp of the truth? Weird, even by xian standards.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’m only speculating that you’re a disease ridden homosexual Phil. Speculating isn’t lying.

        • Phil

          And nasty with it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yet you defend the behavior and the agenda that goes with it. That says something about you doesn’t it Phil?

        • Greg G.

          But Truth with a capital T is something else besides true.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Your morals fluctuate from one day to the next

          citation plz

        • aCultureWarrior

          You’re confusing believing in an absolute moral code with giving into sinful temptations. A follower of Christ acknowledges moral absolutism, but is still prone to giving into sinful temptation. The idea is to be more like Christ, and we work to overcome those temptations.

        • epeeist

          Explain what truth means to an atheist Phil.

          Oh, that’s easy:

          ‘S’ iff p

        • Natureboi

          What “truth” are you talking about?

        • epeeist

          Justify Stalin starving to death 10 million of his own people or Mao murdering between 18 and 45 million people for starts.

          Why should we want to do that, both of these people were moral monsters.

          As it is Stalin killed about 0.8% of the population during his purges and no animals. Whereas your god killed 99.99996% of the human population in the Noachic flood with roughly the same percentage of the animal kingdom. Justify your god killing all these people using a method that these days the mere simulation of which is considered to be torture.

          You atheists seem to have a special knack for death.

          Yahweh/Jesus seems to have a special knack for death.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yes, you mass murdering atheists are immoral monsters. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

        • Greg G.

          You were trying to defend the notion of absolute morality. If it is only wrong for atheists to commit mass murder, then it is a subjective morality.

        • Stalin was a bastard. We agree, but that’s not the point. Now show us that he did anything bad in the name of atheism.

          More:
          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/04/stalin-was-a-mass-murderer-and-im-not-too-sure-about-myself-genocide/

        • Geoff Benson

          Bringing Stalin into the discussion is inevitable for apologists, but it always ends badly for them. Incidentally, it’s interesting that they always dwell on Stalin, who never claimed he was other than atheist, murmur Hitler who, as we know, was heavily infected with Catholicism, and never mention Franco, who murdered actually in the name of his beloved church.

          Whilst Stalin, as your article points out, didn’t act ‘in the name of atheism’, I think it goes much further than this in that he acted in a quasi-religious way. An authoritarian ruler, a credulous population, a soft and easy target in the form of Jews (amongst many other minorities), the ability of a religious leader to stir up passions against the wrong targets, all features of religion. In many ways Stalin replaced the religion of the church with the religion of the state, with himself as god. Religion allows this because it is based on emotion rather than reason.

        • I’d forgotten about Franco. Good addition.

        • epeeist

          Yes, you mass murdering atheists are immoral monsters.

          And there we have the hypocrisy of the theist, rightly willing to make accusations about murderous dictators but indifferent to the far worse crimes of his god.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Except that the people God killed or had killed in the Old Testament weren’t innocent.

          “Not only did they [the Canaanities] want to remain in their false religion, but in all of the demonic rituals that came along with it, and that included human sacrifice, cannibalism, homosexuality, and beastiality. The Book of Wisdom describes the cannibalistic and heathen rituals of the Canaanites, and deems them rightfully as what justified their extermination: …
          http://shoebat.org/2014/06/12/genocide-canaanites-justified/

          Kinda reminds me of the rituals that your LGBT movement does to this day.

        • Greg G.

          Those are lies about the Canaanites to justify an imaginary genocide of them. If the Israelites had slaughtered them, there would be a turnover in culture. Why would a conquering tribe adopt the same culture that they killed for having that culture?

          Israeli archaeology shows that around the time the Hebrews were supposed to have annihilated the Canaanites, there was no replacement of culture. Various sites show similar cultures except that some had pig bones and some did not. The Hebrews are Canaanites with a different religion that had an alternate diet.

          Israeli and Christian archaeology have searched the Sinai for over a century without finding evidence of the Exodus, which should be easy to find if it were true. Egyptian archaeologists have determined that there were never a large population of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and certainly not a third of the population walking out abruptly.

          The Bible stories before David are fictional campfire tales. From David on, any truth is spin-doctored with grandiose exaggeration.

        • epeeist

          Except that the people God killed or had killed in the Old Testament weren’t innocent.

          “Not only did they [the Canaanities] want to remain in their false religion, but in all of the demonic rituals that came along with it

          None of the Canaanites were innocent? All of them were involved with the things you name, even the babes in arms? But even if this was true, how does this justify drowning the whole world? Killing not just the Canaanites but the Chinese, Indians, Inuit, Celts etc. as well?

          We have had a number of people who have attempted to commit genocide,but only your god has committed omnicide.

        • What is it with you Christians who can’t logic? The Canaanites sacrificed a few children so God taught them a lesson by killing all their children?

          Maybe you should revisit the idea that God knows everything. He sounds pretty stupid.

        • Natureboi

          Please explain Exodus 21:20,21.

          Was the murder done in the name of atheism?
          Was Hitler a Christian?

          You atheists seem to have a special knack for death.

          Did God ever murder anyone?
          Dis God ever command murder?
          Did God ever condone murder?

        • Greg G.

          Are you sure that Exodus 21:16 in not forbidding “kidnapping for ransom” in a language that does not have specific terms for that? If not, is the Bible OK with kidnapping for ransom?

          There are differences between hired hands, indentured servants, and slaves bought with money. A slave bought with money by priest can be circumcised and then can eat meals from offerings but an indentured servant cannot. An indentured servant who was a fellow Hebrew could not be treated harshly but other slave could be treated as slaves. Even Jesus in Luke used the example of treating slaves harshly as an object message without condemning it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Exodus 20:15 15″You shall not steal.
          Exodus 21:16 16″Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
          Leviticus 6:1-7 1The LORD said to Moses: 2″If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving a neighbor about something entrusted to them or left in their care or about something stolen, or if they cheat their neighbor, 3or if they find lost property and lie about it, or if they swear falsely about any such sin that people may commit- 4when they sin in any of these ways and realize their guilt, they must return what they have stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to them, or the lost property they found, 5or whatever it was they swore falsely about. They must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day they present their guilt offering. 6And as a penalty they must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, their guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. 7In this way the priest will make atonement for them before the LORD, and they will be forgiven for any of the things they did that made them guilty.”

        • The Bible makes very, very clear that slavery for life is A-OK with God.

          And you worship this guy?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Let all of that HATRED go Bob, it’ll eat you up inside and cause cancer (as if you homosexuals don’t have enough to worry about).
          http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/cancer-anger-link.html

        • ?? I’m not a homosexual. I’m just doing what I can to advocate for civil rights.

        • aCultureWarrior

          You act as if there’s something wrong with homosexuality Bob (yet another one that wants it known that he doesn’t partake in same sex sodomy). Since the civil rights movement of homosexuals have pretty much been achieved (they still haven’t quite yet gotten the golden egg: the legalization of adult-child sex), why not make yourself useful and work on the civil rights of those who are into incest or bestiality? After all, that imaginary sky wizard spoke out against those behaviors as well as homosexuality in the Bible that you HATE so much.

        • I hope this is just the mindless lashing out that it appears. Or do you really not understand the difference between sex that causes harm and sex that doesn’t?

        • Greg G.

          aCW seems to follow the idea that if you shouldn’t have sex whether there is consent or not, then consent is irrelevant when you do have sex.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Might I suggest that you spend the day reading CDC reports Bob, and you’ll find out what harm homosexuality causes.

        • The harm is sexually transmitted disease. But (small world!) that’s a problem for any sexually active person.

          Since there are a lot more straight people, your “practice safe sex, people!” message is valid but poorly targeted. Do you just love the gays so much that you want to focus on them? That’s sweet, but you’d actually do more good if you aimed it at all sexually active people.

        • Geoff Benson

          I’m a bloke so I can’t have an abortion. Am I allowed to point out that I support the right to choose, even though I don’t partake?

        • aCultureWarrior

          You’re a Libertarian who believes that people can do with their own body as they please, no matter how destructive that behavior is and how harmful it is to others. Simply put: You’re a sexual anarchist Geoff.

          “Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the “sexual anarchy movement.” Whether it’s the movement’s pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God’s design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage. ”
          https://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2011/09/03/sexual-anarchy-n1031230

        • Geoff Benson

          Thanks for that. Stalin would have been proud of you!

        • Geoff Benson

          Incidentally I thought child rape was the domain of churches?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Homosexual pedophiles go anywhere that they have access to children. The liberal Catholic Church (as seen in the book “Goodbye, Good Men” and other books as well) allowed openly homosexual men into their priesthood and the result was massive child molestation.
          See you Geoff, the vast majority of those with homosexual desires were raped as children, hence causing their sexual confusion. They often times go onto do what was done to them, i.e. the molested becomes the molester.

        • Geoff Benson

          I’m sorry but you are factually wrong. Almost all homosexuality is something one is born with. If you don’t care for this then tough. As pointed out to you almost all species of animals (and it’s now a lot more than 1500) exhibit homosexual behaviour, exactly the same as that in humans (again, as already pointed out, we are animals ourselves). The majority of children who are raped are heterosexual in later life, proportionate exactly with the proportion of heterosexual people in any given population.

        • Greg G.

          You want to give a mindless fetus the right to invade an unwilling host no matter how harmful it is to others. Women are collateral damage.

          There are thousands of Christianities to choose from. Why choose a Sadducee Christianity?

        • Greg G.

          None of those are against kidnapping for ransom. Leviticus 6:1-7 goes into great detail about items but is not about kidnapping for ransom. Exodus 20:15 is about stealing things, not kidnapping people.

          But your claim for Exodus 21:16 in your previous post was that it was about kidnapping for slavery. That is what I was responding to. You cannot be taken seriously if you contradict yourself from one post to the next. Is it your religion that makes you say such things with so little thought? Why should anyone take your religion seriously?

        • Can’t forget those tasty concubines and handmaids.

        • vinny152

          ……Since it is the “End of Times”-acc to some posts–why not go out with a BANG-??-;^))….v152

        • Have I mentioned how I get a great laugh on how you rainbow flag wavers borrow off of Judeo Christian doctrine (marriage, monogamy) without giving God credit for it?

          Have I mentioned how I get a great laugh when you pretend that Christianity invented something—logic, morality, marriage—that others must borrow? You’d be adorable if you weren’t so hateful.

          While disease is still a problem in homosexual so-called monogamous relationships

          Only if they come into the relationship with a disease. And that applies to heterosexual so-called monogamous relationships, too, Einstein.

          And since teh butt secks freaks you out so much, you should ask yourself whether there’s more of it in the straight community or the gay community. Cuz there are a lot more straight people.

          disease is only one aspect of homosexuality

          Disease is an aspect of homosexuality like it is in heterosexuality. But I’m glad that you’re encouraging everyone to practice safe sex.

          and the case can be made from a secular point of view that homosexuality should be recriminalized because of what it’s done to society since becoming legal

          Oh? What has it done?

          (it’s still illegal in around 12 States, no matter what Lawrence v Texas says)

          Someone needs to reread the notes from his middle-school government class. A Supreme Court decision makes invalid any contradicting “State” law.

          You know how a handful of state constitutions still have religious requirements for public office? They’re unenforceable by the same logic.

          The traditional family is the nucleus of society

          And SSM does what to attack this?

        • aCultureWarrior

          *So atheists are now taking credit not only for monogamous relationships, but marriage as well? You best work on telling us what or who created the earth and everything on it before you go taking credit for invaluable institutions such as marriage.
          *80% of homosexual males acknowledge that they partake in anal sex (the other 20% at liars). If you need a biology lesson on how trauma to the anus causes wounds and blood and hence disease, I have plenty of CDC and other reputable medical reports to share with you.
          *While there are way too many promiscuous heterosexuals who in turn contract STD’s, those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately contract STD’s. Check CDC reports.
          *Anti-Christian bigotry/’gaystapo tactics against anyone that speaks out or even jokes about homosexuality or it’s agenda (marriage, etc.).
          300 Examples You Have to Read to Understand the Term ‘Homofascism’
          https://barbwire.com/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/
          It destroys invaluable institutions; indoctrinates children to the ways of perversion, etc. etc. etc.
          *We could go back to the days of the Founding Fathers and see what their original intent for the Supreme Court was (you wouldn’t like it, as they didn’t play any roll in setting precedent after hearing a case, only the case that they heard was effected. Kinda like how the recent SCOTUS decision on Masterpiece Bakeshop v the CO Civil Rights Commission turned out. SCOTUS sided with Jack Phillips, but didn’t set precedence or do away with anti discrimination laws like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas or Obergefell v Hodges did).
          *Allowing a perverse behavior, yet a CHANGEABLE ONE to influence society is a death knell. History shows us that.

        • *So atheists are now taking credit not only for monogamous relationships, but marriage as well?

          You don’t read good. No, I didn’t say that.

          *80% of homosexual males acknowledge that they partake in anal sex (the other 20% at liars). If you need a biology lesson on how trauma to the anus causes wounds and blood and hence disease, I have plenty of CDC and other reputable medical reports to share with you.

          ?? Women partake in anal sex, too! Have I mentioned that you don’t read good?

          *While there are way too many promiscuous heterosexuals who in turn contract STD’s, those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately contract STD’s. Check CDC reports.

          Translated: “practice safe sex, people!”

          Yes, thank you. We’re all on board, as I’ve told you half a dozen times.

          *Anti-Christian bigotry/’gaystapo tactics against anyone that speaks out or even jokes about homosexuality or it’s agenda (marriage, etc.).

          Oh, if only we could have a majority-Christian country where honest Christians could identify and attack minority groups without fear of prison! Oh, dear lord, when will this perfect world exist?

          300 Examples You Have to Read to Understand the Term ‘Homofascism’

          Sounds like hysterical bullshit. Summarize the relevant parts for me.

          *We could go back to the days of the Founding Fathers and see what their original intent for the Supreme Court was (you wouldn’t like it

          Why not? Wouldn’t it affect both sides equally?

          *Allowing a perverse behavior, yet a CHANGEABLE ONE to influence society is a death knell. History shows us that.

          Thanks, Fox News. Now if you, Mr. Anonymous culture warrior, have something specific and testable to say, then do so. “Gol-dang faggots gonna be the death of ‘Merica!” doesn’t make a case.

          And tell me more about the “changeable” part. You’re saying that homosexuality is just a fashion that people adopt or reject as the mood strikes them? That there are no real homosexuals?

        • aCultureWarrior

          No, there are no real homosexuals, i.e. people born with same sex desires, only people who were traumatized as children and contracted same sex desires because of it Bob. If you want an honest answer about homosexuality Bob, ask an EX homosexual, they’ll tell you the truth.

        • Exodus International was a Christian ministry devoted to conversion therapy. It operated for almost 40 years before disbanding in 2013. Its president admitted that their work had changed almost no one.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/03/homosexuality-in-nature-same-sex-marriage/

          Sexuality is fluid for some people. Someone who sees himself as gay today might see himself as bisexual next month. It’s slightly complicated, which allows you to convince yourself that there are no actual gays.

          But that does raise the question why someone would want to be gay when people like you are doing their best to create a hateful social environment for homosexuals. And they still say they’re gay? They sound convinced.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I found it odd that Alan Chambers, who was the head of Exodus International and an EX homosexual, is still happily married to a woman yet he doesn’t believe in therapy for homosexuals. I betcha all of the death threats that the gaystapo sent Chambers finally got to him. That being said: Exodus is still around and goes by another name: Exodus Global Alliance. There are plenty more organizations that help people understand and often times overcome their same sex desires out there. Just imagine how successful these people would be if society actually embraced them overcoming their perverse desires instead of scorn them?

        • Didn’t bother reading the quote of Chambers’ at that link, did you?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Chambers apology? He needs to apologize to those lost souls who have died and will die because Alan Chambers wasn’t man enough to admit that homosexuality is a culture of death. I would hate to be there when Alan Chambers meets God and is asked why he lead people astray, both here on earth and eternally as well.
          BTW, Alan Chambers is an EX homosexual right? I think being married to the same woman for 16+ years would make him a heterosexual, right Bob?

        • BTW, Alan Chambers is an EX homosexual right? I think being married to the same woman for 16+ years would make him a heterosexual, right Bob?

          Wrong again. I said before that this was slightly difficult, so I guess it’s not surprising that your brain is wrapped around the axle. Take a stiff shot of Ovaltine in milk and let’s see if we can get you through this. You can do it!

          Some of us are at one extreme or the other on the sexuality scale, while others are in the middle (a little bit bisexual to just plain bisexual). Alan Chambers might not’ve changed on that scale but is comfortable in a heterosexual union.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Ohhhhhhhhhh, I get it Bob. Someone who goes from being a full fledged homosexual (via spiritual and psychological therapy, i.e. having faith in God that He will help that person overcome their sexual confusion and through professional help understand WHY they’ve contracted those desires) to being a happily married man of 16 years is really just a bisexual in disguise (the “B” in the LGBT acronym) ?
          How about those people that left homosexuality behind and married and conceived children, are they “bisexuals” too Bob?
          Have you sought therapy Bob? If you have and it didn’t work like you wanted it to (in the snap of a finger you were heterosexual), try and try again until you get it right.

        • Has God turned 100% gay men into 100% straight men? I’ve seen no examples.

          Someone who goes from being a full fledged homosexual (via spiritual and psychological therapy, i.e. having faith in God that He will help that person overcome their sexual confusion and through professional help understand WHY they’ve contracted those desires) to being a happily married man of 16 years is really just a bisexual in disguise (the “B” in the LGBT acronym) ?

          Not what I said, Mr. Don’t Read Good. I said that was possible.

          How about those people that left homosexuality behind and married and conceived children, are they “bisexuals” too Bob?

          That’s my guess, but it’s just a guess. We could always ask them. Have you asked Chambers?

        • aCultureWarrior

          What exactly is a “100% gay man” Bob, someone who sodomizes every male (young or old) that he sees? Or perhaps he’s 100% certain that he’s contracted HIV/AIDS from the unnatural homosexual acts that he’s partaking in? Inquiring minds really don’t wanna know Bob, but are curious about what makes someone a “100% homosexual”.

        • I did say that this was a little complicated, but this matter is giving you a really hard time. Did you forget your Ovaltine?

          There’s a spectrum. Some people are very heterosexual, some are very homosexual, and others are somewhere on the spectrum.

          Any clearer now?

        • TheNuszAbides

          I think being married to the same woman for 16+ years would make him a heterosexual

          it’s cute that you at least attempt to imagine things, but unfortunately your capacity to do so coherently is severely hobbled by corner-brand conformity.

          EDIT: tag fix

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yes, that would make former homosexual Alan Chambers a heterosexual. Thanks for contributing to my point.

        • epeeist

          Didn’t bother reading the quote of Chambers’ at that link

          The problem is that the “a” tag is missing an attribute. Someone needs to go to W3C and convince them to include a “blessed by Jesus” attribute for it so that Christians know that they can safely click on the link.

        • Lex Lata

          1. What criminal penalty would you want to see for consensual same-sex intimacy? What sort of jail time or fines? Or are you thinking execution, mutilation, or something else more old-school?

          2. Do you want adultery criminalized? If so, what range of penalties would you want imposed?

          3. Do you want unmarried cohabitation criminalized? And again, if so, what should the penalties be?

        • aCultureWarrior

          1). You act as if I made this whole idea up. There are still States that have laws on the books and the penalties that go with it regarding sodomy (only enforced against homosexuals I might add). There are currently laws on the books in those States and their respective counties and cities that prohibit lewd conduct and public indecency which seem to be ignored when partially or fully nude homosexuals march in ‘gay’ pride parades (having homosexual police officers and pro LGBT Mayors and Governors in those parades just might have something to do with that). There are CDOM laws on the books as well (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) that aren’t enforced either.
          2) If I said “no”, that would make me a sexual anarchist wouldn’t it? Decriminalizing adultery has destroyed many a marriage and hence many a family.
          3). Cohabitation laws were decriminalized and hence fly-by-night fathers and children growing up in fatherless homes, turning to drugs and crime. The penalty? Social mores’ need to change first. You can’t have law passed without social mores’ that embrace those laws.

        • There are still States that have laws on the books and the penalties that go with it regarding sodomy (only enforced against homosexuals I might add).

          Who cares? They’re unconstitutional, and you pointed out the case yourself.

          Decriminalizing adultery has destroyed many a marriage and hence many a family.

          And what role does criminalizing adultery have in a strong marriage?

          You sound like an 80yo, cane-shaking, “Get off my lawn, you goddamn kids!” kinda guy with good old-fashioned 1950s values. Criminalizing adultery, allowing marital rape, and prohibiting divorce won’t help a failed marriage. If you want stronger marriages, find out what causes the problems and work on those—safer neighborhoods, a healthcare financial safety net, better education or better jobs, and so on.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *A bunch of pro LGBT activist Judges aren’t the law of the land Bob.
          *Did you just compare those who engage in homosexuality and the jack booted thug agenda that goes with it with kids playing on a lawn Bob? (I believe he did). All the more reason “Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!” because these lost souls don’t even acknowledge that perversion exists.

        • *A bunch of pro LGBT activist Judges aren’t the law of the land Bob.

          And yet Supreme Court decisions are.

          You need to go back and figure out how constitutions and laws work. You must’ve been asleep that year they talked about that in school.

          *Did you just compare those who engage in homosexuality and the jack booted thug agenda that goes with it with kids playing on a lawn Bob? (I believe he did).

          Nope. Learn to read good.

          All the more reason “Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!”

          What penalty do you propose? (I’m looking at the answer in Leviticus, BTW.)

        • aCultureWarrior

          Laws and their penalties are still on the legislative books in several States Bob. Besides laws against sodomy, there are laws prohibiting lewd conduct in public (there go your precious ‘gay’ pride parades) as well as laws against contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Then there’s criminal conspiracy laws, all of the above are not enforced against the LGBT movement. If they were, the ‘gaystapo’ wouldn’t exist.

        • Laws and their penalties are still on the legislative books in several States

          True. So what? I’ve explained several times why that’s irrelevant.

          At this stage of our conversation, maybe you should just give us a wrap up comment and leave. Tell us what your point is, tell us if you’ve changed your mind on anything based on all the effort we made in responding to you, and so on.

          You’re at the “repeat arguments over and over and ignore the flaws” stage.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Irrelevant because the LGBT movement went “Judge shopping” and found pro homosexual Judges that ruled in your favor on Lawrence v Texas? ( It appears that Bob needs a history lesson)
          Bowers v. Hardwick (No. 85-140)
          Argued: March 31, 1986
          Decided: June 30, 1986
          After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent’s fundamental rights.
          Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.
          (a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court’s prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/186

        • Irrelevant

          Yes, finally. It’s irrelevant that states have anti-gay laws when a Supreme Court ruling overrides them. Why not just admit that at the outset?

          Irrelevant because the LGBT movement went “Judge shopping” and found pro homosexual Judges that ruled in your favor on Lawrence v Texas?

          This is news to me. You can go judge shopping in the Supreme Court? How does that work since there’s only one of them, and the judges on that court can’t be changed?

        • Lex Lata

          1. I know you didn’t make the whole idea up, and that same-sex intimacy has been a crime for much of Christendom’s history. The penalties have ranged from fines to jail to execution, among others.

          2. I don’t think that would make you a sexual anarchist, but of course you’re free to disagree.

          3. That sounds like a yes, cohabitation should be criminalized.

          4. I note that you elected not to actually respond to my questions about the range of penalties you’d want imposed on people for any of these activities.

          Cheers.

        • aCultureWarrior

          1). I believe there was one execution in US history, and it involved a homosexual assault on a young boy on a ship well over a hundred years ago. Other than that, it’s been a felony for the best part of US history.
          2). Anything outside of marriage between one man and one woman creates anarchy. Throw the perversion of homosexuality into it and total chaos breaks out.
          3). It sounds like you’re ok with fatherless homes, drug addiction and crime.
          4). Penalties: Therapy for those poor children that were raped by homosexual adults and because of it, contracted same sex desires.
          Decisions, decisions: What should be done with those homosexuals that sexually molest children and/or psychologically molest their minds into believing that they’re homosexual and there is no way out of it, and those children end up committing suicide ? Should society shake a finger at them and say “Naughty boys!” or charge them with capital crimes or manslaughter at a minimum?
          Now about those lewd conduct and CDOM laws that aren’t enforced. I believe that they are misdemeanors and jail time comes with a conviction. Therapy for their unnatural desires would be preferable, don’t you think?

        • 2). Anything outside of marriage between one man and one woman creates anarchy. Throw the perversion of homosexuality into it and total chaos breaks out.

          In your fevered mind. Freedom doesn’t seem to have caused chaos. The objectively bad social metrics don’t seem to me to have been caused by homosexuality. The more you focus on the not-problem, the less use you’re going to be in fixing things.

          3). It sounds like you’re ok with fatherless homes, drug addiction and crime.

          These are caused by homosexuality??

          4). Penalties: Therapy for those poor children that were raped by homosexual adults and because of it, contracted same sex desires.

          This is what causes gaiety? Citation needed.

          What should be done with those homosexuals that sexually molest children

          We already have rape and pedophilia laws, thanks.

          Now about those lewd conduct and CDOM laws that aren’t enforced.

          What is CDOM?

          I believe that they are misdemeanors

          What a wimp! Some Christian soldier you are. I thought Leviticus made clear what the civil punishment was. You too cowardly to demand it? Or do you realize that that’s nonsensical and have to tap dance a way out of this predicament?

        • Lex Lata

          1. Not sure why you’re narrowing the historical and geographical scope of options. Also some felonies have been (and still are) punishable by death, so I’m a bit confused by your terminology. No big deal.

          2. As I said, I expect we disagree on this.

          3. No, I’m not okay with those, but if you wish to amuse yourself with a strawman, it’s no skin off my nose.

          4. Now you’re talking about penalties for statutory rape, sexual battery of a minor, child abuse, etc. which are crimes. You’re also describing victim therapy as a criminal penalty, which makes little sense, given that victims aren’t the criminals.

          But let’s get back to my actual question–What should the criminal penalties for consensual, same-sex intimacy be? Let’s take my step-sister and her wife, for instance. Unless I’m mistaken, it’s your position that their sexual acts should be prosecuted as crimes (indeed felonies). What should the range of penalties be?

        • aCultureWarrior

          1). Just pointing out that while sexual perversion (i.e. homosexuality) has been a serious crime throughout US history, in rare cases had the act itself warranted execution (there’s enough death with those who engage in homosex by the way).
          2). One of us right and the other is wrong. Prove me wrong (I don’t fall for the “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” lie).
          3). But you still don’t see a problem with laws and cultural mores’ against cohabitation, right?
          4. The molested often times become the molester. Each case must be examined and decided what’s best for the individual and society as a whole. Therapy is used for those who abuse alcohol and drugs and it works with many, the same goes with homosexuality.

        • Lex Lata

          Good Crom. For someone so gung-ho on recriminalizing consensual same-sex activity as a felony (any offense warranting one or more years in prison or the death penalty, as a rule of thumb), you’re astonishingly evasive about the actual consequences you’d want the judicial system to impose on couples like my step-sister and her wife.

          Well, I’m done asking. Enjoy your mini-crusade. I’m sure you’ll succeed any day now.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Sexual perversion is a serious crime, as it brings misery, disease and often times early death to those who partake in it. It’s even more so when adults indoctrinate children to the ways of homosexuality.
          12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children
          https://barbwire.com/twelve-ways-homosexual-adults-endanger-children/
          I see that your morals seem to be based on what a family member does. If that family member were into incest or bestiality, would you approve of their behavior as well?
          Regarding my “mini-crusade” : God will come back and do a major flush job on this earth before decency is restored (I believe that we’re past the point of no return); but nevertheless, I’m fighting the good fight, standing firm in the faith and finishing the race.
          2 Timothy 4:7

        • Sexual perversion is a serious crime, as it brings misery, disease and often times early death to those who partake in it.

          And yet you’ve failed to show us this. AIDS is now a chronic disease—we’ve been over this. All you’re arguing for is safe sex.

          Like a weeble, you ignore the responses to your outdated position and just come back, wasting our time with a repeat.

          It’s even more so when adults indoctrinate children to the ways of homosexuality.

          And you know because Pastor Bill told you so? Tell him, “Citation, please.”

          I see that your morals seem to be based on what a family member does. If that family member were into incest or bestiality, would you approve of their behavior as well?

          Does incest cause harm? Homosexuality doesn’t. See the difference?

          God will come back and do a major flush job on this earth before decency is restored

          “My big brother will kick your ass! And then you’ll stop being mean to me!”

          I’m fighting the good fight, standing firm in the faith and finishing the race.

          Make sure you periodically double check that your fight really is good.

        • aCultureWarrior

          No matter how “safe” homosexuals think that buggery can be, the anus was meant ONLY to be used as an orifice to expel human waste, NOT as a sex object. (did I mention that many homosexuals like to play with human feces or ingest it as well Bob?)
          https://psychologydictionary.org/scatophilia/

          (From the boogeyman that hides underneath every homosexual’s bed: Dr. Paul Cameron)
          http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html

        • Did I mention that if you don’t like gay sex you don’t have to have any? Did I mention that men and women can participate in anal sex, conceivably in higher numbers than gay men?

          And did I mention that homosexual behavior has been observed in 1500 animals species? That’s right—it’s natural.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Did I mention Jesus’ 2 greatest commandments? Besides loving God with all of my heart mind and soul, I’m to love my neighbor as I love myself Bob. If I didn’t share that there is a way out of your culture of death with you and others Bob, would I be loving God and loving my neighbor? Remember, they are COMMANDMENTS that Jesus made, not suggestions.

        • You need to either explicitly throw in the towel or respond to my arguments. By ignoring them, it makes you look deceptive.

          The beauty about a problem like this is that it all comes down to definitions. That’s right—you can define your way out of it. There is no objective harm from homosexuality, just like there isn’t for heterosexuality. So just redefine homosexuality to not be wrong.

          And while you’re at it, show me in the Bible where it talks about loving homosexual couples.

          Remember, they are COMMANDMENTS that Jesus made, not suggestions.

          Oh, yeah. I forgot that I need to listen to someone who magic is legendary. Do you listen to the commandments of Superman as well?

        • aCultureWarrior

          I became bored with you long ago Bob. You’re not here to learn the Truth, you’re here to try and make yourself feel better about your HATRED for God.

          On that note: Here’s one for you atheists to explain Bob:

          Texas girl’s inoperable brain tumor vanishes
          12-17-18
          In what seems like a Christmas miracle, the inoperable brain tumor of an 11-year-old girl in Texas has disappeared, and doctors say they don’t know why.

          Roxli Doss was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, in June, as KVUE reported.
          Her parents, Gena and Scott, prayed for a miracle and they got it.
          Her mom said: “It’s kind of our family thing that God healed Roxli.”
          The girl’s medical team are equally in a state of disbelief…
          https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/texas-girl’s-inoperable-brain-tumor-vanishes/ar-BBR6d7w?ocid=spartanntp

        • I became bored with you long ago Bob.

          Thanks for sharing. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

          You’re not here to learn the Truth, you’re here to try and make yourself feel better about your HATRED for God.

          What’s that mean? That I really believe in God (and so am a theist) but hate him? Weird. Is this another desperation ploy, or is there evidence for this?

          Here’s your challenge: you need to support this hypothesis so that it’s clear that this isn’t simply you admitting that you have no answers to my questions or any support for your beliefs. Show me that my stated position—I’m an atheist because I’ve researched diligently and found no good evidence for God—is false. As a bonus, do it right here, in public, so that I have to take my medicine when you reveal my hypocrisy (and my theism).

          On that note: Here’s one for you atheists to explain Bob:

          What’s to explain? I can respond in two ways: (1) I have no idea, but so what? I’m not a doctor. The burden of proof is yours. You do the research and show us that the medical community overall is convinced that this was supernatural.

          Or (2) she responded to her treatment. The last sentence begins, “Roxli will continue to undergo treatments, such as immunotherapy.” Why is this shocking? Wasn’t that what they were aiming for?

          This is like your throwing a basketball from one end of the court to the other at the buzzer, getting a basket, and winning the game. Yes, that’s a rare occurrence, but that was where you were aiming.

        • Greg G.

          It is a nice feel-good story. Articles about miracles tend to leave out the treatments involved. I looked at four before I found one that mentioned the treatment administered.

          Gena and Scott, however, still decided to have Roxli undergo weeks of radiation while praying for a miracle to happen.

          Their prayers were apparently answered.
          https://www.techtimes.com/articles/236481/20181217/inpoperable-brain-tumor-of-texas-girl-roxli-doss-miraculously-disappears.htm

          No matter what the doctors do, religious nuts always give credit to an imaginary being.

        • It’s like the person who survived some terrible natural disaster–flood, hurricane, whatever–who has been rescued, clothed, fed, and relocated by local volunteers, charities, and/or government programs. When they’re on camera to give their summary of their experience, it’s often, “Thank you, Jesus!!”

        • MR

          I’ve mentioned before a family friend who had a rare form of cancer. She changed her diet, exercised, removed chemicals from her life, and flew out to the coast for clinical trials and extensive treatment. She and the doctors did all the work, but Jesus, of course, got all the credit when she was declared cancer free. But Jesus is a fickle bastard. The cancer came back. She passed away last month.

        • Greg G.

          The Miracle of the Incomplete Disaster. Two cars with five people each collide, nine die, and one ends up a paraplegic. It’s a miracle!

        • And it plays out so often. Praise the Lord!

        • aCultureWarrior

          The power of prayer is amazing isn’t it Greg?

        • Greg G.

          The power of delusion and the power of confirmation bias are amazing.

        • aCultureWarrior

          There’s so much death in your atheist movement Greg; why not take a moment and enjoy that a young girl is alive thanks to God.

        • Greg G.

          Christianity is a death cult. Its main icon is a tortuous execution device.

          Atheism leads to enjoying life while you have it. You don’t have to pretend that disease kills everybody unless there is a miracle.

        • And thanks for the link to Dr. Cameron’s article. I noticed that he’s chair of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs, Colorado USA. Yeah, I’m sure he’s objective and has no agenda.

        • aCultureWarrior

          This is the part in our so-called debate where you refute what Cameron wrote. If you need time to grab a dictionary to find out what the word “refute” means, then do it.
          Remember Bob, these pathetic lost souls contracted homosexual desires because of the horrendous things that happened to them in childhood. Playing with or ingesting human feces is just part of the mental illness that goes along with their homosexual lifestyle.

        • This is the part in our so-called debate where you refute what Cameron wrote.

          Tl;dr. If there’s anything beyond just homophobia, like your arguments, summarize that for us.

          Remember Bob, these pathetic lost souls contracted homosexual desires because of the horrendous things that happened to them in childhood.

          Remember, CW, this is just your opinion. The scientific consensus is that they’re born that way.

        • Geoff Benson

          Having two, very decent, hard working, family members who are independently gay, I can categorically say that is how they were born. If anybody suggested otherwise to their face, or suggested they should attend therapy, I think a bloody nose might be in order.

        • 1. And slavery has been legal for much of US history as well. Society matures and improves.

        • aCultureWarrior

          The Founding Fathers, because of their Christian belief, were the abolitionists of their day.
          https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-slavery/
          Care to discuss the slavery that still goes on in atheists countries Bob? How about we start with your beloved Chinese Communists?
          https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1333894/29-million-trapped-modern-day-slavery-china-30-million-worldwide

        • The Founding Fathers, because of their Christian belief, were the abolitionists of their day.

          Which is why they abolished slavery! Oh, wait . . .

          Care to discuss the slavery that still goes on in atheists countries Bob? How about we start with your beloved Chinese Communists?

          Help yourself. The marvel isn’t that ordinary humans can do corrupt things; the marvel is that the omni-benevolent Creator of the Universe® is so morally bankrupt that not only did he not prohibit slavery when he had the chance, he actually set out rules for it.

        • Moreover, “its risky” is a reason to encourage monogamy, not discourage it.

          Yes! This is too often overlooked.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          oh foolish mortal, religious bigots do not accept the existence of lesbians, at least as far as their anti gay arguments go. mostly because man on man sex they consider icky and woman on woman sex is hot

        • Pofarmer

          Moreover, “its risky” is a reason to encourage monogamy, not discourage it.

          But it’s so much more fun to persecute people. I wonder if this is Mike Pence?

    • eric

      Heterosexual incest and bestiality aren’t nearly as…deadly as homosexual behavior

      So, where are the Christian masses protesting against freeclimbing? Motorcycles? People handling snakes?

      When you come up with some claimed reason to oppose gays, but you only apply that reason to gays and nobody else, your discrimination is pretty easy to see.

      • What–didn’t you know? Christianity is often called “the Safety Religion” because it’s eager to make sure everyone is safe and healthy.

        That’s why they’re the ones clamoring loudest for expanded health care.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Look, if you’re going to brag about your deviance of intolerance, then we’ll ALL know what a fuck up you and YOUR KIND are…

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Lol!

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Also, ask the genetically disadvantaged (by reinforcement of harmful alleles) children of heterosexual incest how THEY feel about how deadly their parents’ sexual behavior was, knothead…

      • aCultureWarrior

        So you want to change the subject to the sexual revolution (if it feels good do it) and the great harm that it’s done to society Harold?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU brought up heterosexual incest, AND the ‘health risks’.

          If you either don’t like or DON’T KNOW where a topic is going to go, you might not want to take that road.

          I’m not changing the subject, I’m merely showing you to be either idiotically ignorant or blatantly uncaring…

    • RichardSRussell

      I’m always bemused by the use of “deviant” as some kind of insult. Picasso was a deviant. So was Beethoven. So was Einstein. So was Jack the Ripper. It’s not the mere fact of deviating from the norm that should be a matter of concern, it’s what you’re doing during your deviation. Not all who wander are lost.

    • John Grove

      I’m not anti-gay nor think homosexuals should be discriminated against in any way. But is it true to say that male to male homosexuality is riskier than hetero sex? Not just with HIV, AIDS and /or STDs but also several types of cancers?

      This is just a question. Of course they can mitigate this by safe sex, but who wants to wear a condom the rest of their lives?

      • When a man puts his johnson into anyone, there’s a risk of spreading STDs–hepatitis, HIV, herpes, and so on. The sexual preference of each party doesn’t matter.

        Condoms become optional when you can tolerate the risk of pregnancy and when neither partner has any STD that the other could get.

        • John Grove

          Condoms are optional for a hetero couple, sure, but for a man who puts his Johnson in a butt, all I is say, risky. That’s all I’m saying. If one prefers that, enjoy…Disease or no disease, you still risk something.. So safe sex forever. Capice?

        • for a man who puts his Johnson in a butt, all I is say, risky. That’s all I’m saying. If one prefers that, enjoy…Disease or no disease, you still risk something.. So safe sex forever. Capice?

          Nope—no idea what your point is. There are several places where one can put one’s Johnson. You can get STDs from more than just butt sex. Said another way, you can catch an STD if you’re female as well as male. Capisce?

        • John Grove

          My point was only that lifestyle is riskier. I recall a story a guy had anal sex with a girl and an hour later had a burning sensation when he urinated. He went to the doctor because he thought he had an STD, turned out he actually had a jalapeno seed in his penis from the gal he had sex with.

          Anal sex in my humble opinion should always be practiced with a condom. Just my humble opinion.

      • aCultureWarrior

        Check the CDC (Center for Disease Controls) stats over the years. They tell the truth about homosexuality and the diseases that come with it (remember, we’re only dealing with around 2% of the population).

        • Jeez–you’re a broken record, aren’t you? You’re simply saying that sex can be dangerous, and that safe sex is important for men and women, gays and straights.

          Since this doesn’t advance your hateful agenda, you need to find something else.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Simply put Bob, the anus wasn’t mean to be used as a sex object and when it is, very very bad things happen. Remember that the anus is to homosexuality what the vagina is to heterosexuality. Heterosexuality brings life, homosexuality brings death (hence it being called “the culture of death”).

        • Aram

          Interesting factoid: More straight people engage in anal sex than gay people.

        • Interesting factoid Fun fact: More straight people engage in anal sex than gay people.

          FTFY

        • aCultureWarrior

          80% of homosexual males have said that they engage in buggery (the other 20% are liars). Around 20% of people who identify as heterosexual have tried it. Many women were coerced into doing it, as they’ve said it’s painful.

        • Aram

          Objectively false. Hell, I bet dollars to donuts you wanked off to anal sex in porn at least once in the last twelve hours.

        • I have wondered if Haggard’s Law applied here.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Haggard%27s_Law

        • Greg G.

          When your stomach is empty, your consciousness gets a notice. When your bladder is full, your consciousness gets a notice. When your prostate is full, your consciousness doesn’t get a direct notice, your subconscious makes sex thoughts bubble up into consciousness. Those who are religiously inhibited to get relief have to deal with the most intense sex thoughts. Naturally, those thoughts are about their desires. They must preach against what they think about.

          My other theory is that the brontosaurus is thin at one end, thick in the middle, and thin at the other end.

        • Aram

          Oh man, I remember the first time I encountered Haggard on screen when he shows up briefly in ‘Jesus Camp’. Absolutely a disconcerting human being. Next I knew was the whole scandal with the male prostitute, and yeah, I was in no way surprised. Last I heard his wife is standing by him and he continues to fight the ‘enemy’.

          As regards this disqus thread, I agree. This quote from that link calls out aCultureWarrior nicely:

          “Racists never imagine what it’s like to be like the person they hate, homophobes imagine it in graphic detail for hour upon hour.”
          —Bob Schooley

          Such an obsession with anal sex these people have, clearly they just really need to get their prostate stroked.

        • Here’s Brother Ted in Dawkins’ “The Root of All Evil” film (he first appears at about 21:25 if you want more).

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nAos1M-_Ts#t=27m03s

        • Aram

          Ha! Thanks. Been meaning to watch that.

        • disqus_d3hbbK3BPK but

        • Aram

          hmm, I feel like something got lost in translation here …

        • Greg G.

          Those appear to be Russian bots. I wouldn’t get too close to them.

        • I’ve recently seen several of these comments that are little more than Disqus handles. Has anyone seen them elsewhere? This is new to me, and I don’t know what the scam is.

        • MR

          Russian bot phishing attempts. They hope you go to their profile and click on the link. They still use the sexy girls hook, but dropped the .ru domain in the url. Facebook and Twitter get all the press, but I’ve seen the most brazen attempts here on Disqus. I wish Disqus would get called out in the news.

        • These are easy to algorithmically pull out. You’d think that Disqus could do that.

        • MR

          I think it’s ever evolving.

        • Greg G.

          If you create an algorithm, they will work around it to defeat it. They are easy enough to spot this way.

        • Susan

          You’d think that Disqus could do that.

          Disqus doesn’t even give us a means to report them.

          They’ve been infesting the upvotes for a very long time now. The best I can do is report them under “This user has an inappropriate profile” and then add them to my block list.

          Not very effective.

          They should have “This account has been hijacked by Russian bots” option, but they don’t seem to care.

        • I’ve been flagging them as spam, which I hoped had the same effect.

          I’ll look into your approach as well.

        • Susan

          I’ve been flagging them as spam

          When they were just upvoting, it didn’t seem to be an accurate category. “posted spam comments or discussions”

          Now, that they’re commenting, flagging them as spam seems to be the appropriate response.

          But the Disqus reporting feature is embarassingly bad.

          It almost seems intentionally so.

        • Natureboi

          I have suffered much censoring when I never broke a rule.

          Logic is something bigots cannot deal with.
          Censorship is thier best reaction.

          Just ask Galileo.

        • Natureboi

          I have been accused of being a “Russian Bot Troll” simply because I posted a logical argument that could not be refuted.

        • Susan

          I have been accused of being a “Russian Bot Troll” simply because I posted a logical argument that could not be refuted.

          We are not talking about people with logical arguments. We are talking about hijacked accounts that have been used to occupy the upvotes all over Disqus for over a year now.

          And now, they are starting to comment with one word answers.

        • Greg G.

          They usually have the handle of the person they are responding to, in all lower case, with something like “+3”, “I agree”, “I do not agree”, or some random word. The accounts have few posts in their history and seem to have been inactive for two or three years but recently resurrected.

          I saw something on TV last night that the internet might have become a giant virtual hoax. People can hire farms that run banks of computers that surf the web like a human would, clicking links to look normal, to make the advertisers have to pay for fake hits. Some people who model products in ads hire the farms to make it look like their fake ads are getting a ton of hits so a real company will hire them.

        • Scary. I recently read about Facebook etc. worrying about the Inversion, when the actions of real people will be mistaken (by their algorithms) as those of bots.

        • Don’t like a sex act? Then don’t do it.

          What more is there to say? With your dogged pursuit of this question, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

        • Greg G.

          Around 20% of people who identify as heterosexual have tried it.

          That proves his claim that “More straight people engage in anal sex than gay people.” https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-4-5-percent-u-s-adults-identify-lgbt-gallup-n877486 says a recent Gallup poll says that 4.5% of the population identifies as LGBT. 20% of the 95.5% of the population who do not identify as LGBT is 19.1% of the population, more than quadruple the gay population.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yep, that proves it Greg (he just loves to show off his new calculator). I hate to break the news to you, butt (pun intended), you and I and the 6? billion people that currently inhabit the earth wouldn’t be here if anal sodomy were their parents choice of sexual behavior.

        • If everyone were gay, humanity would die out. And if everyone were female, humanity would die out.

          Is there something wrong with being female?

        • Greg G.

          The world’s population is around 7.5 billion people. When we were born, it was around 3 billion and most of those have died off. So homosexuality can only attenuate the exponential population growth rate.

          If everyone were my age or older, humanity would die out sooner than if everyone were the same sex.

        • I hadn’t thought of you as the example of humanity’s demise, but now that you mention it, yeah.

        • Greg G.

          Add to that all of the souls that were conceived but failed to implant or aborted spontaneously since I was born. I expect I will get the blame for all of those, too. I will probably be blamed posthumously for the deaths of everybody who are alive at the time of my death.

        • It’s been 2000 years, and it’s not surprising that Christianity is ready for a reboot. First Jesus died for everyone’s sins, and now it’s you. Seize your destiny! Greg G.–the scapegoat for the new millennium!

        • Greg G.

          Scapegoat? I am angling for harbinger.

        • Greg G.

          I did it in my head for 10% of the population being gay and it was still overwhelming. Then I used the Google machine for a realistic percentage and it was worse for your claim.

          Many thoughts pop into my mind all day long. Thoughts about homosexuality are rare though thoughts about sex are very common. You seem to think about homosexuality a lot. You should ask yourself why.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Words to remember Greg: The anus, i.e.anal sex (buggery) is to homosexuality as what the vagina is to heterosexuality. The first brings amount disease and often times death, while the latter brings about life.
          Why am I concerned about homosexuality? Let me count the ways: Child molestation and indoctrination, anti-Christian bigotry, the destruction of invaluable institutions (marriage, the family, civil government, the Church, Education, etc. etc.); and last but not least: If I sat back and did nothing while these pathetic poor lost souls continue to kill themselves with a behavior that didn’t come natural (the vast majority of homosexuals were physically or mentally abused (or both) as children), then I wouldn’t be fulfilling Jesus’ 2nd greatest commandment (it’s a commandment, not a suggestion) to love my neighbor as I love myself.

        • Greg G.

          You would be better served if you found a church that accepts you as you are instead of a church that emphasizes loathing your nature.

        • Greg G.

          Child molestation and indoctrination,

          That isn’t homosexuality. That is Christianity! It has become apparent why you get the two confused.

        • For someone who warns about the consequences of not practicing safe sex, you sure are stupid about how STDs work. You do understand that HIV, hepatitis, and so on can be caught with boy/girl sex as well as boy/boy sex, right?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yes, but as CDC reports show, homosexuals disproportionately contract those STD’s. BTW Bob, the CDC is pro homosexual, so it’s not a right wing fascist Christian organization.

        • Yeah, I get it–practice safe sex. In fact, I think we all get it. You can drop this argument now.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I don’t think that you do get it Bob. Buggerizing , fisting or even orally sodomizing another male has extreme health risks.

        • Male/female sex can do all that and more. Since there are far more straight couples coupling, that’s where you should focus your attention.

        • aCultureWarrior

          While I won’t defend our moral depraved society who embrace your sexual perversion, if heterosexuality were such a health risk, then CDC reports would reflect it.

        • The CDC says nothing about STDs except those caught by homosexuals? I think you need to recheck that.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Those who engage in homosexual behavior (2-3% of the population, not including those children that were raped by homosexual pedophiles who have now contracted homosexual desires) DISPROPORTIONATELY contract STDs.

        • And we’re back with your old admonition, practice safe sex. Your love for the health of homosexuals is touching, truly it is, but you’re repetitive and boring.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Unless you and your boyfriend call shaking hands “sex” Roberto, you still need to “get tested” if you engage in any kind of homosexual activity (per the CDC).

        • Which is different from a heterosexual sexual relationship how?

        • aCultureWarrior

          We create babies, your create disease and death.

        • Let me Gordian Knot this problem for you: stop reading right-wing fascist Christian sites and it all goes away. They’re lying to you.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Basic biology says that the poop chute was made only for that Bob. Obviously you take a keen interest in arguing that it’s not. 😉

        • Homosexuality has been observed in 1500 species. It’s natural. You lose.

        • you and I and the 6? billion people that currently inhabit the earth wouldn’t be here if anal sodomy were their parents choice of sexual behavior.

          That’s also true if everyone were female. (1) But that’s not the case and (2) that doesn’t say that being female is bad.

          The lesson is left as an exercise to the reader.

      • Aram

        Ah so, your true colours come out on this comment. Well now, seems to me everyone should be wearing a condom when screwing random people. Then, you know, we get married (as this post is about) and be monogamous: No need to wear a condom, both for hetero and gay sex. Capiche?

        • John Grove

          What true colors are those? The colors of one asking questions?
          There is more to fear from anal sex just from HIV, STD. There are other dangers.

        • Aram

          Oh sure, your jacking off is quite obvious. Your bigotry even more so.

        • John Grove

          Why yes, thanks for asking jaybird

        • John Grove

          Thanks for noticing my jacking off. I thought I was alone.

        • Aram

          Yes well, keep reading and it’ll make more sense. To conclude, you breaking gay marriage/love/carnal knowledge down to ‘just anal sex’ simply betrays your ignorance and lack of empathy towards people different than yourself. Never mind that studies show heterosexual people engage more in anal sex than gay people. Heck, when’s the last time you watched a porno that didn’t include anal? Anyway, I do hope you outgrow your bigotry some day soon. Maybe try some anal – could be you love it. Take care of yourself Johnny boy.

        • John Grove

          U2

          For the record, it’s not gay marriage I oppose, but marriage itself.

        • Aram

          Good to hear. All the best, mate.

        • John Grove

          U2 my good man

    • Sorry, but it’s still not alright to bang your sister.

  • Brian Davis

    The slippery slope can just as easily tilt to the right. Ban homosexual marriage, and the next step might be re-criminalizing mixed race marriage. The next obvious step is to invalidate any marriage that doesn’t produce children within some time limit. Then they’ll want to ban all non Christian marriages.

    • Herald Newman

      Don’t forget stoning of adulterers!

      • Brian Davis

        That would be nothing new. I’ve known my share of stoned adulterers.

        • Brian Curtis

          I think I’ve been to that bar.

        • TheNuszAbides

          my share

          how many are apportioned to each of us?

    • aCultureWarrior

      Except for a person’s skin color isn’t immoral, homosexuality is. Sure, fake Christians banned interracial marriages, but they didn’t do it because of what they read in the Bible.

      • You don’t read so good in the Good Book either, do you?

        There are plenty of tribal bans in the OT. The Israelites were the Chosen People, remember? Rules against inter-tribal marriage are in several OT books.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Back to your history lesson on the Jews and their ceremonial, dietary and civil laws in the OT. Nowhere will you find in the OT and especially in the NT that one race is superior and that people from a different race shouldn’t marry.

        • In the Bible, they’re shown as tribes, not races. And yes, there are several places in the OT where inter-tribal marriage is forbidden. But you know that because you know the Bible well, right?

        • aCultureWarrior

          As do most Jewish sects today (prohibit marriage outside of the Jewish “tribe”). Now to the New Covenant (i.e. the New Testament). Passage or verse please that denounces marriage between people of different races.

        • So then you’re admitting that the OT prohibits some inter-tribal marriage.

      • Brian Davis

        “Fake Christians”? Are you going out of your way to shout “NO TRUE SCOTSMAN” from the roof tops? If you were trying to be a Poe I would have said you were doing a poor job of it, as no “true Christian apologist” would make such a transparently bad argument. But based on your other posts in this thread I must assume you are sincere.

        they didn’t do it because of what they read in the Bible.

        Really? Let’s see what Judge Leon M. Bazile wrote in his original ruling upholding Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws in the Loving v. Virginia case:

        Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
        he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
        his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact
        that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races
        to mix.

        You might vehemently disagree with their interpretation of the Bible, but it does seem that they were reading it. Or does this not count because they were reading the OT, and that somehow isn’t part of the Bible anymore?

        • aCultureWarrior

          *If they (and since you’re doing the talking for them) can pull up Scripture to make their case, show it.
          *I looked throughout my Bible and even did a internet search on biblical characters and I’ll be darned if someone by the name of Judge Leon M. Bazile is anywhere in it to be found.

        • CW thinks that Judge Leon M. Bazile was wrong. And I’m sure that the reverse is also true. You two fight it out and let me know what you finally decide. I’ll get the popcorn.

      • SoyCheese

        That same tired claim that demented assholes keep making, but constantly fail to support… Get back to us when you have a case against homosexuality that’s even halfway coherent.

        Cute NTS fallacy btw.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Be careful Mr. vegan cheese eater, as I know a lot of brutha’s that don’t take kindly to having their skin color compared to that of a sexual perversion.

        • SoyCheese

          I have no more respect for their ignorance and bigotry than I do yours.

          And have you ever had vegan cheese? I prefer the real thing, but it’s really not bad. Roughly on par with American-style processed cheese.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *I must be doing everything right if I haven’t gained the respect of a defender of moral depravity.
          *Soy is for….

        • The nice thing about the Old Testament’s “Chosen People” idea is that everyone can take offense. God was the god of the Jews. That’s it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          And then Jesus came along and His Word was shared throughout the world for all to embrace.

        • Imagine being a fly on the wall in heaven when God realized that he’d forgotten to send Jesus down to earth. I bet they laughed for hours! Can you imagine being so scatterbrained that you forget the entire point of the project until 1000 years later?! I guess only God can screw up so badly.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Sigh, Bob is badly afflicted with the 2nd tenet of atheism:
          1). There is no God
          2). I HATE Him
          3). I HATE Him so much that I’ll reinterpret His Word as seen in Holy Scripture to meet my selfish desires (i.e. ‘gay’ Christianity).
          We both know why you HATE God so much (I’ve heard your story a thousand times from EX homosexuals Bob), the question is: Why don’t you ask Jesus Christ into your life to set you free that that misery that you’re engulfed with 24/7/365?

        • Trying to the subject? Yeah, I guess that’s your best move, considering.

      • Yahweh is clear that inter-tribal marriages are forbidden.

        And that’s adorable that you think you’ve got Christianity figured out, and those who disagree are “fake Christians.” Yeah, there’s a lot of that going around.

  • Pofarmer

    Ok. I know this is OT to this thread, but I bet it comes up in the near future. Apparently MO politicians have pre registered a “Six week Heartbeat” bill for banning abortions after that point. Never mind that there’s no heart or no circulatory system present yet. I don’t know what these people want, or think they want, but I’m afraid we’re all going to get it good and hard.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Dammitsomuch!

      🙁

    • Maybe they are anticipating a non-Roe future and want to get their rights-curtailing laws in place for that happy day.

      • Pofarmer

        There’s a reason that there are “handmaidens” showing up at the State Capitol pretty regularly now.

    • RichardSRussell

      I don’t know what these people want, or think they want
      (1) Money
      (2) Votes

      • Pofarmer

        I think that at least some of them really do want to reduce or eliminate abortions. It’s a pity they’re doing exactly the opposite of what will accomplish that goal.

  • RichardSRussell

    “I should be able to marry whomever I love”

    Actually, that’s the standard the Bible held up for men for the last several thousand years: See a woman, lust after her, buy her, own her, use her. Standards for women were slightly different: “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands.”

    The modern version is more like “People who are mutually in love should be able to marry.” See the difference, Frank?

  • MadScientist1023

    The quote in argument #15 refers to a very specific study done in Canada using data collected from 1987-1992 (the height of the AIDS crisis). The study can be found here:

    https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/26/3/657/742184

    The study itself was legitimate. The authors did it to try and spur more public action to fight the AIDS crisis. The findings were reasonably accurate…at the time the data were collected. Presently, it’s completely outdated. HIV treatment is dramatically better than it was when this study was done.

    When the authors of the paper heard that their work was being used this way, they published a letter explaining why the anti-gay crowd was wrong in doing so:

    https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/6/1499/651821

    They explained that the death rate had already dramatically decreased in the years since their initial paper was published, and that the conclusions were out of date. That was in 2001. Treatment has gotten even better since then. Anyone still using the “8-20 year” figure is either a complete and outright liar or a fool too stupid to know where the number comes from and is just parroting it.

    • As I understand it, AIDS (in the West, anyway) is now a chronic disease that is kept in check with medication.

      Anyone still using the “8-20 year” figure is either a complete and outright liar or a fool too stupid to know where the number comes from and is just parroting it.

      We can speculate which category Frank falls into. Neither makes him look very good.

      • MadScientist1023

        Well, it’s more accurate to say HIV is a chronic but manageable condition. AIDS treatment is better, but what has really bloomed are the treatments and screening options that keep HIV from becoming AIDS. AIDS itself is still pretty bad, there are just much fewer people getting there.

  • John Grove

    We can probably write a blog about 20 arguments against marriage period.

    • But this series of posts is about rebutting the arguments against same-sex marriage.

      • John Grove

        The only thing I can think of as a rebut would be to suggest that “marriage” generally speaking is a religious institution. So let them decide who and to whom they should marry (presumably they would marry only people who belong to their congregation).

        Let the federal government and states perform civil unions. And the federal government and states shouldn’t discriminate between same sex.

        • Herald Newman

          The only thing I can think of as a rebut would be to suggest that “marriage” generally speaking is a religious institution

          Marriage almost certainly predates any of the religions we have today, and even marriage itself looks nothing like it did in centuries past. I reject your claim that marriage is somehow a “religious institution.” It’s a social institution.It always has been.

        • John Grove

          I said “generally speaking”. I wasn’t being dogmatic. When people typically say they want to get married, you don’t usually find them doing it at a court house. They are usually doing it in a church and/or by a minister.

        • eric

          So what? They must get the paperwork from the court house, and they must return it to the court house. Who cares where they celebrate the signing of the paperwork?

          You’re making much ado about mostly nothing. Yes there are still some states that require a ‘celebrant’ to sign as witness to the union and have weird laws that favor religious people as celebrants. Those laws need to be changed. But if some people have a wedding ceremony in a church vs. a farm vs vegas vs the court house, what do you care? The ceremony isn’t being paid for by the public dime.

          This is like complaining that some teen got their drivers’ license in the morning and then had a religious celebration about it in the church that afternoon. Who cares? The fact that they had a separate religious cerebration of it doesn’t ‘taint’ the government giving them their drivers’ license.

        • John Grove

          Not sure why you are dissenting. All l said is let the state honor a civil union. If a marriage is done by a church, and they have rules to who should marry whom, that is their thing. Bottom line, they have the same rights in the government’s eye. Civil unions in terms of legality, same thing

        • If civil unions and marriages are the same thing, then what hair are you splitting?

        • Susan

          All I said is let the state honor a civil union.

          Why not just let the state honour a marriage (as we do) and let the churches call them a relgious union?

          It would require so much less paperwork to pander to superstitious belief.

          As it stands, in countries where the state just includes homosexuals in marriage rights, everything goes along fine.

          Better, actually.

        • eric

          Am I correct then in describing your objection as: you object to the word ‘marriage’ being used in on the government paperwork, because religious people use that same word to describe their religious unions?

          Even though that’s a pretty small think to object to, I’m still not sure I agree with you. Why should the rest of society change our use of the word ‘marriage’ to suit some fundamentalist Christians? Why yield the word to them?

        • Aram

          Dude, marriage isn’t a church thing. Marriage is a legal government thing. I wasn’t married in a church, I’m still married. You seem to be confusing the fact that churches often perform the ceremony of a marriage as meaning they somehow control marriages. They do not. You seem mighty confused, and as other have said already, making much ado about nothing, splitting hairs, etc. Never mind from the jump you’re completely wrong about your definitions. I think it’s time for you to apologize for wasting everyone’s time.

        • John Grove

          Apologize to a moron like you? Not happening.

        • Aram

          Damn, so hurtful. Clearly someone’s mother didn’t hug them enough as a child. But then again, who can blame her.

        • John Grove

          At least I got hugged. Something you desperately lacked in your life which explains the psychopathic behavior. Your mom didn’t hug you at all. Hence the rude behavior on someone just asking questions.

        • Aram

          Once a year on your birthday hardly counts. But sure, I won’t take that away from you.
          As to just asking questions aka JAGing off: you do realize that answering your own question is not actually asking a question, yes? I mean, I get it that when your father asked, ‘Do you want to get beaten again, son?’ he wasn’t actually asking a question either. But I did so hope you would have outgrown that misconception by now.

        • John Grove

          Damn man, you should be at the Impov rather than wasting your talents chewing out people you really cannot contend with.

        • Sophotroph

          You lost, dude. Be a man and admit it.

          Marriage predates Christianity. Christians can call their flavor “Christian marriage” and be done with it. Nobody here is fooled by the equivocation.

        • John Grove

          I’ve to got to hand it to this forum, nearly every one of my atheists brothers have called me names, acted disparaging towards me in a very condescending way. I’m sorry I don’t agree with all of you, but that’s ok.

          I’m personally no fan of marriage myself, it offers little for a man. Especially when you try to dissolve it, the courts are usually lenient to a woman. I recall Paul McCartney got a divorce from that one legged gal, think they were married for just a few years and she nearly took half of his money. Can you believe that, half of what he earned as a Beatle or Paul McCartney and the Wings and this gal felt justified in taking it.

          No thanks man. If a gay person wants to marry, dude, I have absolutely no beef with that at all. I’ve been scolded that marriage predates Christianity. Ok, point taken, it’s a topic I really don’t care all that much. I just had an opinion, and that was just let the states honor a civil union. If you want to call it marriage, whatever, no sweat of my sack.

        • Divorce usually sucks. I suppose a prenup is the answer if you’re concerned.

        • John Grove

          Not getting married in the first place is the answer.

        • John Grove

          Any who, it’s been fun exchanging insults, but really, I have to get to my jacking off as you so wisely noted. It’s much more fun.

        • It’s already the case that clergy can pick and choose who they marry. If they don’t want to marry a mixed-race couple for religious reasons (and that’s true for some), they don’t have to.

          In the early days of the SSM controversy, I was amenable to the idea that civil unions (same as marriage except for the word) would be good enough for homosexual couples. But then after I saw the hatred from the anti-SSM crowd, I reversed myself and became all in on same-sex marriage.

        • John Grove

          If the federal government or states only honored a civil union, problem solved.

        • ildi

          That’s how it already works. The religious ceremony is meaningless as far as the government goes; you need to get a license to be considered married.
          https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/application/requirements/procedures/documents-needed.shtml

        • John Grove

          So what’s the problem? Have a civil union.

        • ildi

          Now that licenses are issued to same-sex couples (the Kim Davis clerks of the country notwithstanding), no problem at all! However, one concern is that a predominantly Catholic and conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn this right.

        • Damien Priestly

          Because there is no such legal concept as a “civil union”.

          Laws directly refer to marriages for taxes, estates, probate, custody, child rearing, etc…civil unions are not mentioned in law.

        • No, the problem is already solved. The anti-gay advocates have had the situation blow up in their faces, and it’s same-sex marriage. And that works for me–both the gay haters’ failure and the use of “marriage.”

          And free speech is preserved in that churches can discriminate however they want.

        • John Grove

          All I say, marry whomever you want just don’t expect a Bible thumping fundamentalist to perform the marriage. Why would one expect them to bend? Just get a civil union somewhere. Leave the churches alone.

        • Fundamentalist pastors can discriminate against whoever they like. So where’s the problem?

        • John Grove

          Why would I expect them to marry a same sex couple? If I was gay and desired to marry a guy, some Baptist preacher would be the last person I’d get to perform the ceremony.

        • SoyCheese

          Who exactly do you think is requiring fundies to perform marriages against their will? That’s not a thing. That’s never been a thing. There’s nothing to indicate that it ever will be a thing. It’s time for you to move on from that straw man. It’s tired.

          Why would I want to be anywhere near those losers on my wedding day anyway?

        • John Grove

          I guess that was my question.

        • SoyCheese

          Again, that’s really just not a thing that anyone wants or is demanding. There is no widespread pressure from LGBT activists to force churches to marry anyone that they don’t want to (and any such attempt wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court anyway). We largely don’t like or want anything to do with homophobic people any more than they do us.

          The only time you even see that topic pop up (aside from pretty blatant fearmonging and dishonesty among the fundies) is when members of the churches have a disagreement about whether or not their church ought to be welcoming to queer people.

          While I know which group of people in that debate I’d rather have a drink with, I’m not terribly interested in what they do in their churches as long as they stop trying to insert those doctrines into secular law.

        • John Grove

          I hear ya

  • sandy

    If anyone thinks this issue is not relevant today, look at what is going on in my city in Canada. Hard to believe. Just another example of how religion does more harm than good.

    https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-catholic-teachers-must-sign-contract-on-values-implying-no-same-sex-relationships

    • Herald Newman

      The same kinda shit happens at Catholic hospitals in Canada. Somehow it’s completely legal to receive government funding and still pull this on the public.

    • Not cool. Canada is supposed to be what America could be.

      • Damien Priestly

        Oh, parts of Alberta and some parts of the other Prairie Provinces could give Oklahoma a run for their money !!

  • SoyCheese

    This is Frank Turek we’re talking about here.

    His entire career can be best summed up as “by stupid, for stupid”.

    • Is that his motto? I thought it was “Whatever pays the bills.”

  • 15. Homosexuality causes health problems!

    So do trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. Let’s ban them too, Frank.