Matt Slick defeats queers

Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Matt Slick defeats queers

 

  1. Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
    1. Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).  They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want.  They are not content to be what they want to be.  They want others to accept them.  They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior.  What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?
  2. Animal kingdom:  Homosexuality occurs in the animal world; therefore, it is natural
    1. Saying that homosexuality is natural because occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc.  Should we  imitate those things as well because the animals do it?  Of course not.
    2. From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species?  It cannot.  Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination.  Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction?  It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.
  3. Born as Homosexuals:  If homosexuals are born that way, it would be natural to them
    1. There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. Research is all over the place and no conclusive evidence has been shown that demonstrates that they are born that way. 
    2. If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people, that they should have special privileges for them and except that in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?
  4. Freedom like anyone else
    1. They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else.
    2. They can still get married, and express love, own businesses, own property, have sexual relations, received an inheritance, etc.
    3. For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include union between a man and man, and a woman and a woman, and to have it protected legally, is to want special rights for them due to their behavior.  If behaviors are granted legal protection, then what about the behavior or pedophilia, jump roping, and scuba divers?  Should their behaviors also be given political protection?
    4. Yes, they are free to love, hate, work, eat, etc.  But they want marriage redefined to suit their behavior of same sex intercourse.
    5. Freedom requires responsibility.
      1. People are not free to rob banks, to murder, to steal, etc.
      2. Simply saying they aren't free to marry who they want to isn't a good enough objection because...
        1. A person is not free to marry another person who is already married
        2. A brother and sister are not free to marry each other.
        3. A pedophiliac and his younger "partner" are not free to marry each other, even if the younger person, say a 13 year old, wants to marry the older person.
        4. A person is not free to marry an animal.
        5. A person is not free to marry another person against that person's will.
        6. If freedom to marry whoever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as "love" is the defining characteristic.
      3. If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals?  If not, why not?
  5. Love:
    1. Homosexuals say they should be able to marry who they love.  But why is this true?  What if a person wants to marry someone who is already married, or is a child?  Should that person be allowed to marry someone because it is an issue of love?  Of course not.  Love is not the measure of marriage validity.  There are other issues so to say that homosexuals should be able to marry whoever they love is a misrepresentation of the issue.
  6. Rights, Civil: 
    1. Civil Rights
      1. Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else.  They are able to hold jobs, marry people of the opposite sex, use the same bathrooms as anyone else, vote, etc.  But, marriage is not a civil right.  It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
      2. Homosexuals are using the civil rights movement to force their moral agenda on the rest of society...a moral agenda based on sexual behavior.
      3. Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.
        1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
        2. These rights are irrespective of skin color, gender, age, etc.  They are not based on behavior, if they were, then parachutists should get special rights, along with Jump Ropers, Race Car Drivers, and Skate Boarders because of their behaviors.
        3. What is to prevent pedophiliacs from wanting their sexual behavior protected by "civil rights" laws?  What necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality?  They also are defined by their sexual behavior.  Should they also be protected legally?  If not, why not?
  7. Rights, special rights based on a behavior
    1. They the same rights under the law as do all people in America.  The same laws apply to everyone equally.  Laws often have restrictions. Behaviors are not civil rights.  Stretching every day is not a civil right, nor is going to the gym, walking, going to the bathroom, etc.  The sexual behavior of homosexuals is not a civil right.  It is a behavior and the homosexuals are hiding under "civil rights" in order to change the meaning of marriage and force society into accepting it as normal.
    2. To marry of the same sex is to request a special treatment to have special laws passed to socially, and politically approve of a particular sexual behavior and redefine what marriage is.  This is, by definition, special rights.

http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
1: The same right everyone

1: The same right everyone has.
2: Homosexuality and morality are different topics. One has nothing to do with the other.
2b: Evolution doesn't work that way.
3a: There is plenty of proof.
3b: Everything lies. The only rule is don't get caught.
4a/b: Why would they want to?
4c: So the logical thing to do is ban marriage, so true equality is found.
4d: Good for them.
4e: Yes, actually, they are. There are consequences to such actions of course, but nothing is preventing anyone from stealing or lying.
Not that any of those has any relation whatsoever to sexual orientation.
4f1-6: So ridiculous I'm just going to ignore it. Clearly you don't know what consentual means.
5: See above.
6: There's nothing being offered them that isn't being offered to everyone else. You too are given the right to marry in the same sex.
(Btw, marriage is effectively a right. You don't have to earn it, so it isn't a privilege)
6b: Which makes them the same as everyone else, and a lot less dangerous than religion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
6c: Prove there is a god,

6c: Prove there is a god, that god gave humans rights, that god denied those rights to homosexuals, and that god is an ethical being worth molding ones morality after.
Again with the consentual thing....
7: And they aren't looking for any rights that would only apply to them, therefore they are merely doing the same thing as the womens and atheist and minority movements and even religious groups are doing: seeking to give all of us more rights. Nothing special about them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
People like you aren't

People like you aren't intelligent enough to merit rights...

... so do you like the taste of AIDS cocktails?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Aww, poor baby thinks he's

Aww, poor baby thinks he's smart, but is incapable of proving it.

People like you should be locked in a psych ward for life.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Agenda,

Tom_the_Who wrote:

  1. Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
    1. Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).  They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want.  They are not content to be what they want to be.  They want others to accept them.  They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior.  What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

In the US it’s called liberty. In my country our forefathers attempted to promote this concept and crafted a system that allowed for minority groups to not have their liberties extinguished. The fact that someone is arguing agaisnt the rights of a minorities, should be a point of concern.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Again, let's keep posts on

Again, let's keep posts on topic please, Vastet and Tom. Empty ad homs are against forum rules.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Animal

Tom_the_Who wrote:

  1. Animal kingdom:  Homosexuality occurs in the animal world; therefore, it is natural
    1. Saying that homosexuality is natural because occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc.  Should we  imitate those things as well because the animals do it?  Of course not.

So we recognize that homosexuality is not unnatural. Homosexuals are not hurting anything, unlike the examples.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.

kin selection hypothesis

Tom_the_Who wrote:

If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people, that they should have special privileges for them and except that in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?

Homosexuals are not harming anyone, unlike your example. If it's a behavior that is not hurting anyone, than it should be allowed.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

They can still get married, and express love, own businesses, own property, have sexual relations, received an inheritance, etc.
For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include union between a man and man, and a woman and a woman, and to have it protected legally, is to want special rights for them due to their behavior. If behaviors are granted legal protection, then what about the behavior or pedophilia, jump roping, and scuba divers? Should their behaviors also be given political protection?
Yes, they are free to love, hate, work, eat, etc. But they want marriage redefined to suit their behavior of same sex intercourse.

It's not behaviors being granted these rights, it's consenting adults.

The rest just seems to be more of the same...

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Matt Slick wrote:  Agenda,

Matt Slick wrote:
  Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). 

That's a lie.

Matt Slick wrote:
  They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want.

What they want is to not be discriminated against because of their gender, and their sexual gender preferences.
Having consensual sex with a member of the same sex, is not a transgression, nor does it hurt anyone.

Matt Slick wrote:
  They are not content to be what they want to be. 

Neither are theists. They want to play 'god' by proxy.

Matt Slick wrote:
  They want others to accept them. 

You'd stick your tongue in 'god's' ass and tell him you loved it, if you thought it would get you into heaven, so, you're a hypocrite.

Matt Slick wrote:
   They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior.  What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

1- That's what 'liberty' means.
2- They have freedom of speech.
3- We are not a theocracy, or an autocracy. We are a secular government.

Matt Slick wrote:
  Animal kingdom:  Homosexuality occurs in the animal world; therefore, it is natural

That makes it natural.

Matt Slick wrote:
  Saying that homosexuality is natural because occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct.

They're not arguing whether it's moral. They don't care what your subjective opinion is.

Matt Slick wrote:
  Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc.  Should we  imitate those things as well because the animals do it?  Of course not.

That's not what they're want.
Paranoid delusion much?
They don't care whether you fuck your wife in the ass, like they do.
WTF is it with you people and thinking everything is about 'you'?

Matt Slick wrote:
   From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? 

That's not germane to the topic of gay marriage.
Sex is sex. Sex and procreation are not mutually inclusive.
In fact, in normal people, sex is 99.99% recreational.

Matt Slick wrote:
   Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? 

Non sequitur

Sex leads to pleasure, duh...

Matt Slick wrote:
   It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.

That's got to be the stupidest thing ever written on the internet.

By that stream of logic, it must seem to you that natural selection would have removed the 'gene for both mother and child dying in childbirth' since it would not lead to reproduction. It must be 'learned' behaviour that women and children die at childbirth.

Seriously, someone needs to create a website that quotes the stupidest things that have ever been said, and post them, with credits to the author, and open a voting system, and yearly awards for the stupidest quotes, just so there's a shrine to the utter fucking stupidity of the Ray Ray Comfort's and Matt Slick's of the world.

Matt Slick wrote:
  There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

That does not mean that they are not born that way.

Matt Slick wrote:
   Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them.

This would be a landmark scientific discovery, if it were true.

Matt Slick wrote:
  They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else.

That's not what they want.
What they want is, is for others to not have the power to discriminate their civil rights based on gender.

Matt Slick wrote:
  If freedom to marry whoever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as "love" is the defining characteristic.

The defining characteristics of why people marry has always been about the'desire' to do so.
And, it wasn't always about 'mutual' desire either. Sometimes it was simply about 'comfort'.

Matt Slick wrote:
  If we allow and promote homosexual marriage...

Strawman.

They're not asking for anyone to 'promote' homosexuality.


Matt Slick wrote:
  Homosexuals say they should be able to marry who they love. But why is this true? 

Because we are not an autocracy, or theocracy.

Matt Slick wrote:
  Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else.

They obviously don't, duh...
Matt Slick wrote:
   marriage is not a civil right.

Prove it.

Matt Slick wrote:
  It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Non sequitur

You obviously don't know shit about law. I can drive an unlicensed car, while being a minor, without a driver's licence and insurance while on private property, all I fucking want.
No one can take that right away.

Oh, and by the way, driving a car, is an action, not a 'behaviour'. So, your analogy is a category error.

Matt Slick wrote:
  Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.

That doesn't make it true.

Matt Slick wrote:
  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These rights are irrespective of skin color, gender, age, etc.

Then their 'sexual' life, 'sexual' liberty, and pursuit of 'sexual' happiness should not be any issue to you fucking bigots.

Fuck your wife in the ass as much as you want, and see if they care at all.

Matt Slick wrote:
   The sexual behavior of homosexuals is not a civil right.

Actually, it is.
Just as a woman can have 'sex' with an inanimate object, and man can fuck a woman in the ass.

Matt Slick wrote:
   It is a behavior and the homosexuals are hiding under "civil rights" in order to change the meaning of marriage and force society into accepting it as normal.

Ummm, no.
It's to correct the antiquated ideas of the 'dark ages', and abolish the gender discrimination, and discrimination of sexual orientation.

Matt Slick wrote:
  To marry of the same sex is to request a special treatment to have special laws passed to socially, and politically approve of a particular sexual behavior and redefine what marriage is.  This is, by definition, special rights.
http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality

Only in your delusional sky daddy world(view).

Keep making noise though. This is fucking great.
The more you delusional idiots try and take us back into the dark ages, the better. The more you will alienate yourselves from the people who are evolving to realize that 'sinners' are often the 'best' people to know, trust, love, and have uninhibited hot hedonistic sex with...lol

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Agenda,

Tom_the_Who wrote:

  1. Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
    1. Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).   

 

I think it's a bit rich to suggest that homosexual people want others in society to think and / or behave like them. Not being a homosexual person myself, I can't be sure, but I would suggest that the majority of homosexual people just want to be treated like everyone else. They don't want to 'convert' people - they want to have the same rights to share a loving relationship with another person, and to be publicly recognised as part of a monogamous couple. Just like heterosexual couples. 

Why are you afraid of equality? Your post reeks of fear. 

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Civil Rights

  1. Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else.  They are able to hold jobs, marry people of the opposite sex, use the same bathrooms as anyone else, vote, etc.  But, marriage is not a civil right.  It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

So according to this argument, homosexuals have the "... same civil right..." to marry, but marriage is not a civil right. WTF? Does a government have the right to decide who a person can love? To suppress it? 

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote: Agenda,

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 

Agenda, the homosexuals want acceptability, recognition, and approval.
Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want. They are not content to be what they want to be. They want others to accept them. They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior. What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

If you truely believed people had no right to try make society into what you want it to be then you wouldn't be here, trying to convince us. You wouldn't vote, that helps make society how you want it to be after all. But in the American context I think you will find their actions are protected by the right to free speech. That would be the right you are looking for in this case. The right to protest is covered here, what is protest if not trying to change society into how you want it?

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Animal kingdom: Homosexuality occurs in the animal world; therefore, it is natural
Saying that homosexuality is natural because occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc. Should we imitate those things as well because the animals do it? Of course not.

Indeed just because animals are sometimes gay that doesn't mean it is morally correct. It doesn't mean it it is morally wrong either though does it? There is nothing morally right or wrong about juggling but you don't seem to be making a fuss about that. You are pretty much admiting that it is not a moral question.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.

Even if I granted that it was all true, and I don't, so what? Even if homosexuality is learned, who cares, to my mind that makes no difference.

 

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Born as Homosexuals: If homosexuals are born that way, it would be natural to them
There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. Research is all over the place and no conclusive evidence has been shown that demonstrates that they are born that way.

Once again even if correct, who cares? Why should that matter? There is plenty of evidence, it just take one google search.

 

We have an over obsession with what is natural. We are talking to each other from all around the world through little wires and what to me seems to be magic and we are worrying about what is natural? I mean common, we strap ourselves onto giant rockets in order to get to space, that surely no one saying that is wrong because it is not natural.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:


If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people, that they should have special privileges for them and except that in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?

Once again only proving the point that nature =/= morality therefore even if being gay is learned it does not mean that it is immoral.

 

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Freedom like anyone else
They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else.
They can still get married, and express love, own businesses, own property, have sexual relations, received an inheritance, etc.
For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include union between a man and man, and a woman and a woman, and to have it protected legally, is to want special rights for them due to their behavior. If behaviors are granted legal protection, then what about the behavior or pedophilia, jump roping, and scuba divers? Should their behaviors also be given political protection?
Yes, they are free to love, hate, work, eat, etc. But they want marriage redefined to suit their behavior of same sex intercourse.
Freedom requires responsibility.
People are not free to rob banks, to murder, to steal, etc.
Simply saying they aren't free to marry who they want to isn't a good enough objection because...
A person is not free to marry another person who is already married
A brother and sister are not free to marry each other.
A pedophiliac and his younger "partner" are not free to marry each other, even if the younger person, say a 13 year old, wants to marry the older person.
A person is not free to marry an animal.
A person is not free to marry another person against that person's will.
If freedom to marry whoever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as "love" is the defining characteristic.
If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals? If not, why not?


www.hotrussianbrides.com

marriage only has as much meaning as we give it, what gives marriage meaning is not who is getting married but rather the connection between them. I am not even going to both arguing against your examples, the reason for most of them is self evident.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Love:
Homosexuals say they should be able to marry who they love. But why is this true? What if a person wants to marry someone who is already married, or is a child? Should that person be allowed to marry someone because it is an issue of love? Of course not. Love is not the measure of marriage validity. There are other issues so to say that homosexuals should be able to marry whoever they love is a misrepresentation of the issue.

As long as it is  between one man and one woman who gives a damn about the rest. It has meaning dammit.

 

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Rights, Civil:
Civil Rights
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else. They are able to hold jobs, marry people of the opposite sex, use the same bathrooms as anyone else, vote, etc. But, marriage is not a civil right. It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
Homosexuals are using the civil rights movement to force their moral agenda on the rest of society...a moral agenda based on sexual behavior.
Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These rights are irrespective of skin color, gender, age, etc. They are not based on behavior, if they were, then parachutists should get special rights, along with Jump Ropers, Race Car Drivers, and Skate Boarders because of their behaviors.
What is to prevent pedophiliacs from wanting their sexual behavior protected by "civil rights" laws? What necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? They also are defined by their sexual behavior. Should they also be protected legally? If not, why not?
Rights, special rights based on a behavior
They the same rights under the law as do all people in America. The same laws apply to everyone equally. Laws often have restrictions. Behaviors are not civil rights. Stretching every day is not a civil right, nor is going to the gym, walking, going to the bathroom, etc. The sexual behavior of homosexuals is not a civil right. It is a behavior and the homosexuals are hiding under "civil rights" in order to change the meaning of marriage and force society into accepting it as normal.
To marry of the same sex is to request a special treatment to have special laws passed to socially, and politically approve of a particular sexual behavior and redefine what marriage is. This is, by definition, special rights.

http://carm.org/cut-homosexuality


Protesting is a behavour, it is very much protected. Extending marriage to a more inclusive definition is exactly in of way the definition of special rights.

 

Extending the right to vote to blacks, woman etc. was very much special treatment wasn't it. It changed who was allow to do what. Broadening a definition of who is allowed to do what cannot be seen as special treatment by any sane person.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 175
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
As a resident of a country

As a resident of a country where gays have been marrying each other for quite while now, I'm wondering what all the fuss and panic is about. 

Maybe for his next trick, Matt Slick could "defeat" reality ?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another stupid attempt to

Another stupid attempt to pretend that the objection to homosexuality isn't bible based or is in combination with scientific reality.

"Queers" exist, and they have no duty to give one care about why you object to the way they live their lives or what pseudo science you drudge up. FYI, the psychological community on the top peer reviewed level have already long since recognized it as normal.

I'd suggest instead of clinging to the past, move into the future and accept reality.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
I hate the way this is

I hate the way this is formatted. Can't do the point-by-point like I wanted to. Have to copy-paste rather than hit quote. *sigh*

I would like to say that you're exceptionally rude, Tom. Seriously. You're clearly a bigot, based on the thread title, and your replies to Vastet show little respect.

Matt Slick wrote:

  1. Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).  They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want.  They are not content to be what they want to be.  They want others to accept them.  They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior.  What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

Anyone can try to change society. You're trying to change it to be less accepting of gay people.  Right now most Americans are in favour of gay rights. You're trying to alter that.

 

Matt Slick wrote:
Saying that homosexuality is natural because occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc.  Should we  imitate those things as well because the animals do it?  Of course not.

"Animals" have their own codes of morality, if they're social species. That said, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, based on this line of argument. Also, no one is saying "be gay because [some] animals do it!" that's silly. It's a rebuttal to your argument that it's unnatural (therefore, wrong) and a choice.

 

Matt Slick wrote:
From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species?  It cannot.  Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination.  Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction?  It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.

Yes, homosexuality can be beneficial. For one, in groups with childless adults, there are more to take care of the young, and if not everyone reproduces, population stays at a manageable level, not growing too fast. So, you get more babysitters, gay people get to have their jollies, we all have a longer time in a properly maintained environment, everyone wins.

Matt Slick wrote:
There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. Research is all over the place and no conclusive evidence has been shown that demonstrates that they are born that way.

That's just wrong.

(Linking that as a repository of sources)

Matt Slick wrote:
If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted? Children don't need to be taught how to lie; it appears to be natural to them. Should we then say that because the behavior of lying is natural to people, that they should have special privileges for them and except that in society because that's just the way they're born and that is their truth-orientation?
That's why we say that if it's natural and does no harm, it should be acceptable. Lying does harm.

 

Matt Slick wrote:

They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else.

Black folk can use their own bathrooms, like anyone else.

Black folk can marry a person of their own race, same as anyone else.

Do you see the parallels?

Matt Slick wrote:
They can still get married, and express love, own businesses, own property, have sexual relations, received an inheritance, etc.
And even THAT took a lot of fighting. But why can't you let them have fully equal rights?

Matt Slick wrote:
For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include union between a man and man, and a woman and a woman, and to have it protected legally, is to want special rights for them due to their behavior.  If behaviors are granted legal protection, then what about the behavior or pedophilia, jump roping, and scuba divers?  Should their behaviors also be given political protection?

I love how pedophilia is lumped in with jump rope and scuba diving. Anyway, no, it's not wanting a special right, it's wanting the same right. For one particular behaviour (loving another consenting adult enough to dedicate oneself to them for the rest of one's life) that is already granted the "special right" of legal recognition, which includes a whole slew of benefits. Marriage itself already has special rights that jumping rope and scuba diving lack.

Matt Slick wrote:
Yes, they are free to love, hate, work, eat, etc.  But they want marriage redefined to suit their behavior of same sex intercourse.
It goes a bit deeper than that. There are emotions involved in marriage, you know.

Matt Slick wrote:
People are not free to rob banks, to murder, to steal, etc.
Those actions harm society, which is why we can't do them.

Matt Slick wrote:
Simply saying they aren't free to marry who they want to isn't a good enough objection because...

  1. A person is not free to marry another person who is already married
  2. A brother and sister are not free to marry each other.
  3. A pedophiliac and his younger "partner" are not free to marry each other, even if the younger person, say a 13 year old, wants to marry the older person.
  4. A person is not free to marry an animal.
  5. A person is not free to marry another person against that person's will.
  6. If freedom to marry whoever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as "love" is the defining characteristic.

You only need change a few words in any marriage contract to allow for gay marriage without these problems. All marriage contracts contain clauses to avoid all these things. Change the words that refer to the genders of those who are being married so that they're both "man" or "woman" and you're golden. In other words: you're inventing a problem where there isn't one.

 

Matt Slick wrote:
If we allow and promote homosexual marriage, then shouldn't we also allow and promote polygamy, polyandry, brothers and sisters getting married, pedophiliacs marrying children, and adults marrying animals?  If not, why not?

1: No

2: We only want to have it allowed. That's all.

3: Oh, wait, you wanted a "why not"? OK. Marriage is an exclusive contract (monogamy) that can't include close relatives. Children and non-human animals can't legally consent to contracts. There may be an argument for polygamy, however, it's impossible to have consent of several parties in the matters of the heart, so it would be nearly impossible to actually maintain and would cost more than it's worth to allow for polygamy of any sort.

 

Matt Slick wrote:
Homosexuals say they should be able to marry who they love.  But why is this true?  What if a person wants to marry someone who is already married, or is a child?  Should that person be allowed to marry someone because it is an issue of love?  Of course not.  Love is not the measure of marriage validity.  There are other issues so to say that homosexuals should be able to marry whoever they love is a misrepresentation of the issue.
Already answered.

Matt Slick wrote:
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights and restrictions as everyone else.  They are able to hold jobs, marry people of the opposite sex, use the same bathrooms as anyone else, vote, etc.  But, marriage is not a civil right.  It is a privilege the same as the behavior of driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Actually, it is a civil right in most countries that allow civil rights.

Matt Slick wrote:
Homosexuals are using the civil rights movement to force their moral agenda on the rest of society...a moral agenda based on sexual behavior.

And the movement to allow interracial marriage did the exact same thing. What's your point?

Matt Slick wrote:
Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.

  1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
  2. These rights are irrespective of skin color, gender, age, etc.  They are not based on behavior, if they were, then parachutists should get special rights, along with Jump Ropers, Race Car Drivers, and Skate Boarders because of their behaviors.
  3. What is to prevent pedophiliacs from wanting their sexual behavior protected by "civil rights" laws?  What necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality?  They also are defined by their sexual behavior.  Should they also be protected legally?  If not, why not?

1: Actually, since they didn't allow non-landowners or non-whites to vote, and didn't end slavery or even try to until generations after that declaration, I'm guessing they didn't mean all that literally. Hell, they didn't include women in there. Should women lose voting rights since they aren't endowed with inalienable rights?

2: No, that's not implied at all by the actions of the drafters of that declaration. That's later redefinition of that declaration.

3: Crom! I have answered this question already!

 

Matt Slick wrote:
They the same rights under the law as do all people in America.  The same laws apply to everyone equally.  Laws often have restrictions. Behaviors are not civil rights.  Stretching every day is not a civil right, nor is going to the gym, walking, going to the bathroom, etc.  The sexual behavior of homosexuals is not a civil right.  It is a behavior and the homosexuals are hiding under "civil rights" in order to change the meaning of marriage and force society into accepting it as normal.

MARRIAGE is a civil right.

 

Matt Slick wrote:
To marry of the same sex is to request a special treatment to have special laws passed to socially, and politically approve of a particular sexual behavior and redefine what marriage is.  This is, by definition, special rights.
No, actually, it's asking the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

As a person living in a country that's had legal gay marriage for a few years, I can tell you our country hasn't fallen apart yet. And we only just had our first earthquake since gay marriage was legalized, and it was a 6.4 that hit your country too. Obviously god doesn't care too much to punish us for such blasphemy. We're living the high life up here, eh?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote: Matt Slick

Antipatris wrote:
Matt Slick defeats queers

This is the same guy who thinks he's defeated Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and atheists.

He thinks he's a great 'warrior'.

No wonder he thinks there's a god.

He'd think there was one, even if it was never the case, and even it wasn't possible.

 

That's why he has to buy his own radio time.

He can't even compete with Ray Ray Comfort.

What a 'wannabee'.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"If dynamite were brains,

"If dynamite were brains, that guy couldn't blow his nose."

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Antipatris

redneF wrote:

Antipatris wrote:
Matt Slick defeats queers

This is the same guy who thinks he's defeated Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and atheists.

I start to like whoever this matt slick guy is. Just a little, but it's a start.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 175
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I start to like

Kapkao wrote:

I start to like whoever this matt slick guy is. Just a little, but it's a start.

Then you should read his fantasy book. It's a masterpiece of unintentional hilariousness. http://www.amazon.com/The-Influence-ebook/dp/B0040X4XCO

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:redneF

Kapkao wrote:

redneF wrote:

Antipatris wrote:
Matt Slick defeats queers

This is the same guy who thinks he's defeated Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and atheists.

I start to like whoever this matt slick guy is. Just a little, but it's a start.

Lol, sure....they all have the strength of their convictions when they're unknown and aren't trying to get voted into power over the 'people'.

But, they all start distancing themselves from their 'anti-gay' and 'sexual' convictions when it comes down to brass tacks.

That's when they *ahem* go limp.

 

 

.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Kapkao

Antipatris wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

I start to like whoever this matt slick guy is. Just a little, but it's a start.

Then you should read his fantasy book. It's a masterpiece of unintentional hilariousness. http://www.amazon.com/The-Influence-ebook/dp/B0040X4XCO

 

Wow Matt has a lot of friends/sock accounts...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Lol,

redneF wrote:

Lol, sure....they all have the strength of their convictions when they're unknown and aren't trying to get voted into power over the 'people'.

But, they all start distancing themselves from their 'anti-gay' and 'sexual' convictions when it comes down to brass tacks.

That's when they *ahem* go limp.

 

Woman are catching on to the Mark Foley/Ted Haggart thing as well? That's just.... fruity.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
If that's who I think it is,

If that's who I think it is, she's been doing this shit for more than a decade. Watch Bill Maher's old show Politically Incorrect to see her real crazy at work. He invited her on a LOT.
Apologies in advance if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.