Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

Don't be ok with it, but don't claim it threatens your marriage. It is not a lifestyle. When and how did you decide to be straight? I never did. My penis told me which gender I preferred, not my heart, nor my larger head.

Do your REALLY think Roe V. Wade will be overturned? (not)

One more Supreme Court Judge appointment by a conservative president and it will be.

Christians don't want their kids to sit in a science class and be forced to learn Darwin's THEORY. T-H-E-O-R-Y. Add the other possibilities to the scientific equation...ooops! Too late since they purchased all those teaching materials with ONE theory. (now is that really science?)

#1. Theory as used in "Darwin's Theory" does not mean the same thing as when I say "I have a theory that it would be better to go to dinner before we go shopping". It is more akin to the Theory that all triangles have angles that total 180 degrees.

#2. If the school systems are required to teach religion in science class, should the churches be required to teach Darwin's Theory and other science in church? How about if once each month, the minister's sermon is replaced by a science teacher's lecture?

[Wheetsin 714]

Originally Posted by marjon9

I agree that liberals are intelerant of conservative Christians. I don't agree with this. I think it's probably the same as when Christians say, "I don't hate/condemn the sinner, I hate/condemn the sin." I am not intolerant of conservative Christians, I just can't condone their beliefs. I'm intolerant of their beliefs being pushed onto me and impacting my life, but I'm not intolerant of them as people. I am liberal and I am intolerant of conservative Christians. But the difference I see is this. Conservative Christians want to tell other people that the way they are living is sinful and wrong. Liberals just want to tell conservative Christians to mind their own business. I do agree with this. I've posted this many times. This is generally speaking, of course, but liberals are much more "whatever" while conservatives are much more "right".

In RESPONSE to this, liberals say to conservate Christians, shut up and mind your own business. As a liberal, I want to say to conservative Christians: If you don't support homosexuality, then don't be gay (Ted Haggard comes to mind, but that's a different issue). If you don't support abortion, don't have one. If you want to pray in school, do it, why does somebody else have to do it also just because you want to? What business is it of yours how somebody else lives? Exactly. It's not your life, so don't think it's your business. Fret about your own life all you want. Live you life by your values and in accordance with your love or your fear of whatever it is you believe in. Don't worry about how X is living theirs.

There is a big difference between liberals and conservative Christians. Conservative Christians want to force the rest of the world to live by their beliefs. Liberals just want everyone to mind their own business. I don't know a single liberal person who feels the need to force conservative Christians, through legislation and Constitutional amendments, to change and live by the values of a liberal.

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

Liberals aren't really trying to force everyone to recognize gay marriage, they would like to see the government recognize gay marriage. Big difference. The government recognizes god, but I am not forced to recognize god. The government could recognize gay marriages without forcing you (generic) to recognize gay marriage. Partial euphamism for accept. I can't think of a single liberal who would make, "John, Nancy, and Sally accept gay marriage" their goal. Liberals don't really care what John or Nancy or Sally think or accept because they aren't John, Nancy or Sally. It's much more about the institution, and the unequal distribution of social value. And lots of other things, too. Personally, pick a name out of the phone book and I couldn't care less what their personal beliefs are. And I'm not intolerant of them. If they tell my friends Randy and Steve that they cannot marry, then I care about the inequality and judgment - the factors -- the consequences not the antecedent.

[Wheetsin 714]

Christians don't want their kids to sit in a science class and be forced to learn Darwin's THEORY. T-H-E-O-R-Y. Add the other possibilities to the scientific equation...ooops! Too late since they purchased all those teaching materials with ONE theory. (now is that really science?)

Actually yeah, that really is science. Is the backbone of how science works.

Science gets an idea and then tries to disprove it. It considers what it is unable to disprove. Theology, on the other hand, gets an idea and sets forth trying to implement it as a truth. There is a very large and very fundamental contrast in this difference.

Do I understand correctly, that you would prefer that scientific theory not be taught in science class? Or is your perspective more aligned to something like, offer science but also offer creationism? Or perhaps neither.

Are you opposed to kids learning about atoms and molecules and ions and cations and particles and all that good stuff, without mention of god? Is it only biology (and specifically, evolution) that might be challenged?

[Wheetsin 714]

I tried editing the above message for clarity, because I don't think I did a good enough job of being specific, but it's taking too long. I should say that theory is one of the backbones of how science works. And I don't think that publishers (or any other stakeholders) would be opposed to teaching other theories around the origin of man or ascension of man, we just don't have that many other theories going in this area. There's an old, old theory (that began with presocratic philosophers) that man rose up out of the Water, but that's still an evolutionary chain -- the only real difference being the progression of what evolved into what. Still evolution.

Laurend could speak better than I as to current theories, but last I was a student we just didn't have anything else that fit into the existing evidence and could be taken as a theory.

[synicalchick 0]

"Damn we're in a tight spot"

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I tried editing the above message for clarity, because I don't think I did a good enough job of being specific, but it's taking too long. I should say that theory is one of the backbones of how science works. And I don't think that publishers (or any other stakeholders) would be opposed to teaching other theories around the origin of man or ascension of man, we just don't have that many other theories going in this area. There's an old, old theory (that began with presocratic philosophers) that man rose up out of the Water, but that's still an evolutionary chain -- the only real difference being the progression of what evolved into what. Still evolution.

Laurend could speak better than I as to current theories, but last I was a student we just didn't have anything else that fit into the existing evidence and could be taken as a theory.

I read a book recently; "Purpose Driven Life" by Rick warren, and I was amazed how he says things like "God knew what your DNA would be before he created the Heavens and the Earth in Genesis" (paraphrased though I used quotation marks).

Where in the Bible did Reverend Warren find the word DNA?

It amazes me how Theists revise their thinking because of science, while simultaneously refuting science.

[Wheetsin 714]

I've read that book. People like that scare me. :heh:

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I agree that liberals are intelerant of conservative Christians. I am liberal and I am intolerant of conservative Christians. But the difference I see is this. Conservative Christians want to tell other people that the way they are living is sinful and wrong. Liberals just want to tell conservative Christians to mind their own business.

There is a big difference there. I don't feel any need at all to make conservative Christians think the way I do, or change the way they are in any way. Conservative Christians don't take that approach. They want to legislate their own beliefs and force other people to be the way they are. They feel that because they think homosexuality is a sin, that society in general should legislate to reject homosexuality. The military should reject gay people, the Constitution should be amended to forbid marriage of gay people, etc., etc.

In RESPONSE to this, liberals say to conservate Christians, shut up and mind your own business. As a liberal, I want to say to conservative Christians: If you don't support homosexuality, then don't be gay (Ted Haggard comes to mind, but that's a different issue). If you don't support abortion, don't have one. If you want to pray in school, do it, why does somebody else have to do it also just because you want to? What business is it of yours how somebody else lives?

There is a big difference between liberals and conservative Christians. Conservative Christians want to force the rest of the world to live by their beliefs. Liberals just want everyone to mind their own business. I don't know a single liberal person who feels the need to force conservative Christians, through legislation and Constitutional amendments, to change and live by the values of a liberal.

Mark....

I tried to pick out a favorite part of this post so I could add a "Hear hear!" but it's all my favorite. It's worth repeating so read the above again, people! It's great!

A perfect example is that conservative Christians want to keep "under God" in the pledge. Why? I don't have a God and I am quite patriotic. So why do I have to acknowledge a God in order to say the pledge? That's silly. It's more conservative Christians attempting their stuff again.

If we atheists say that we don't want their God in OUR pledge then they claim we are anti-Christian. Nooo, if I was anti-Christian I would behave like a conservative Christian does to atheists.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

Why do gays have to recognize heterosexual marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and wife? See why your logic doesn't work?

Whether or not you like it people are going to do things that you won't approve of. However, maybe the choices in another person's life simply aren't any of your business?

What about a husband and wife that have anal sex? Want to have the sex police around to make sure nobody is doing that in case you think that is wrong too?

What about sex between a man and woman who are not married? Want to outlaw that because YOU may not like it?

What about a man and woman living together without marriage? Want to outlaw that because YOU may not like it?

There will be a lot of things in this world that people do and you may not like it. But it doesn't make it your business.

For 2000 years people have been trying to produce just ONE piece of proof that your God even exists and for 2000 years they have failed. That's why you have faith. If you had ANY facts you wouldn't need faith because then it would be a fact. But it isn't a fact that your God exists.

Now, if you want to believe in your God I fully support your right to believe in anything you wish. You can believe in purple flying monkeys if you wish and I'll be darned if I will stand by and watch someone try to take that away from you. BUT! When you have millions of people trying for 2000 years to prove this God of yours is real and nobody to date and provided a single shred of evidence for this God, to attempt to force others to live by your BELIEFS and your FAITH is simply wrong. Your Christ didn't do it, you shouldn't either.

[Carlene 12]

Okay, following this logic, liberals want to force everyone else to recognize gay marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and husband or wife and wife. Why should I be okay with that just because someone else says it's their lifestyle choice?

Because it doesn't hurt you, or your family. It doesn't jeopardize your job, or raise your taxes.

In the state of Texas, hunting is legal and considered a legitimate sport. I don't like blood sports. I am disgusted by the sight of a dead deer strapped across the hood of a mud-splattered Jeep, each and every time I see one. But not everyone agrees with me. A lot of people don't, in fact. So "sportsmen" are allowed to kill deer, whether I like it or not, and gay people should be permitted to marry, even if it offends the delicate sensitivities of people like you - becasue their rights are just as important as yours or mine.

[BJean 16]

Good. I like that analogy Carlene. It makes perfect sense.

[Carlene 12]

My penis told me...

I understand that happens a LOT. Men have a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to operate one at a time.

[silry 0]

Why do gays have to recognize heterosexual marriage as a legal wedded union between husband and wife? See why your logic doesn't work?

Whether or not you like it people are going to do things that you won't approve of. However, maybe the choices in another person's life simply aren't any of your business?

What about a husband and wife that have anal sex? Want to have the sex police around to make sure nobody is doing that in case you think that is wrong too?

What about sex between a man and woman who are not married? Want to outlaw that because YOU may not like it?

What about a man and woman living together without marriage? Want to outlaw that because YOU may not like it?

There will be a lot of things in this world that people do and you may not like it. But it doesn't make it your business.

For 2000 years people have been trying to produce just ONE piece of proof that your God even exists and for 2000 years they have failed. That's why you have faith. If you had ANY facts you wouldn't need faith because then it would be a fact. But it isn't a fact that your God exists.

Now, if you want to believe in your God I fully support your right to believe in anything you wish. You can believe in purple flying monkeys if you wish and I'll be darned if I will stand by and watch someone try to take that away from you. BUT! When you have millions of people trying for 2000 years to prove this God of yours is real and nobody to date and provided a single shred of evidence for this God, to attempt to force others to live by your BELIEFS and your FAITH is simply wrong. Your Christ didn't do it, you shouldn't either.

bubblebutt - one word: AWESOME!!! :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Carlene...

Very well said! Wish I could have summed up mine like that!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

God, if you believe the Old Testament, went through the trouble of making "Thou Shalt Not commit Adultery" as one of his 10 Commandments.

How come he didn't bother to write "Thou Shalt Not commit Homosexual acts" on one of those tablets?

Maybe because men didn't have eleven fingers to count 11 Commandments?

Maybe God was afraid that men (being basically stupid) would use their fingers as a crutch for the first 10 Commandments and their penis to count the 11th.