Atheism and h*mosexuality

Atheism is viewed with scorn much like homosexuality was and still is. Although atheism has been around since before Christ, it hasn't become popular until the postmodern age, whereas homosexuality had a two decade headstart on atheism. Homosexuality has been around for awhile though, possibly dating back to before human's existence. Homosexuals have been often persecuted to the point of even being killed. Atheism hasn't reached that point. You don't hear about atheists being killed for their beliefs. In fact, it was just the opposite in Soviet Russia, when it was the atheists killing Christians.

Homosexuals have taken the word gay which had a positive connation to mean homosexual. However, those who oppose homosexuality have put the word in a negative light, often saying something such as, "School is gay as to imply a negative. In atheism, there is the Brights Movement which is similar in that it takes the word "bright" and applies it to atheists. Personally, I see the movement as unintelligent, as it implies that theists are not bright. The great tragedy of the world is that many people who do not accept certain truths and facts can be intelligent. What I'm saying is that theists can be bright as well, so the term, like gay is falsely misapplied to imply a positive stereotype. I would be surprised though if "bright" eventually bears a negative connotation, because it's so much more widely used than gay was.

Do you think atheism and homosexuality are parallel in their moments? Also, how do you think atheists should treat homosexuals and vice versa?

Personally, I don't like homosexuality. I think it's an unhealthy lifestyle if you do not practice abstinence much like the Catholic Church teaches and it's disgusting. Then again, all sex is disgusting, but for adaptive purposes alone, homosexuality is contrary to that notion. I can't describe my hatred for homosexuality.

(To explain what an adaptive purpose is, think of something that was created to be body wash, but is better adapted to be shampoo. It's not what the creator conceived of its purpose or even if it had a creator, but the purpose adapted by measuring how objectively this would influence the person positively as a body wash or a shampoo.)

I do think that homosexuals should have basic civil rights. The ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unconstitutional though. A quick summary of Loving v. Virginia was that an interracial couple whose last name was Loving challenged Virginia's anti-miscegenation law that prevented them from getting married. The court wrote, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

First of all, this "basic civil right" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, so to assert it to be true is simply unconstitutional. Second of all, to grant that point, I would have to grant the second point, which is that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." That is fundamentally true, but it is not within the Constitution. But again, to agree to the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, you have to grant that second clause.

Based on this, you cannot support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Why? Look at us now. We've been able to survive on opposite-sex marriage alone, so why should we need to legalize same-sex marriage when we've done well without it? Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the genes of both partners being used in procreation. Instead, you have use a sperm donor or adopt. Marriage has always been a tool of procreation. Now yes, you may say that there are plenty of individuals that marry who do not plan on having children. That is true.

But remember, it's not up to the U.S. federal government to define marriage as a basic civil right, unless of course, you propose amending the Constitution. Until that amendment passes, the Tenth Amendment leaves that claim to the states and if the states don't make an issue of that claim, that is left to the individual. Yes, this applies to same-sex marriages and interracial marriages too. Yes, it is legally right for Virginia to deny the interracial couple from marrying. That's the Tenth Amendment. Again, if you don't agree with it, pass an amendment that will give marital rights to same-sex couples and interracial couples. The ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unconstitutional. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me a bigot. I would prefer to be called a Constitutionalist.

As for the other countries, that's for them to decide.

The Constitution does not afford you any civil right; that is not its purpose. So, to say that any specific right is not one retained by an American because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is to misunderstand the constitution. Frattracide

That is its purpose. That is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]The Constitution does not afford you any civil right; that is not its purpose. So, to say that any specific right is not one retained by an American because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is to misunderstand the constitution. Genetic_Code

That is its purpose. That is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

It really isn't. The purpose of the Constitution is to formally establish and regulate the federal government. That is its only function. That is why the first ten amendments, like the rest of the Constitution, are written in restrictive language against the government, not in permissive language to the people. The bill of rights is a common term for those amendments but it is not a legal term.

The first article of the Constitution establishes the legislature and explicitly states the powers that congress has. At the time it was ratified a large number of people thought that the so-called "Enumerated Powers" section of the article (that would be section eight) was too vague and would allow congress to assume power they did not legitimately have (Or to claim it retained that power using vague language of the constitution much as it has done today ), so Madison introduced the first ten amendments as specific sanctions against the government in a compromise between two groups of framers known as the Federalists and anti-Federalists.

It really isn't. The purpose of the Constitution is to formally establish and regulate the federal government. That is its only function. That is why the first ten amendments, like the rest of the Constitution, are written in restrictive language against the government, not in permissive language to the people. The bill of rights is a common term for those amendments but it is not a legal term.

The first article of the Constitution establishes the legislature and explicitly states the powers that congress has. At the time it was ratified a large number of people thought that the so-called "Enumerated Powers" section of the article (that would be section eight) was too vague and would allow congress to assume power they did not legitimately have (Or to claim it retained that power using vague language of the constitution much as it has done today ), so Madison introduced the first ten amendments as specific sanctions against the government in a compromise between two groups of framers known as the Federalists and anti-Federalists.

The bill of rights in no way limits the rights retained by the people (In fact, the bill of rights states that specifically) It acts as a fail safe against an abusive government. Like the rest of the Constitution, the first ten amendments serve to limit the power and scope of the federal government. They do not endow any American with any specific right because that is not the function of the Constitution.Frattracide

You do realize that the federal government grew when Roe v. Wade passed? The federal government grows when it grants civil rights to people, because then it requires the federal government to enforce those civil rights. So to say that it is restrictive of the federal government fits exactly in my point. The federal government can't legalize or criminalize any action without amending the Constitution. The First Amendment for example supports the freedom of religion, but nowhere in the first ten amendments is there a freedom for masturbating on an airplane and therefore it is up to the state to decide if masturbating on an airplane can be a crime.

At least that's my interpretation of it, but you are more historically inclined than I am I will admit, so I will cater to you on this issue.

Studies have shown again and again that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and indeed that homosexual people are not by virtue of being homosexual any more likely than heterosexual people to be depressed or unhappy, to have mental illness, to commit crimes, or to do, have, or be anything else that would identify them as a less well-adjusted individual than another.

Although I am not sure if there have been any studies on the subject, I am sure that the same could be said for atheists, too.

Hence, I can find no valid reasons to discriminate in any way against either group.

Both are personal choices and you should be allowed  your preference.

First, on the constitution, the 9th amendment covers the right to marry. 

I have no problem with homosexuality. It's not my business to care about what consenting adults do privately in the bedroom, just as how it is none of my business to care about the personal beliefs of others. 

Yes I would call you a homophobe (not as a swearword, right now), simply because you too first and foremost state that you just hate homosexuality (one of your first paragraphs) and then you use the argument of the constitution to justify (or rather to excuse) that hate.

So in essense the way I see it, you are a constitutionalist because it "serves" your ideology.

Let me put it in another way: if it wasnt against the constitution, would you personally be ok with it? Would you be ok with homosexuality and same-sex marriage?

Mind you, I am not asking about whether or not you'd feel compelled to go against it vocally or in action but if you would feel ok with it.

If the answer is no, then I am right in thinking you are a homophobe.

Again I want to clarify that I dont mean that word as a swearword. Homophobe is one who dislikes homosexuality more or less.

Personally, I don't like homosexuality. I think it's an unhealthy lifestyle if you do not practice abstinence much like the Catholic Church teaches and it's disgusting. Then again, all sex is disgusting, but for adaptive purposes alone, homosexuality is contrary to that notion. I can't describe my hatred for homosexuality.

(To explain what an adaptive purpose is, think of something that was created to be body wash, but is better adapted to be shampoo. It's not what the creator conceived of its purpose or even if it had a creator, but the purpose adapted by measuring how objectively this would influence the person positively as a body wash or a shampoo.)

Genetic_Code

I find it unfair to use terms such as "homosexual (unhealthy) lifestyIe" since the only thing differing the lifestyIe of homosexuals to that of the heterosexuals is perhaps anal sex (although even some heterosexuals practice it). Is anal sex such a big issue to create the feeling of a completely different lifestyIe for those who practice it? Or is perhaps the word "lifestyIe" used to convey the message that gay people are something very alien to heterosexuals, the "normal" people?

Furthermore, I am aware that the term "homosexual lifestyIe" can be justified in that, yes homosexuals do pretty much the same things in their sex life as heterosexuals but they do it with the same sex. But in your post the term was used as such: "uhealthy (homosexual) lifestyIe". What makes activities with the same sex more unhealthy than those with the opposite sex?

Besides pretty much everything we do every day can be unhealthy. There are measure to be taken though. And smart gay people do take those measures. You'd be surprised how the gay community (at least many of them) is aware of the pros and cons and the dangers and they do take measures; measures that cant be mentioned here of course. Just because some things are in their "clear" form unhealthy (and if we accept that homosexual sex is one of them), that doesnt mean that they are also inherently evil/to be avoided/condemnable etc.

Lastly, in your paranthesis, youmention a creator..... while you're an atheist. To me thats a major contradiction even if you aknowledge that there may not be a creator. If you are an atheist, what is the point in invoking an argument based on a creator for anything?

What I am feeling here, is that you are so uncomfortable with homosexuality that you even "forget" some of your atheisms basic ideology, in order to make arguments against it. Arguments that are only fully supported by theism. And I find your analogy of the shampoo vs body wash to be somewhat irrelevant in that I dont think it conveys what you want to say. But I guess you mean that heterosexual sex is to be approved of because it is more beneficial (procreation, with new generations = more genes in the gene pool = positive evolution and what have you). So that leaves homosexual sex with no positive practical advantage. Although that is not necessarily the case since perhaps homosexuality itself may be an evolutionary trai, let me ask you this:

Does atheism have any practical advantage? What makes it practically better than theism? Mind you, not just extremism in theism.

G_C I've always found your arguments about marriage and sexuality and whatnot a little lacking and always because of the same problem. You always apply the principles of evolution as if they are a moral imperative.

It's all good and well to affirm that the evolutionary purpose of sexuality is procreation but that does not in any way imply that we ought to have sex only in the name of procreation. In the same way the tendency for women to be better at raising children does not mean that women should stay in the kitchen, the tendency for Africans to be faster runners does not mean that the olympics should exclude whites etc etc.

So does the fact that homosexuality isn't adaptive make it morally wrong? No, you can't draw that conclusion from that all. You must look to other places.

For myself I don't have reservations about homosexuality as much as I do about anal sex. The anus is just a no-go zone for me whether it's on a man or a woman so most of my awkwardness around homosexuals stems from that. Interestingly enough my anus-related reservations do have something to do with evolution. A general revulsion towards faeces is of course adaptive as faeces contain high (and possibly lethal) bacterial loads. My revulsion of faeces has nothing to do with high bacterial loads however, rather it has just to do with faeces. My behaviour has nothing to do with the evolution's ultimate cause (what I think you're calling the adaptive purpose) which in this case is the principle that faeces should be avoided because they contain lethal loads of bacteria but rather with its proximal cause which is merely that I find faeces and therefore anal sex disgusting.

In short the proximal causes of evolution (sex is awesome, faeces are yuck) is what tends to play a part in our moral decision making process, not the ultimate causes (that unprotected sex with the opposite sex and avoiding faeces is adaptive).

Oh hang on you also asked about atheism. You actually make an interesting point with that as there are several parallels between the two. Both are condemned by many religions (notably the Abrahamic triad) but I'm not sure which is done moreso. I think that society in general has more of a problem with homosexuality than it does with atheism but in terms of religion? Well actually again I think that homosexuality is more maligned.

In any case I'm rambling. I don't know much about American constitutionalism but I suspect that your issues with homosexuality go far further than it being unconstitutional.

I have a question which has got me quite confused. Should a gay get a job in airport security where you have to physically check other people of the same sex? Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I have a question which has got me quite confused. Should a gay get a job in airport security where you have to physically check other people of the same sex? Teenaged

Ofcourse the opposite may still happen if it would become illegal for gays to have that sort of a job as in gays disguising themselves as hetrosexual but there doesnt seem to be a way to stop that.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I have a question which has got me quite confused. Should a gay get a job in airport security where you have to physically check other people of the same sex? Gambler_3

Ofcourse the opposite may still happen if it would become illegal for gays to have that sort of a job as in gays disguising themselves as hetrosexual but there doesnt seem to be a way to stop that.

Also the factor of feeling comfortable doesnt work at all.

Because on one hand women may feel uncomfortable being touched by a security guy but the very same thing is true for men; they wouldnt like to be touched by a guy even if he were heterosexual. So what happens to physical checks? Everyone feels uncomfortable with them no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the one who does thecheck.

So I really dont see a point in the question of yours that I quoted.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]I have a question which has got me quite confused. Should a gay get a job in airport security where you have to physically check other people of the same sex? Teenaged

Ofcourse the opposite may still happen if it would become illegal for gays to have that sort of a job as in gays disguising themselves as hetrosexual but there doesnt seem to be a way to stop that.

Also the factor of feeling comfortable doesnt work at all.

Because on one hand women may feel uncomfortable being touched by a security guy but the very same thing is true for men; they wouldnt like to be touched by a guy even if he were heterosexual. So what happens to physical checks? Everyone feels uncomfortable with them no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the one who does thecheck.

So I really dont see a point in the question of yours that I quoted.

Remember I am not talking about police here...

The degree of uncomfortableness would be alot more if women were to be checked by males, I can guarantee you there would be an Islamic fatwah declaring non-emergency air travel as haram for women if it was mandatoty to be checked by a male. Infact a huge number of muslim women in the middle east may themselves not want to go if such a thing was mandatory.

So apart from emergency police situation, where else in the western world can a woman be physically checked by a male? I'll be surprised if there is any, is your average western women "ok" with being physically checked by a male?

What? I dont know of a single airport where males physically check females?:?

Remember I am not talking about police here...

The degree of uncomfortableness would be alot more if women were to be checked by males, I can guarantee you there would be an Islamic fatwah declaring non-emergency air travel as haram for women if it was mandatoty to be checked by a male. Infact a huge number of muslim women in the middle east may themselves not want to go if such a thing was mandatory.

So apart from emergency police situation, where else in the western world can a woman be physically checked by a male? I'll be surprised if there is any, is your average western women "ok" with being physically checked by a male?

Gambler_3

Besides I raised another issue.

I know that plenty of men would feel uncomfortable with a physical check even if it were carried out by a heterosexual male. So whats it gonna be in these cases?

Do we go about and ask every passenger what they are comfortable with (apart from religious groups who have strict rules on such matters)?

Besides, if a man does not know that the guy that is physically checking him is a homosexual, where is the problem? Is it unethical? If you think yes, based on what?

The holding in Loving v. Virginia rested on strands of substantive due process (fundamental rights) and equal protection. Even if you disdain substantive due process, you have to deal with equal protection. Because strict scrutiny is the standard of review for denial of fundamental rights as well as discrimination on the basis of suspect classifications like race, the state has a heavy burden to carry. And in Loving, it failed. It's hard to believe that anti-miscegenation laws could even pass rational-basis review. I think the Court reached the right result.

Marriage is not fundamental to existence and survival. Many species have multiple sex partners and continue to thrive more so than humans. So, no, I don't have to accept both parts of that tenet, considering I don't believe them to be connected.

I'll reserve other comments on your argument to say that I think too many of your detractors are focusing too much on your hatred for homosexuals, rather than the actual argument you made, and twisted some of your statements into claims completely unrelated to your original argument. In good argument, the facts presented and the claims from these facts are what is to be argued, nothing else.

Well like I said .....AFAIK.

Besides I raised another issue.

I know that plenty of men would feel uncomfortable with a physical check even if it were carried out by a heterosexual male. So whats it gonna be in these cases?

Do we go about and ask every passenger what they are comfortable with (apart from religious groups who have strict rules on such matters)?

Besides, if a man does not know that the guy that is physically checking him is a homosexual, where is the problem? Is it unethical? If you think yes, based on what?

Teenaged

Well a homosexual guy checking another male is basically the same thing as a hetrosexual man checking a hetrosexual woman. The reason why men dont check woman is on ethical grounds that members of the opposite sex should not be touching the private parts of the other without consent. I am simply saying that it is the right of hetrosexual people to not want to be checked by homosexual people if homosexuality is to be accepted as a natural and separate sexuality...

I personally wouldnt have a problem with a homosexual security guy but some people might...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well like I said .....AFAIK.

Besides I raised another issue.

I know that plenty of men would feel uncomfortable with a physical check even if it were carried out by a heterosexual male. So whats it gonna be in these cases?

Do we go about and ask every passenger what they are comfortable with (apart from religious groups who have strict rules on such matters)?

Besides, if a man does not know that the guy that is physically checking him is a homosexual, where is the problem? Is it unethical? If you think yes, based on what?

Gambler_3

Well a homosexual guy checking another male is basically the same thing as a hetrosexual man checking a hetrosexual woman. The reason why men dont check woman is on ethical grounds that members of the opposite sex should not be touching the private parts of the other without consent. I am simply saying that it is the right of hetrosexual people to not want to be checked by homosexual people if homosexuality is to be accepted as a natural and separate sexuality...

I personally wouldnt have a problem with a homosexual security guy but some people might...

But the thing is that many people dont like being touched at all; either by men or women, in public, for physical checks. How is their discomfort less reasonable to cater to than those that only are uncomfortable with the opposite sex physically checking them?

Just because there is an alternative ready? What I am saying is, a point that you too implicitely made, that we cant cater to every person's peculiar objections.

The objections of the people who are uncomfortable with the opposite sex physically checking them is only catered to, because of common decency. Because in public, it seems innapropriate to witness a scene that reminds as of sexual activities, and to me it seems that it is heavily based on the knowledge of the one being checked that the person checking them is of the opposite sex, ie with sexual desires towards them.

Chances are, for instance, that a woman might not have a problem with a man physically checking her if that man is a homosexual. So its all based on the awareness of the sexual desires of that person.

But when it comes to homosexual guards, there is no such awareness and the common decency rules are being kept.

And I believe that it is only about common decency and awareness because a professional guard of course only does his job. He/She doesnt really care to fondle; I mean even if he/she has some thoughts going through his/her mind, its still not an impossible task to carry out their job. So, imo, since guards only do their jobs, the only reasons I find for there to be rules as to who checks whom, is about obvious sexual orientations. Therefore in "hidden" orientations it doesnt matter.

Anyway at least thats how I see the issue and I really believe that I am not seeing it like that due to a possible bias of mine. But thats just me of course.

Do you think atheism and homosexuality are parallel in their moments? Also, how do you think atheists should treat homosexuals and vice versa?Genetic_Code

Gays are discriminated against all the time-- atheists rarely are. They should treat each other as equals. That includes allowing them to get married in case you were wondering.

Personally, I don't like homosexuality. I think it's an unhealthy lifestyle if you do not practice abstinence much like the Catholic Church teaches and it's disgusting. Then again, all sex is disgusting, but for adaptive purposes alone, homosexuality is contrary to that notion. I can't describe my hatred for homosexuality.Genetic_Code

Your view on what is/isn't disgusting is irrelevant to a person's rights. Having sexual desires is natural for both gays and straights. Trying to supress their sexual lives, and by implication their sexual desires, is a kin to trying to deny them instinct. You're caging them in like mice and trying to shield them from what is natural. That's an assault on their mental health and I think it's the reason where there have been so many priests raping little boys. Being that we have so much more knowledge about sexual development than we did 2000 years ago, the RCC has no excuse to cling onto such bronze age morality.

Based on this, you cannot support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Why? Look at us now. We've been able to survive on opposite-sex marriage alone, so why should we need to legalize same-sex marriage when we've done well without it?Genetic_Code

Oh sure, we've done well if you ignore denying a large group of people basic rights.

Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the genes of both partners being used in procreation. Instead, you have use a sperm donor or adopt. Marriage has always been a tool of procreation. Now yes, you may say that there are plenty of individuals that marry who do not plan on having children. That is true.Genetic_Code

I would love to see your proof of that.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the genes of both partners being used in procreation. Instead, you have use a sperm donor or adopt. Marriage has always been a tool of procreation. Now yes, you may say that there are plenty of individuals that marry who do not plan on having children. That is true.dracula_16

I would love to see your proof of that.

Atheism is viewed with scorn much like homosexuality was and still is. Although atheism has been around since before Christ, it hasn't become popular until the postmodern age, whereas homosexuality had a two decade headstart on atheism. Homosexuality has been around for awhile though, possibly dating back to before human's existence. Homosexuals have been often persecuted to the point of even being killed. Atheism hasn't reached that point. You don't hear about atheists being killed for their beliefs. In fact, it was just the opposite in Soviet Russia, when it was the atheists killing Christians.

Homosexuals have taken the word gay which had a positive connation to mean homosexual. However, those who oppose homosexuality have put the word in a negative light, often saying something such as, "School is gay as to imply a negative. In atheism, there is the Brights Movement which is similar in that it takes the word "bright" and applies it to atheists. Personally, I see the movement as unintelligent, as it implies that theists are not bright. The great tragedy of the world is that many people who do not accept certain truths and facts can be intelligent. What I'm saying is that theists can be bright as well, so the term, like gay is falsely misapplied to imply a positive stereotype. I would be surprised though if "bright" eventually bears a negative connotation, because it's so much more widely used than gay was.

Do you think atheism and homosexuality are parallel in their moments? Also, how do you think atheists should treat homosexuals and vice versa?

Personally, I don't like homosexuality. I think it's an unhealthy lifestyle if you do not practice abstinence much like the Catholic Church teaches and it's disgusting. Then again, all sex is disgusting, but for adaptive purposes alone, homosexuality is contrary to that notion. I can't describe my hatred for homosexuality.

(To explain what an adaptive purpose is, think of something that was created to be body wash, but is better adapted to be shampoo. It's not what the creator conceived of its purpose or even if it had a creator, but the purpose adapted by measuring how objectively this would influence the person positively as a body wash or a shampoo.)

I do think that homosexuals should have basic civil rights. The ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unconstitutional though. A quick summary of Loving v. Virginia was that an interracial couple whose last name was Loving challenged Virginia's anti-miscegenation law that prevented them from getting married. The court wrote, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

First of all, this "basic civil right" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, so to assert it to be true is simply unconstitutional. Second of all, to grant that point, I would have to grant the second point, which is that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." That is fundamentally true, but it is not within the Constitution. But again, to agree to the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, you have to grant that second clause.

Based on this, you cannot support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Why? Look at us now. We've been able to survive on opposite-sex marriage alone, so why should we need to legalize same-sex marriage when we've done well without it? Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the genes of both partners being used in procreation. Instead, you have use a sperm donor or adopt. Marriage has always been a tool of procreation. Now yes, you may say that there are plenty of individuals that marry who do not plan on having children. That is true.

But remember, it's not up to the U.S. federal government to define marriage as a basic civil right, unless of course, you propose amending the Constitution. Until that amendment passes, the Tenth Amendment leaves that claim to the states and if the states don't make an issue of that claim, that is left to the individual. Yes, this applies to same-sex marriages and interracial marriages too. Yes, it is legally right for Virginia to deny the interracial couple from marrying. That's the Tenth Amendment. Again, if you don't agree with it, pass an amendment that will give marital rights to same-sex couples and interracial couples. The ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unconstitutional. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me a bigot. I would prefer to be called a Constitutionalist.

As for the other countries, that's for them to decide.

Genetic_Code

EDIT by domatron23: Hey bitter, I had a bit of a giggle at your comment but ultimately it wasn't really needed here so I've removed it.

You do realize that the federal government grew when Roe v. Wade passed? The federal government grows when it grants civil rights to people, because then it requires the federal government to enforce those civil rights. So to say that it is restrictive of the federal government fits exactly in my point. The federal government can't legalize or criminalize any action without amending the Constitution. The First Amendment for example supports the freedom of religion, but nowhere in the first ten amendments is there a freedom for masturbating on an airplane and therefore it is up to the state to decide if masturbating on an airplane can be a crime.

At least that's my interpretation of it, but you are more historically inclined than I am I will admit, so I will cater to you on this issue.

Genetic_Code

Because this is digressing to the point of topic irrelivance, I will try to keep this brief.

Roe V Wade did not "Pass" as it is not a law. Roe V Wade refers to a decision by the Supreme Court that found that some of the laws of state of Texas regarding abortion were illegal. (I'm certain you already knew that, I just like to be clear in discussion) The Supreme Court's frame of reference for this decision was the Constitution.  In making this decision the Supreme Court did not reference a list of rights in the Constitution finding specific acts of abortion to be the third one down on the list. Instead it looked at the laws Texas had in place and found that they exceeded constitutional law. In this instance, the fourteenth amendment. Whenever any government agency in the US does anything, it bears the burden of the Constitution. You as a citizen of the US do not share the same restrictions. That is why if I was an MD, and I was so inclined, I could refuse to administer an abortion, while at the same time the government could not deny an individual seeking an abortion. At least by the standard of the Constitution.

 It is sort of nonsense to define something that can be amended away as a right. I realize that this is its own topic but think about it. How is something a right if it can be legally taken away?

Then again, all sex is disgusting, but for adaptive purposes alone, homosexuality is contrary to that notion. I can't describe my hatred for homosexuality.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to the genes of both partners being used in procreation. Instead, you have use a sperm donor or adopt. Marriage has always been a tool of procreation. Now yes, you may say that there are plenty of individuals that marry who do not plan on having children. That is true.Teenaged

I would love to see your proof of that.

Let me put it in another way: if it wasnt against the constitution, would you personally be ok with it? Would you be ok with homosexuality and same-sex marriage?Teenaged

I didn't say the Constitution was against same-sex marriage. In fact, I reject all methods of a federal ban on same-sex marriage. The states can legalize same-sex marriage and even criminalize opposite-sex marriage in my opinion. An amendment to define marriage sounds appealling, but I can't commit to that thought yet, just because I don't like amending the Constitution unless it is necessary to.

Does atheism have any practical advantage? What makes it practically better than theism? Mind you, not just extremism in theism. Teenaged

Actually, atheism has no practical advantage and it too is an unhealthy lifestyle. Studies show that atheists are more depressed and suicidal and live less than most theists do. I chalk this up to simply a more pessimistic attitude. Religion is more evolutionary advantaged than irreligion because it supports social structure and support and common beliefs to unite people. I am certainly an example of that stereotype, although my past week was really good besides bringing this subject up. Whenever I bring up homosexuality, I get very negative, perhaps even letting emotion get the best of me.

I didn't bring up a creator by the way, unless you're talking about the body wash example, which was to prove that the non-existence of a creator does not mean there is no purpose, just not a creator-guided purpose.

It's late for me so I want to have this posted before I go to bed. I don't mind calling you a homophobe though Teenaged. In fact, I get this sickening satisfaction at thinking I'm filled at the brim with hatred of all types of people, atheists not discluded. I mean, I honestly hate everyone.

I didn't bring up a creator by the way, unless you're talking about the body wash example, which was to prove that the non-existence of a creator does not mean there is no purpose, just not a creator-guided purpose.

It's late for me so I want to have this posted before I go to bed. I don't mind calling you a homophobe though Teenaged. In fact, I get this sickening satisfaction at thinking I'm filled at the brim with hatred of all types of people, atheists not discluded. I mean, I honestly hate everyone.

Genetic_Code

I am not calling you a homophobe to satisfy my homosexual bias. I just dont buy it that you are just being a ..."constitutionalist".

Besides I used the word as it means: someone who opposes homosexuality for no logical reason.

Just because you can invoke arguments to environ that opposition doesnt mean that your opposition stems from those arguments.