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.
Log in to comment