Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Seconded.
No way! Proposition 8 is important! I mean, we can't just go changing the definition of marriage all will-nilly like that! If we start going down that road, who's going to stop The Gay from declaring marriage as, "A legally binding subservience to The Gay Agenda," ???
Huh? WHO???
Only fascist Liberal neo-Marxist communist carpetbagging terrorist atheists are against Proposition 8.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
When your right... your right >.>
What Would Kharn Do?
SAME THING.
Ironically California was a blue state in the 2008 election.
Here comes the idiot train round the bend! The Mormons rejoice...:
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Yeah, I remember reading that; God got angry and sent rebuke upon them.
Don't forget to fear the wrath of your omnibenevolent heavenly father.
Oh no, not tolerance! Anything but that!
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
lol
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
But the gay argument is we don't have the same special rights as married people. In other words, they don't like having to live like single people. So isn't the real problem that marriage is discrimination against single people? So therefore marriage should not be a special condition in the eyes of the law at all?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I support that. Separation of government and marriage. It would be as easy as getting rid of divorce laws and tax breaks for married couples. But I suspect that this would be a politically unpopular stance.
As for Prop. 8: I don't understand why California has rights declared in its constitution at all if people can vote them away. I thought that (part) of the point of a constitution is to enshrine rights that can not be overturned by voters. We have allowed tyranny of the majority and a slight majority thinks that gays should not be allowed to marry. Oh well, I voted no on 8. I feel sorry for commited gay couples, but since a slight majority doesn't like them, the California state constitution now denfines marriage in such a way as to disenfranchise them.
Edit: I just remembered: I am a minister and (under California state law) I am allowed to marry people. I never got to perform a gay marriage. Now I wish I had.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Well, no - that's only part of the argument. The other part is that demanding 'proper' marriage to be legally/socially recognized as strictly heterosexual marriage creates a zeitgeist where homosexuals & homosexual behavior is seen as strange, deviant, harmful, immoral, etc. I mean, look at the arguments proponents made:
'We need Prop 8 because without it our kids will be taught that gay marriage / being gay is okay.'
...So, there it is. This line of 'reasoning' has nothing to do with tax breaks or divorce proceedings. Bigots want Proposition 8 as a legal pillar they can point at and say, "See? Our justice system agrees: Homosexuality is a bad thing."
The equivocation between gay marriage and gay people is important to recognize as well; the most 'clever' supporters of the law keep it much more subtle, but it's still always present when you read between the lines. The "We're just protecting the institution of marriage," line is a great and common example. Protecting it from whom? Well, the gay people, of course. So the connotation is actually, "The bad gay people are trying to destroy our institutions, so we have to protect them with laws like Proposition 8," which is quite ludicrous.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
...Y'know, just out of curiousity, are there any secular groups that oppose gay marriage? As crazy as the religious arguments are, I'd love to hear something even crazier, and I think such a lobbying group could provide me with a goldmine
EDIT: His Holiness, Google, has answered my question for me:
The Secular Case Against The Gay
I'll have to read and comment tomorrow; it's way past my bedtime. The right wing cheerleading gallery has already given up enough lulz for the evening anyway.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
5 second google search
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
EDIT
Beat me to it. Oh and BTW don't announce it's past your bedtime on the internet.
/EDIT
...Yeah.
From that paper:
Okay, I agree with this so far....
Holy leap of faith.
The state keeps people from marrying that can't have children? Since when? Wow, that is a far-fetched argument. Also, since when is marriage a requirement for having children? Or even a benefit to people who are ever going to attempt to have children? Where is any of the proof to any of these claims? The entire rest of the paper is just making more assertions, one after another....like elderly people rarely get married so they don't count, and fertility tests are too costly to the government.
This is...the conclusion? A slippery slope argument? "Well, if they can do it, then so can these! END OF THE WORLD!" Wow. Just wow. Okay, well...I would say, what is wrong with allowing any of those situations? I don't have a problem with them. They won't effect me in the least. Let them do what they want. Everyone should have the right to live however they wish.
I hate bigots.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I am convinced Prop 8 would have passed if it hadn't been worded so ambiguously.
Or is that failed?
you're right, fuck it.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
upon what basis indeed? upon what basis indeed? why the fuck NOT??? i mean, polygyny is still legal in some countries of the world and polyandry, while not quite so popular, has certainly not been unknown throughout history, particularly in tribal societies. as for bro and sis, once again, why the fuck not? personally, my socially conditioned knee-jerk reaction to the idea is disgust, but my rationality tells me there is no objective reason why the government should be able to tell people no.
on a related note, when debating issues like this with christians, i love watching them squirm when i ask them how the fuck the human race could have propogated itself from two original parents without resorting to incest. they usually give some vague bullshit answer like, "well, they had to so god didn't condemn it but now there's no need for it so there's no excuse"--shit that CANNOT BE FOUND in the bible.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
GODDAMN MINORITIES!
First it was blacks complaining about being slaves. CRYBABIES! Then the baby factories bitched that they couldn't vote. CRYBABIES! Ok, so we free the blacks and they arn't happy with their substandard treatment. CRYBABIES! Then we give the baby factories the right to vote. Now the meat smokers and carpet munchers want equality too. CRYBABIES!
MOTHERFUCKER! CHEESE AND RICE ON A CRACKER!
What happened to good ol bigotry?
What really puts my bee in a bonnet is those fucking atheists, they get ticked when you equate them to Hitler and accuse them of having no morals! CRYBABIES!
WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE!
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
According to my cat, the answer if to rub his tummy.
=
I was listening to a story on NPR the other day about Prop 8, and the interviewer finally asked a question of a pastor in California that I've been dying to hear an answer to: "In what way does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?"
The answer the pastor gave was threefold, and framed in a loss-of-freedoms perspective (sound familiar?):
1) Loss of religious freedom for those who oppose gay marriage;
2) Loss of educational freedom for parents who oppose gay marriage (i.e. they won't be able to teach their kids that gay people are evil if the law legitimizes gay marriage);
and
3) Loss of business freedom (i.e. business owners who oppose gay marriage wil be "forced" to operate in a state with laws they disagree with).
Holy crap, what a bunch of lameness. And under the logic of #1, then Christians should really be fighting to restrict marriage for anyone who isn't Christian.
The contemporary existence of homosexuality is a huge problem for Christianity. In the Bible, God struck down those who acted in such a way. Now, not so much.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
This one is a legitimate complaint. It is not legitimate in the sense that it is a reason to ban gay marriages. It is legitimate in the sense that some states do require businesses that give out marriage licences to give them out to any qualifying couple. I believe there was a case in Massachusetts where a church tried to deny gay people marriage licenses and was forced to hand them out. And there was a case in New Jersey where lesbians rented a church pavillion for a civil union ceremony and once the church found out what their intent was, they were denied use of it. They sued and won in court to get to use the church property for non-church approved uses.
Of course, this is no different than complaining that churches that are against mixed race marriages are 'forced' to give marriage licenses to qualifying mixed race couples. In fact let's make our own list here about how allowing different races to marry robs people of their rights:
1) Loss of religious freedom for those who oppose inter-racial marriage;
2) Loss of educational freedom for parents who oppose inter-racial marriage (i.e. they won't be able to teach their kids that mixed-race couples are evil if the law legitimizes inter-racial marriage);
and
3) Loss of business freedom (i.e. business owners who oppose inter-racial marriage wil be "forced" to operate in a state with laws they disagree with).
This sounds about as stupid as I thought it would. The thing that confuses me is why this logic sounds legitimate to some people when applied to gays.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India