Matt Slick defeats queers
Offline
- Login to post comments
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
Posted on: September 9, 2011 - 9:24pm
Offline
Matt Slick defeats queers
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
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.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming 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.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
People like you aren't intelligent enough to merit rights...
... so do you like the taste of AIDS cocktails?
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.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Again, let's keep posts on topic please, Vastet and Tom. Empty ad homs are against forum rules.
So we recognize that homosexuality is not unnatural. Homosexuals are not hurting anything, unlike the examples.
kin selection hypothesis
Homosexuals are not harming anyone, unlike your example. If it's a behavior that is not hurting anyone, than it should be allowed.
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
That's a lie.
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.
Neither are theists. They want to play 'god' by proxy.
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.
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.
That makes it natural.
They're not arguing whether it's moral. They don't care what your subjective opinion is.
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'?
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.
Non sequitur
Sex leads to pleasure, duh...
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.
That does not mean that they are not born that way.
This would be a landmark scientific discovery, if it were true.
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.
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'.
Strawman.
They're not asking for anyone to 'promote' homosexuality.
Because we are not an autocracy, or theocracy.
They obviously don't, duh...
Prove it.
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.
That doesn't make it true.
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.
Actually, it is.
Just as a woman can have 'sex' with an inanimate object, and man can fuck a woman in the ass.
Ummm, no.
It's to correct the antiquated ideas of the 'dark ages', and abolish the gender discrimination, and discrimination of sexual orientation.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Once again only proving the point that nature =/= morality therefore even if being gay is learned it does not mean that it is immoral.
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.
As long as it is between one man and one woman who gives a damn about the rest. It has meaning dammit.
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.
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 ?
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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
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.
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.
"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.
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.
That's just wrong.
(Linking that as a repository of sources)
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?
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.
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.
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.
Actually, it is a civil right in most countries that allow civil rights.
And the movement to allow interracial marriage did the exact same thing. What's your point?
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!
MARRIAGE is a civil right.
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?
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
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
"If dynamite were brains, that guy couldn't blow his nose."
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)
Then you should read his fantasy book. It's a masterpiece of unintentional hilariousness. http://www.amazon.com/The-Influence-ebook/dp/B0040X4XCO
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
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
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)
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.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.