That gets my vote too.

Nice idea. You know I'm proud to be bi and atheist.

It actually reminds me of this past weekend, I wore my black atheist shirt that has the word atheist in rainbow colours and my friend asked me, "Does that mean you're a gaytheist?" XD Of course I replied yes.

There are so many fallacies in this argument, it's amazing.

First, it's a non sequiter. We're talking about the civil rights of citizens who have a specific orientation, not simple characteristics of human behavior or people who engage in activities that are NOT a crime in this country. You're also employing a slippery slope that simply does not follow, because once again. We're not talking about "desires" that results in crimes or personality traits. We're talking about a people who simply want to pursue happiness in the same way you can.

You logic is dangerous since you think desiring something can lead to committing a crime. Does your desire for the opposite sex make you rape them? Come on, you know how ridiculous that is.

The fact is that whether homosexuality is 100% genetic has not been conclusively determined scientifically, however studies have shown that homosexuality is a part of someone's identity and personality. It's not so cut and dry ad genetic non genetic. And if you're going to insist it's not genetic, back it up with proof instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

Besides, with your logic we can discriminate against any human characteristic just because we can't see it. If we made a law that Christian's couldn't marry, and that they could if they "decided" not to be Christian, you would find that offensive, would you not? So even IF Homosexuality was a choice, and I clearly don't think it is, the logic still doesn't follow.

Your arguments are weak. I''ve given you rebuttals and linked to even more detailed rebuttals to your arguments (Of which I've all heard before, so stop saying I don't know what I'm talking about, because I do. ) And all you say is just insist they don't refute your arguments? Come on, if you're right you should be able to show that your right and take apart their rebuttals without simply insisting they are wrong. Just saying it doesn't prove your point.

But you can't, because studies have shown children thrive with same sex couples. They are already a part of our society and have been raising children for years. Massachusetts, in which I live, has had same sex marriage for years, and you know what? Everything is perfectly fine. So bring the evidence before asserting these claims if you want to have a valid argument.

You religious freedom doesn't allow you to discriminate against other people who live a life you don't approve of.

There are many brands of atheism. There are those that believe "there is no God" but we need to be careful and not characterize all atheists that way. Because Atheism also incorporates a "Lack of belief in God" which is very different from asserting there is no god. One is positing a claim, the other is simply not accepting a claim.

Think of it like a court case. Those who assert that there is a god would be those in a jury that accept there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who would assert someone is not guilty may do so because there is no "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the person may or may not be guilty, as of now there's no evidence to ultimately support either. So those would be the people who "lack" a belief in god and that's usually referred to as weak atheism or agnostic atheism. And then there is innocent, and those would be certain that a person is not guilty and in the case of god, they would assert God does not exist. Those are the strong atheists, or gnostic atheists.

Atheism is not really a religion in the strictest sense of the word, but there are valid arguments in the atheist community about whether it should be treated as one. Simply put atheism has no dogma or doctrine, anyone who is an atheist are free to subscribe to any belief system whether it's secular humanism or philosophical Buddhism. Atheism is only an answer to one question, is there a god? And if you're an atheist the answer is along the lines of "no" or "not sure"

Anyway, glad you like the blog. :D

It does not threaten free speech or religious freedom. You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit. But your religious freedom DOES NOT extend so far as to discriminate against other people.

Slavery was biblically supported, and used as a defense by those trying to keep slavery. However you Bible is not state law. You don't have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others, because THAT is a threat to religious freedom.

Your "legitimate" concerns are based on lies. The merits of which have been continuously discredited. Furthermore, the Iowa state court decisions shows how religious opinion on gay marriage has no merit in state matters.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10226/iowa-co...

Read this, all your talking points are completely taken apart.

Also, this was not my post. I did not write it, my friend Zach did. This is a blog contributed by multiple people.

I find it "ironic" that you accuse me of being motivated by hate and intolerance. Projection much?

I have granted your right have your views and opinions but that doesn't mean I have to respect them. That is what freedom of speech is all about.

Far from it. Studies have shown that children thrive just as well with same sex parents as they do with dual gender parents. The Iowa court case decisively supported that evidence.

Polygamy does NOT naturally follow Same Sex marriage. The question is whether two consenting adults can enter a marriage agreement regardless of sex, NOT if someone can have 3 wives.

Also Biblically speaking, polygamy was supported.

Actually, as the Iowa Court decision point out, being gay is an intrinsic part of someone's identity and to change that would to be change a sense of self. All evidence point towards exactly the opposite of what you saying. Homosexuality is part of someone's identity, and NOT a choice. If it is a choice, when did you "decide" to be straight? You didn't. You attraction to the opposite sex is as natural as my attraction to the same sex.

Gays have suffered their own, been murdered and discriminated against. Jessie Jackson is not the voice of black people everywhere and there are many that agree the LGBT movement is about civil rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/afri...

I disagree. Typically homophobia has been applied to people who show strong opposition to gays, but that's not true. They are not afraid of gays in a psychological way. They are simply bigoted, they are prejudiced against a lifestyle not their own. So it simply goes to specify the type of bigotry someone being expressed.

You keep saying "demanding tolerance" which to me shows you have no idea what the gay rights movement is about. This is a civil rights matter. I don't care if you hate my lifestyle, disapprove of it, and I even don't care what you call me. But if I fall in love with someone YOU don't have the right to tell me I can't marry that person in a civil marriage just because you don't like my lifestyle. It's equal rights, and the general opinion of the people has never been able to get to social equality on it's own. It couldn't do it with the black civil right movement, or woman's suffrage.

If you hate black people or women, you're free to do so, but legally you're not allowed discriminate on that basis. That's all that the gay rights movement is trying to achieve. I don't need you to accept me, I just want to live my life and pursue happiness just like you can.

I don't care how you feel about it, if someone is against gay marriage because they don't like it, they're bigots. End of story.

Then in that case calling someone racist for hating blacks is racist? Or sexist for hating woman is being sexist?

The gay rights movement is a civil rights issue. The demand for tolerance is in the government, to allow same sex marriage, to not get fired for being openly gay. I don't care if someone disapproves of my sexual orientation but I do care if their bigotry causes them to actively pursue infringing on my rights as a human being.

There's a big difference, and it's not ironic in the least.

That's awesome that you are able to stay sober and take the suggestions that work for you.The 12 steps do have some really good suggestion, not just for alcoholics but for people in general. I'm not knocking that. It's the cult-like aspect that members of AA can get too into. There are many that believe AA is the only way and that's just not true. The promote this as true and I believe it can trap people into thinking it's the only way, and keep trying it even though it's continuously failed, and not seek alternatives. I've seen exactly that happen with my father. And in other cases going to AA can be trading 1 addiction for another, I've seen it with my mother. And then in other cases people can take AA and use it to change themselves and get better and find they can have a drink and be ok, like my sister.

The truth of the matter is that AA is just as affective as any other means, so they key is to find what works for you and that's awesome that you can do that.