Wow. That post has been linked to a lot in the blogosphere. Crazy how it caused that much of a hubbub.

So, people are sane after all. Thanks for the info source.

"Cost"=/="Harm". It is "costly" in terms of effort and time to exercise, for instance, but obviously only harmful in remote circumstances. And, sex is harmless, save the presence of STD's. At least for males....
And, as I addressed before, life is not entirely defined by whether you have a social role but it is a definite factor.
Finally, I have yet to see a funeral for a fetus, and the people who do mourn that fetus were emotionally invested in its eventual coming into being as a full-grown human. In which case, they probably shouldn't be getting an abortion. Simple.

About that last article you linked to: I don't think that it actually has evidence that Barack Obama has policies unfriendly to atheists, despite the misleading title. The article is about Obama having "reasonable faith" and how this somehow is a bad thing for atheists because apparently we can only exist if the only kinds of religious people in the world are irrational and intolerant madmen. It's an article suggesting that Obama is a counter-example to a New Atheist conception of religion which is essentially a congregation of strawmen; making the article itself, ironically, a strawman of the actual perspectives that those authors make. It's a typical potshot at the big atheist authors, not a revelation that Obama is actually opposed to us in some fashion.

That being said, "this task is ours. The best we can realistically hope for from Obama is that he will throw fewer obstacles in our path" stands true. Sadly. But, if it were easy, it wouldn't be as entertaining I assume.

Our choices are not entirely subject to our temptations, but they are driven by them. And, when it comes to temptations that are driven biologically as part of a physiological need(which includes sexuality), those drives are subverted and suppressed at high cost. As for what kind of behavior we should tolerate: riots are not included, because people can be hurt. Insults should be tolerated as free speech, but also noted that is hurtful and disrespectful and its context for usage needs to keep that fact in mind, and may be responsded to with similar disrespect. And, "inappriopriate" sex done in privacy of one's home and done consensually should be completely tolerated.
The fact that there are poeple "name-calling" and "whining" in response to this injustice does not warrant the support of it in the first place. And protesting the workings of democracy when those workings go against fairness, equality, and common sense is the duty of people in this country to make themselves heard rather than lying down and accepting the tyranny of the majority when that majority is oppressing a powerless minority group. This becomes more of a civil rights issue with every law designed to exclude them. Eventually, the need for a new direction will be clear. Until then, the sane among us will need to be on damage control.

A rather common Freudian slip at that. Strangely, though, I would think that a church that was associated with using acid would still be hard-pressed to come up with things that are as completely insane as the Mormons have managed to come up with using non-alcoholic beverages alone.

"LSD church/s"
Is that an intentional jab at the Mormons, or did you just accidentally arrange the letters that way? Because it is understandable if it was accidental, and hilarious if it was intentional.

Which is more or less why. They are one of the most religious ethnic groups, yet they are also the most liberal ethnic group. Something, somewhere has to give, and apparently they let their religious beliefs trump tolerance of homosexuality. So...we've still got some work to do in this country of ours...

Nah, not a punk or a goth. Just an everyday slacker with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Good guy, but just a wee bit skewed in his perspective, if you understand what I am saying.

....So your argument is that religious people can also buy into the secular arguments, and that people adopting the secular arguments can also try to the seize the moral high ground and be stubborn about it without tosssing religion into the mix? Well, that adds a bit of a new dimension to the whole thing, but it hardly is reason to outright dismiss vjack's basic points.