Monthly Archives: June 2006

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

  1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
  2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
  3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
  4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
  5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
  6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
  7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
  8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
  9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
  10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Via Consistently Inconsistent

FYI: I do not hate gay people nor do I support any attempts to legally discriminate against them.  In other words, this post is pure snark aimed at the idiocy of the bigots who think that “CIVILIZATION ITSELF!!!!!” will end if gay people are afforded the same rights and privileges we straight people enjoy.

To put it another way:
All emails about this post will be deleted without comment.

As for the 99.9 percent of you all who got the post, I think y’all will enjoy Prop 8 – The Musical also.

Secular Fundamentalists?

Vjack of Atheist Revolution has a post up about the use of the phrase ‘secular fundamentalists’ in a book he is reading. Apparently, the author thinks that the opposite of theocratic rule is secularism. I’ve encountered that kind of thinking in RL and I think it is somewhat of a misnomer.

The exact opposite of stamping “God” on everything is stamping “No Gods” on everything not removing “God” from everything. Under an atheocratic rule ‘In God We Trust’ becomes ‘In Gods We Do Not Trust’ and ‘One Nation, Under God’ becomes ‘One Nation, Under No Gods’ and so on and so forth.

Read More…

Is Religious Fanaticism a Disease?

We often hear of alcholism and other addiction disorders as being ‘diseases’. Now, personally, I’ve always had a problem with calling such things diseases. A disease is generally something that you can catch – like Hep-B or often just something that happens in our bodies such as cancer. It’s generally not something that is self-inflicted.

The same is true of Depression. It’s labeled a disease, but it’s a chemical imbalance in the brain. It is not contracted from someone or thing. Again, words are used to that really don’t apply.

But, what does that have to do with religious fanaticism? Pretty easy, really. Religious fanticism has all the markings of being a addiction disorder on the level of alcoholism, compulsive gambling and being hooked on painkillers.

Read More…

New Scam: Iraqi War Booty & The US Army

Heard of the Nigerian scammers? Well, they’ve apparently relocated to Italy and are now a ‘faction’ of US soldiers in Iraq who need help getting their war booty out of the country:

Dear Friend,


 My name is, Major. Jeffrey Burton and i represent a faction of American soldiers,serving in the military of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, we came across your e-mail address(s) in the process of research and enquiry into an  immense millitary global data base. I believe you are familiar with the war situation in Iraq ? Besides the killings, a lot of activities do occur; antique sales, stocked foreign cash discovered and lots more. We are lucratively involved in these activities. Consequently, we require a worthy,upright and business minded individual for safe keeping outside the Iraqi state. You might have an insight through;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2988455.stm and details will be sent upon signal of interest. Our contact email ; johnseco@virgilio.it


thanks for your co-operation


asjb1160.


signed,


Major. J.burton

Now, I've always thought military officers were dumber than dirt - but "this" one takes the cake. Can't even abbreviate 'his' own rank correctly.

Blogged with Flock

Reframing the Abortion Debate

In the June/July edition of the Free Inquiry Eileen McDonagh writes that it is time to reframe the abortion debate in the wake of South Dakota declaring that a fetus is a person. I think this is a great article and reminds us that something has been lost in the debate.

A woman has the right to withhold consent when it comes to pregnancy and Ms. McDonagh lays out why consent to (pregnancy) is important in the current climate and how it may be used to ensure abortion rights (and access!) in the future.

There is an irony though. Anti-choicers have fought hard to get the personhood of the fetus recognized but Ms. McDonagh’s new argument shows that even if Roe is made moot by such manuvering – the war is not over.

Declaring the fetus a human being may just be the downfall of the anti-choicers:

South Dakota bestows upon the fetus the same rights as a born person. Using that standard, we see that, even if the fetus has a right to life and even if he fetus is a person, it has no right of access to another person’s body to meet its own needs – because no born person has such a right [emphasis added].

To bestow such a right to the fetus would fall under ‘special’ rights conservatives accuse us various liberals of trying to obtain.

It should be noted that what is moral and what is legal are two different things. I may be morally responsible for providing marrow to my dying child, but I am not legally responsible for providing marrow. I have the legal right to not consent to such a thing and any attempt to force me is illegal.

Blogged with Flock

God & The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is the reconciliation of the existence of evil (or suffering) with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. In sum it is:

  • God exists
  • God is omnipotent
  • God is benevolent
  • Benevolent beings are opposed to all evil.
  • God is opposed to all evil.
  • God can eliminate evil completely.
    • Whatever end result of suffering, God can bring about by ways which do not include suffering.
    • God has no reason not to eliminate evil
  • God will eliminate evil completely.
  • Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist.
  • The last two statements are contradictory; therefore, one or more of thepremises is false.
  • Thus God is not both omnipotent and benevolent (or)
  • God does not exist.

Rebuttal: Freewill

The freewill defence states that God allows human to be(do) evil because of freewill.

Answer: Non-sense

  • The does not account for non-human suffering.
  • It also does not account for suffering beyond man’s control (hurricanes, tsusamis, etc).
  • If God can do anything – why can’t he make free will & perfect happiness co-exist?
  • Whose freedom? If one has the right to decide to kill another, the other automatically loses the right to not die. Does God favour the evil?

Blogged with Flock

When Christians Clash

This video is a great demostration of what happens in a debate when both sidesbase their positions on the existence of an imaginary being revealed to them in a body of text that can be interpreted to support all kinds ofpositions.

Both women are Christians and the views of each can be found in the Bible. Who wins? No one. Jesus may have said “Love Thy Neighbour” but he also said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.“

The law? That would be all those (and more) do this & die verses Christians refer to as the “old” testament – one of which concerns the execution of homosexuals as abominations.

Blogged with Flock

Do you think you're a good person?

Do you think you’re a good person? Want to test that theory? Click here.
Me? Evil. I’ve:

  1. Stolen batteries (Hey! I was four! Give me a break!).
  2. Avoided religious services like the plague since my emancipation.
  3. been completely converted to “Jesus Frigging Christ on a Pogo Stick”.
  4. just told a lie – I actually use the other f-word.
  5. already read the Bible – several times – no reason to read it regularly.
  6. looked at others and had downright obscene thoughts.

The last question is plain stupid. The gods spoken of in the first commandment are merely the Yahweh’s competitors. Strictly speaking – you can believe in those gods, even worship them – as long as Yahweh is the Big Cajuna. Remember it says:

You shall have no other gods before me.

Gods are beings that may look like humans (some gods are represented by non-human animals) but are morally and ethically less developed than the average pig. The gods are not not human ideas (love, greed, etc) or creations (cars, money, houses).

So, even if you have a different god or two or three – as long as you put ole Yahweh first (as in before the other(s)) – you can ‘keep’ the first commandment – if you want.

Personally, I suggest taking ole Yahweh out and hanging the psychotic nut case.

1 2 3 4  Scroll to top