HOME | DD
AtheosEmanon — Not Anti-Family
by-nc-nd
Published: 2011-09-01 23:41:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 4652; Favourites: 168; Downloads: 22
Redirect to original
Description
I saw a religious person post a stamp that said “I ‘m pro-family, not anti-gay”Which made me think of this photo: [link]
So figured I would do my, the straight guy who supports gay rights, version of it. .. meant to be satire, somewhat.
I know plenty of gays, several of whom have been in relationships longer than I have even been alive and are great parents and have strong families to their kids.
The American psychological association has done a study that has shown that there are no negative differences between a child raised by gay parents when compared to a kid raised by straight parents
[link]
Don’t know what else to put here…
Here are some other posts in my gallery that will tell my views or things I have written regarding homosexuality.
Gay Rights in America: [link]
Gay Rights in America II: [link]
Gay Debate with an ex-gay, born again Christian: [link]
Other pieces that may interest you [the reader]:
An atheist on theism + atheism: [link]
What it means to be an atheist: [link]
Those that influence me: [link]
Okay am done.
As always comrades,
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
-Emanon
…back to the cave I go
Related content
Comments: 142
I'd argue being pro gay is being pro family as more gay couples being allowed to adopt means more chances for orphans to have a loving family
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
But of course homophobes wouldn't care about that, they have what is essentially a weaponized breeder kink
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Not my kind of fun but to each their own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Expanding marriage to cover same sex relationships as well is - by no means - an ethically neutral thing to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who is speaking of ethical neutrality? Seems the argument is more legally equitable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But if it was considered as morally wrong, there would be no point of making it legally equitable, no?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who determines what is morally wrong? .. if we are to go by what is morally wrong by religious text then it is morally wrong to sleep in the same house with your spouse when they are on their period.. it is morally wrong for men to shave.. it is morally wrong to get tattoos, wear mixed linen .. who determines this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're saying this all the while determing what is morally acceptable...
Also, I'm pretty sure those are laws from the Old Covenant. Do you have any Biblical examples, that'd still be relevant today?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I asked you who determines what is morally wrong? Your argument said "But if it was considered as morally wrong"
who determines what is morally wrong?
In America for several centuries it was considered morally wrong for interracial couples to get married.. .. does someone saying something is morally wrong automatically make it a fact or are there objective planes of reason one can look at an argument and construct and destruct the so called morals and ethics of a thing?
"Also, I'm pretty sure those are laws from the Old Covenant. Do you have any Biblical examples, that'd still be relevant today?"
Not a biblical reader, are you?
Go read the Sermon on the Mount, it is all still relevant unless you are saying Jesus is wrong.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?…
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"
I would say read the prophetic claims of the Tanakh.. , a messiah coming was the first thing of many other things that were to happen before the prophecy was fulfilled
IF you believe Jesus was that prophecy, that was but one thing, your Jesus says until the entire prophecy is fulfilled not one letter of the law is to disappear aka no longer be relevant.
So since the Jewish prophecy in its entirety is not yet fulfilled, then according to your Jesus.. the law aka Old Covenant aka Old Testament still applies.
Unless you will somehow say the entire prophecy has been fulfilled even though even now, most of it has not
"You're saying this all the while determing what is morally acceptable..."
But I would like to stay on topic on your comment, and ask again.. who determines what is morally just?
Does a religious text tell us what is moral and as such a society should be based on religious texts, theocracy as opposed to what the people of a society agree upon aside from text, secularism.. understanding just because a group of people believe or agree on something does not make it moral nor Just just because they agree on it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, I missed the context, because I didn't see the comment of mine to which you replied. My initial point was, that being legal doesn't make an action moral (unless it was that already).
I agree, that for our subjective minds it is difficult to determine what is objectively righteous. I just wish to point out, that legalization of same-sex marriage is also a moral statement. Awfully often I see the supporters saying "Don't raise your views above others!' whereas that's exactly what they're doing. Every time a ruling is made, the opposing side's views are - in a sense - put in a lower position. This is inevitable, and I hate it when people are blaming me for it, all the while denying they're doing that themselves.
Jesus came here not to erase, but to fulfill the Law. Take Matthew 15:11 here for an example:
NKJV 'Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.'
As far as I can tell, there are Old laws about defility, as cleanness was a requirement for certain rituals. There are also rulings for old customs - like offerings - that are no longer relevant in the New Covenant. Actually, that should had been my first example of Jesus fulfilling the Laws of the Old Covenant.
There were also laws to define punishments which now has been effectively outdated. Read John 8:1-11 for an example. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says the following:
NKJV 'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.'
As for the last paragraph, there's a rhyme and reason behind the Biblical ruling. When it comes to creation-to-creation interaction, I cannot think of an example of a Biblical ruling, that would inherently require Faith in God to see why it'd be righteous. And the existing framework would still allow Biblical ruling if only majority of the nation believed in the same interpretation. So I don't suppose it's really that different from secular laws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"My initial point was, that being legal doesn't make an action moral (unless it was that already)."
This was replied to when I asked you who determines what is moral, to which you claimed my asking you what is moral was my making a claim that X is moral. to which the question was then put to you again and was yet again not addressed.
I see it not as a moral declaration as it is a legal equity statement, under the US Constitution 14th amendment has an equal protection clause, that is literally what it is called the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, now this ^^ as I linked from the person it was made from was made more from an American standpoint.
If you have a country constitution that says all citizens are to be treated equally under the eyes of the law, it is not a morally declarative statements that your citizens then want equal justice under the law.
If you, I assume a heterosexual person can marry the person you love, the homosexual person is simply asking for that same chance.
I personally do not care if someone raises their views about others, in fact, I prefer they do and see if those arguments are made from a logical and reasonable stance, which can be constructed and deconstructed under logical and reasonable replies - or it is a faith-based stance, at which I do not look at Middle Eastern men from 2,000 years ago as the great moral arbiters of what is contemporary moral and just.. from a people, that from what they thought of then would make a lot of what is just the normal day to day stuff, immoral according to their text.
'Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.'
Does not change what Jesus said on until the ENTIRE prophecy is fulfilled the law still applies.
Most of what the prophet was supposed to fulfill in Judaic prophecy has not happened, Israel is not the kingdom on Earth and the most powerful nation on earth, we do not have complete and utter peace on earth, every nation does not recognize Israel as the strongest kingdom and place on earth,
The old Laws were much more than about cleanliness. the Law is the Law, I am unsure if you have and judging from the claim I am rather sure you have not taken a religious studies and philosophy class. Think of Shariah, Islamic law is not just cleaning before prayer, or abstaining from pork, it is a Law at which tells of this or that is to be done throughout the life, Judaic Law is very similar in that it is not just about cleanliness.
So either you are correct and your Jesus is wrong.. or you are wrong and your Jesus is correct when he says until the entire Law is accomplished and ^^ what I named above are just a few things of the prophecy that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish, there is much more.
The Law that is to be accomplished, which is what will lead the Jews into a New covenant is the prophecy, any religious scholar knows that is what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of the Law being accomplished - which it has not been.
That is the reason most Jews on earth do not accept Jesus as the Messiah because most of the prophecy at which tells what the Messiah is supposed to do, has not yet been done.
There is reason to you, and as a human you can believe whatever you wish, but when religious law is intertwined with state law, I require a secular reason for said law before thinking because it is in the religious text that it is moral and ethical.. or Just.
The majority of something believing in something does not make that thing correct, that is why we have the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, a claim that if the majority believe it then it must be true
But let me challenge you on that, If you are in a nation where you have this belief, and the majority of people have another view, would theirs somehow be superior because they have more numbers? I do not think so
you do not see how laws based on secular needs of a society would be different than laws based on religious text says aside from the society? hmm
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When I have children of my own someday, I will teach my kids that there's nothing wrong with Homosexuality....I will be the BETTER parent!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pro Gay and Pro Family are mutually exclusive! Your either one or the other!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Because gay people can't have families? How does this even remotely make sense?
Unless, by "pro-family," you mean "pro-straight, cis, white Christian families only because nobody else counts."
Fun fact: the people who fought against interracial marriage ALSO said that pro-miscegenation types were anti-family. Interesting steps you follow in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And why should I care about miscegenation?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I remember an episode of a show I was watching and there was a homosexual couple (both females), and the social worker was like, "How will Angelica [their artificially inseminated child] ever know what a man is like?", and the wife to the pregnant mother was already pissed, so she replied, "Well, I suppose she'd turn on the television. I mean, there everywhere". I was dying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lmao, I always laugh as if people who have two male or two female parents will somehow never know what someone else is like.. so if two males with the.. oh but they need a mother..and if two females then the oh they need a father.. no, they need parents that will love and care for them pass that there is little left needed
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Too funny, this one's in my surprise box too....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The funny part is that back then, the village helped raise your kid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's what people forget.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now if you speak of the "village" helping people through a proper welfare and child care system.. NO! THEY ARE LAZY!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm talking about billy having lunch at one neighbor's house today while the neighbor's kid has lunch at mine the next day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that still happens but not enough to stop 1/5 of American kids with food insecurity
nor is it enough to stop that 51% of American workers make less than 30K a year according to the SSA
www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cg…
which would require raising wages and such hmm will we? doubtful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We raise ours a few months ago.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
when half of the country makes less than 30K a year and you have the top two Republicans Ben Carson and Trump saying we should get rid of the minimum wage... something is truly wrong
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They want to get rid of it because it'll save them money on import/export taxes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Their tax plans will also raise the deficits yet they do not appear to care
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I psychology student studying child psychology, nothing annoys me more than people claiming you have to have different sex parents, especially the ones that do no research into this particular area of study. Their only evidence is some individual children much later in life claim they 'wished they had a mother/father' however this doesn't mean their parents raised them wrong, its not them biologically missing anything, its just that they probably had a friend with different sex parents and liked the mum/dad and thought 'Man that'd be cool'.
Basically the only issue facing same sex add adoption is if the child falls for social stigma later in life that shouldn't exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's the same thing they claim about kids of mixed-race couples. "Oh, they're going to be worse off because their parents aren't the same colour. What will other people think? Those poor children!" etc.
And yet, the only problems for those kids - in either situation - come from the bigots.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yup, and I know plenty of kids with same-sex parents.. at times, such as a friend of mine, male, has two moms, and when growing up he would say he would have loved a dad to play sports with but that he would not trade in his moms for the world.. these are what I hear most often not the.OH MY LIFE WOULD BE BETTER IF I HAD DIFFERENT SEX PARENTS .. which logically speaking SURE I am sure there are some that may hold that view.. do I think they are a majority of people raised by same-sex couples? no.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Same. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>