Except that’s actually what I said. At no time did I bash atheism. You are turning this around, or trying to. I must stop your dishonest debating tactic. My point was to paint atheism with a broad brush like you do atheism. So nice try, nice tactic.
It’s funny how often you make an emotional appeal to religious persecution to try and deflect an argument that makes you uncomfortable.
Atheists are just as responsible for the excesses of communism as Christians are for the lesser excesses of Christianity.
Fact: Communism was more oppressively violent over a shorter period of time than Christianity as an institution was over two millenia.
Fact: That has fuckall to do with modern atheists just as Christian violence has fuckall to do with modern Christians.
But try to turn it into a, ‘help I’m being oppressed.’, whine some more. It’s always funny.
You do better when taking the United States to task, because it wouldn’t surprise me if more people were killed in the name of the United States in all of history than were killed in the name of the Catholic church in all of history. Nationalism is much nastier and bloodier than Christianity ever was.
Hitler was a Christian don’t’cha know? Just like opponents of gay marriage. That’s relevant, but of course Stalin being an atheist isn’t. Funny how that works right?
I was kind of wondering what the point of it was, myself, insofar as I’m not expecting gay marriage to lead to pogroms or death camps or whatnot.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, commies and Catholics both have blood on their hands. Who cares? I thought we were talking about gay marriage.
My god this is tedious. There’s a common thread folks. It’s fundamentalism. The belief that one is the sole possessor of the truth, and that anyone who does not believe it is evil. The 9/11 hijackers were bad because they were fundamentalist, not because they were Muslim. The crusaders were bad because they were fundamentalist christians. Stalin was bad because he was a political fundamentalist. Fundamentalist adherence to any belief, religious or political, is the common thread here, and the real danger.
Or he’ll just beat you to death, since he’s a bigot. If he’s against SSM, then he’s an enemy of homosexuals. Not just someone with a mild disagreement, but someone who wants to deny them something that even multiple murderers are allowed. I see no reason to think someone like that is going to respond to talk. Or that he’s safe to talk to.
No. You get it right now, or you don’t get it at all. Again, despite you disliking the comparison that’s one lesson of the struggle for black civil rights. Waiting for decades under segregation just got them decades of segregation. It was demanding civil rights, NOW that got them what they wanted.
First, they never WOULD be the same. The one and only reason for having two sets of laws is to enforce bigotry. One reason it’s important to call those who oppose SSM bigots is to keep in mind that they are malignant. That they are not reasonable people looking for a reasonable solution, but motivated by a desire to inflict harm. Because if they WERE reasonable people, they wouldn’t be anti-SSM.
Second, the institution of marriage is recognized everywhere, civil unions are not. Nor is a particular place’s civil union necessarily recognized elsewhere. Nor do civil unions have the body of law backing them that marriage do. It’s just not possible to make them equivalent even if there was a serious attempt.
And third, if you set of two different sets of laws, you ARE setting up two separate “sets of governments” or at least of laws. And there’s no reason to think that they would stay the same, much less equal. Especially since inequality is the point.
I rather suspect your view on marriage being a right would differ if you were the one being forbidden to marry your loved one. And part of of the point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority; by your logic we should chuck out such little things as the First Amendment.
Of course you did, and have with your clearly false claim of equivalence between atheism and communism.
No, they aren’t. If they are, then why are the Communists the only atheist group you can point to as behaving like that ? As opposed to Christianity; it’s not like the evils commited by Christians were only commited by, say, Catholics.
No, the Communists were just more recent in memory and subject to less whitewashing.
Wrong again; communism as an ideology is nearly dead, and Christianity is still alive, well, and oppressing and killing.
Stalin was strongly anti-gay. So I suppose he has something in common with those who oppose gay marriage.
I’m kidding of course, but that’s why this whole line of debate is worthless.
Mswas and Magellan have no arguments that don’t boil down to, “It will piss off bigots.”
Interracial marriage pissed off bigots too. So did freeing slaves. So did school integration. So did a Catholic president. So did a Jew on the supreme court. So did women voting. Pissing off bigots is when America shines. Pissing off bigots is what is *best *about America.
Should we follow this back to its source since it was you who started talking about the blood on the hands of Christians? And then of course Der Trihs ran with it? God you guys are so dishonest in your tactics. Bring something up and then say, “I don’t understand why anyone is talking about that.”
So would you say that anyone who believes this way is a…gasp…bigot? Because really the important thing is to establish whether or not Der Trihs is a bigot.
Because it’s the only example of atheists ever having power…duh.
No, in sheer numbers, Communists were more violent than Christians hands down. No comparison. Show me any other ideology EVER that killed 50,000,000 people over the course of about 30 years. Not even the Nazis were as prolific as Stalin and Mao.
Well thank Jesus for that. And please give me a cite of where Christianity is still oppressively killing.
I am smarter than you, and I know that cowardice doesn’t apply here. Does that work for the other 12 kids on your school bus? Does some kid in a helmet get up and say, “I…am…not…a…cow…ard.”, and start flailing at you?
Or, to put it a bit more mildly, "it will piss off a subset of “traditional Christians” Imagine that; A federal law that does not kowtow to the desires of a subset of a particular religion!
Of course, what passes for debate among this ilk is to simply call those who disagree with their poor logic and reasoning “fucking morons”, or play the “you simply don’t understand my towering intellect” card.
