Luke sayeth:

'The fact that we even have legislators talking about God at all, asking the question of what it is he would want, is a total bum out still, but at least my man here is using the powers of superstition for good for once. Pretty clever actually, like some Trojan Horse style shit, smuggling homos through the walls of Christiandom with a giant wooden statue of reason. "

The problem is that whenever government tackles social issues and invokes morality, even atheists/agnostics are themselves speaking in religious terms. The true atheist is one who is post-moral, not one who says that homosexuals/homosexuality (amongst other issues) is right or wrong.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality means extinction at most or an abberation at least.

I guess the point I'm making is that humanists are assholes just like Evangelicals are.

I think you could be right if we're talking on logical models removed from actual day to day living, but we don't live in a theory. The problem with that line of thinking is that it ultimately ends up at its logical conclusion with human beings huddled together in caves staving off the other bands of partnered up humans.

Homosexuality is neither right or wrong, it just is. It's less wrong in the way that most religious types say it is wrong than it is right though.

-Ad Frank

"The problem with that line of thinking is that it ultimately ends up at its logical conclusion with human beings huddled together in caves staving off the other bands of partnered up humans."

That is not a problem "with that line of thinking". I'm not even sure it's a "problem" - it's merely a feature of human nature. You're indulging in it here - this blog is your cave, and evangelicals (among other unfashionable groups and ethnicities) are an "other band". That is one of the difficulties with most variations of liberalism one comes across: they do not think of human nature as something to accomodate or consider, they think of it as something that needs to be altered permanently, based on some whispy idea of an ideal that has no connection to the real world.

And I think the earlier poster is right - I don't know what you mean, or are supposed to mean, by "right and wrong". I don't know what you're basing that judgement on - are you using any other yardstick besides what personally does and does not bother you? Legit question. What do you mean by those words?

Yeah, but anyone can come into my cave if they want /nohomo and I'm not going to go over to other caves and destroy them so I can take their stuff, unless you count stealing jokes from other blogs.

Human nature does need to be altered, and we have been in the process of doing that since the advent do civilization. We've just got a shit load of animalistic tendencies to beat down.

If homosexuality bothers someone, that is wrong, regardles of what it says about evolution or whatever the argument is there. Of course you think that means that I am subscribing to a sort of morality that doesn't jibe with being an atheist I suppose. I'm not an atheist anyway.

I agree with you, Luke. Say, would you like to rub balls Saturday night? I'll groom the sack and everything. Nohomo.

"If homosexuality bothers someone, that is wrong, regardles of what it says about evolution or whatever the argument is there"

I don't know what you mean, again. It is "wrong" according to what, or whom? What do you mean? For instance, a Christian might say "X is wrong according to 2000 years of Christian tradition". A muslim might say "X is wrong according to the Koran". A secular American might say "X is wrong according to Anglo-Western traditional morality and ethics" etc.

On what are you basing your ideas of "right" and "wrong"? "Wrong" according to whom, or what?

According to not being a fucking retard, that's what.

Mint E. - the most boring coke head ever!!

Still down for some male humping, O'Neil. Totalhomo this time.