Sarah Palin Gives Thumbs Up To Chick-fil-A

[NIU Students for Liberty]

In the last couple of pages, all I see are the atheists arguing for:

1. State education

and

2. expanded government in marriage

What board have I stumbled on to? Isn't this the forum where people should be arguing against licensing and against state education?

But this is the bizarro world of secularism. I've seen it a million times. Secularists can almost never be consistent libertarians.

Who is arguing for state education? I asked the gay marriage opponents if whether or not they'd want to maintain segregation in public schools since the government should have no role in education (like they should have no role in marriage but continue to do anyways).

 

[matt0611]

Who is arguing for state education? I asked the gay marriage opponents if whether or not they'd want to maintain segregation in public schools since the government should have no role in education (like they should have no role in marriage but continue to do anyways).

You're mixing up genetics / ethnicity / skin color with a behavior (homosexuality). Not the same thing.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You're mixing up genetics / ethnicity / skin color with a behavior (homosexuality). Not the same thing.

What does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you believe the sole purpose of marriage is to reproduce but for others (including myself), it's a symbol of love between the parties involved and nothing more. But seeing as how the government is not leaving the matter up to private individuals, it continues to grant benefits (which in turn affect other quasi private functions such as insurance) to married couples which happen to be heterosexual according to the law. Gays do not have access to the same benefits.

 

[jmdrake]

What does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you believe the sole purpose of marriage is to reproduce but for others (including myself), it's a symbol of love between the parties involved and nothing more. But seeing as how the government is not leaving the matter up to private individuals, it continues to grant benefits (which in turn affect other quasi private functions such as insurance) to married couples which happen to be heterosexual according to the law. Gays do not have access to the same benefits.

You made the argument regarding segregation and segregation was about race. It's got nothing to do with whether the sole purpose of marriage is to reproduce or not.

 

[brooks009]

You can read, correct? This is my exact quote:

MOST secular people in America and around the world are big-government statists. Let's not get confused about this very evident fact.
Not only did I not say what you thought I said, but I am correct in my estimation.

Correlation does not imply causation but that what you were implying.

I would rather indoctrinate children with facts, reason, and logic rather than fairytales, magic, and faith.
You see? There it is again. You set up the false dilemma of

indoctrination with "facts" (that is laughable anyway)
vs.
indoctrination with fairy tales

What you are creating is again a false dilemma that presupposes state education. You SHOULD be proposing freedom and ending state education, but this is yet another issue in which atheists who call themselves "libertarian" are almost never consistent in. I see it all the time and it is a huge problem.

Get consistent first before you start calling people idiots.

My dilemma does not presupposes state education. Indoctrination will happen with or without state education. You are assuming that indoctrination can only happen with state education.

 

[KingNothing]

You made the argument regarding segregation and segregation was about race. It's got nothing to do with whether the sole purpose of marriage is to reproduce or not.

*Looks around*

He made an analogy. And it was a pretty good one, at that.

 

[KingNothing]

You're mixing up genetics / ethnicity / skin color with a behavior (homosexuality). Not the same thing.

Yeah, it's those silly gays, choosing to be gay. Silly gay people! It's like they don't even care that their lives would be so much easier if they simply stopped finding people of the same sex attractive! Silly, silly gays!

 

[brooks009]

Yeah, it's those silly gays, choosing to be gay. Silly gay people! It's like they don't even care that their lives would be so much easier if they simply stopped finding people of the same sex attractive! Silly, silly gays!

Made me laugh.

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, it's those silly gays, choosing to be gay. Silly gay people! It's like they don't even care that their lives would be so much easier if they simply stopped finding people of the same sex attractive! Silly, silly gays!

Who said anything about choosing to be gay?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah, it's those silly gays, choosing to be gay. Silly gay people! It's like they don't even care that their lives would be so much easier if they simply stopped finding people of the same sex attractive! Silly, silly gays!

It looks like you have been brainwashed by homosexual propaganda, like most people. Not only are the numbers of homosexuals vastly overrated (and overrepresented in popular culture), there are people who come out of a homosexual lifestyle every single day. Every single day.

 

[jmdrake]

*Looks around*

He made an analogy. And it was a pretty good one, at that.

You're entitled to your opinion. Others are entitled to point out what the analogy isn't good.

 

[brooks009]

there are people who come out of a homosexual lifestyle every single day. Every single day.

This made me laugh even more.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, it's those silly gays, choosing to be gay. Silly gay people! It's like they don't even care that their lives would be so much easier if they simply stopped finding people of the same sex attractive! Silly, silly gays!

Substitute appropriate words for bestiality, incest, pedophilia etc in the above to see how silly the argument really is. Lots of people are involved in lifestyles that may or may not have a genetic component.

 

[brooks009]

The argument from Christians is that gay is a lifestyle choice but I would argue that we have no control over who we are attracted to sexually so there really is no choice except to choose to follow society's norms vs choosing to love who you are attracted to.

 

[brooks009]

Substitute appropriate words for bestiality, incest, pedophilia

Those things hurt someone else. You should know this as a libertarian. Being gay does not hurt anyone.

 

[erowe1]

The argument from Christians is that gay is a lifestyle choice but I would argue that we have no control over who we are attracted to sexually so there really is no choice except to choose to follow society's norms vs choosing to love who you are attracted to.

How do you figure that that's the argument from Christians?

 

[Zap!]

The argument from Christians is that gay is a lifestyle choice but I would argue that we have no control over who we are attracted to sexually so there really is no choice except to choose to follow society's norms vs choosing to love who you are attracted to.

Those who are attracted to family members don't choose it either. Doesn't mean we should treat them the same as everyone else.

 

[specsaregood]

The argument from Christians is that gay is a lifestyle choice but I would argue that we have no control over who we are attracted to sexually so there really is no choice except to choose to follow society's norms vs choosing to love who you are attracted to.

But you do have a choice of behavior and which attractions you act upon. Alcoholics in recovery choose to not drink even though they are attracted to it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This made me laugh even more.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and it seems like you have taken the homosexual propaganda hook, line, and sinker. There are large organizations of people who are seeking therapy to come out of homosexuality:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

Do they always work? No, of course not. Because sin, especially this type of sexual sin, involves a suppressing of one's own nature in which God had made them. As Romans 1 points out, the issue of homosexuality is a deep issue of sin...so much so that it affects the mind..

 

[erowe1]

Those things hurt someone else. You should know this as a libertarian. Being gay does not hurt anyone.

You're switching around the argument now. Is it about whether or not something is a choice, or is it about whether or not something harms someone?

You could add other things to the list, such as any kind of addiction. Addicts don't simply choose to be addicts, and they can't simply choose not to be addicts. And their behavior doesn't necessarily directly harm anyone but themselves. But I still think there's something wrong with it.