Comments on: Corvino: Don’t let the Perverted Analogy trip up the gay debate

By: rich1299

rich1299 — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:43:34 +0000

I’d like Corvino to explain exactly how being anti-gay and being racist are two different things, yes they’re different in that racists are against others of differing races while anti-gay folks are against others who aren’t hetero but essentially they are the same sort of thing yet Corvino implies they are totally dissimilar. Anti-gay people are like racists except they’re racist against LGBT people. I’m sick and tired of apologists for anti-gay bigots saying making light of anti-gay discrimination, yes it is just as bad to be anti-gay as it is to be racist regardless of what Corvino claims, the two are comparable. I don’t know Corvino or his beliefs but I’m starting to think he’s the sort that would be happy with domestic partnerships instead of marriage.

By: LeslieG

LeslieG — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:37:01 +0000

Faulty argument:

1. Adrian argument 1 says man has a 200,000 existence

2. Adrian argument 2 says And we did not evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, several million years ago.

3. Adrain argument 3 says Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago.

4. Finally descent, Adrian argument 4 says (I do not merely claim our relatives are apes – we are apes;

Adrian’s faulty argument explodes with Just because I don’t know, that doesn’t mean this gap in knowledge can be filled by any believer’s certainty.

By: LeslieG

LeslieG — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:14:30 +0000

Hmmm

By: Bob Moore

Bob Moore — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:04:09 +0000

The problem with religious people having views against certain social issues is this: If your personal religion is against gay marriage, then YOU shouldn’t do that. But you must not push these ideas on the rest of the population. After all, there are all types of beiefs in the US, including some who just don’t believe in any God. (30 million people). So don’t vote your personal beliefs into laws over the rest of us. If you can’t do this, you should not be an elected politician.
Bob Moore San Diego

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:52:27 +0000

Susie, the atheist proposition is indeed one of knowledge and brutal honesty: we know that we do not, and cannot know.

You seem to confuse knowledge with certainty – a madman who thinks he is Napoleon can be full of certainty too, but still ignorant of his true nature. The burden is on those who make the extrordinary claim, to provide the extraordinary evidence. How do you know this information? What are your sources?

Just because I don’t know, that doesn’t mean this gap in knowledge can be filled by any believer’s certainty. It’s a non-sequitur.

You could argue it is possible that an intelligent being set up the rules in which the universe operates. But the atheist only has to explain the first cause, one time. A believer has to explain the invention of the designer, and the designer’s designer ad infinitum. Humans are prone to inventing explanations when there are none. Divine explanations have been used when we didn’t know about the sun, or the stars, or why diseases, floods, hurricanes and earthquakes happen. And that every culture has had its own creation legend. Now we have better explanations, the concept of god lies in little pockets of ignorance such as the first strand of DNA or the Big Bang.

The question can only be one of probability: which explanation is more likely, the natural or the supernatural one?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:12:20 +0000

Jerrfey, the atheist proposition is not that ‘there is no god’, but ‘there is no reason to believe a god exists’. This, a position of doubt, and given the knowledge we have of life and the Universe around us, the most logical conclusion. It is the believer who has to explain, how he knows a god exists, and often, how he is so intimate with the mind of god, he knows god’s opinion about our sleeping arrangements. If a god were so concerned, what was he doing for the first 200,000 or so years of human existence, before deciding to intervene in Palestine, the only place in the middle east with no oil, from where the Good News has spread so slowly, 2/3 of the world’s population is yet to receive it? Now, you tell me, what proposition is more sane

By: Jeffrey Bing

Jeffrey Bing — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:30:52 +0000

Actually, the biggest fallacy is believing there is no God, when you first say you don’t even know if He ever existed.

How does an agnostic go from the position of not knowing to atheism? By accepting a fallacy of belief, when his originial position was more sane.

By: Art James

Art James — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:18:45 +0000

It is always a mistake to debate Gay rights with Xtian zealots … they will use that wretched book like a bloody meat axe … when the debate is dragged into the quicksand of circular “logic” and selective scripture, and condemnations by their pretend friend in the clouds … you lose …
there is no “winning” with reason. Are we the only country that has enshrined the right to be religiously insane in our constitution? What a mistake that was.

By: James M. Martin

James M. Martin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:56:06 +0000

The biggest fallacy of all is “God.”

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:39:12 +0000

I’m in favor of side stepping the whole line of discussion.

I try to redirect the conversation to this: In the USA, constitutionally, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…unless our behavior is reasonably demonstrated to be harmful to ourselves or others. I’d prefer it if you could show me research, but I’ll take any reasonable evidence of consistent harm being done by same-gender coupling. If you can’t demonstrate harm–preferably by research–then you need to allow me my liberty and pursuit of happiness.

…and doesn’t it bother you that there is zero scientific evidence that gay sex harms individuals or that gay families harm anyone at all?! Doesn’t that indicate a major flaw in reasoning, here? Could it be that we’re dealing with “strong beliefs” like “the world is flat” and “the stars and planets revolve around the earth”…other strong beliefs that were wrong and had no scientific basis?