Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Dawkins has exposed himself as a hateful pinhead. Hateful and bitter towards religion and religious people. American philosopher Daniel Dennett and British Biologist Richard Dawkins published articles calling on fellow unbelievers to give up the term "atheist." They suggest it had negative connotations.

They want to now be called "brights."

Dawkins defines a bright as one who espouses "a worlview that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism." [Richard Dawkins, "The Future Looks Bright," Guardian, June 21, 2003 ]

"We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the easter bunny - or God."

[ Daniel Dennet, "The Bright Stuff," New York Times, July 12, 2003 ]

This is meant to imply that these "brights" are the smart people that don't fall for silly superstitions.

What is truly entertaining about his statement is that it immediately verifies that his ideas aren't really all that "bright."

As a matter of fact it makes him, and Dawkins by association, look like dumbshits.

This is just a matter of a group of people who have long been considered a marginal and meaningless minority now lashing out in hatred at religion.

Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg writes "Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization."

[ Cited by George Johnson, "A free-for-all on Science and Religion," New York Times, November 21, 2006 ]

In otherwords, these creeps have declared war on religion and religious people. And they're going to try to wage it using science and rhetoric like this:

"All religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place."

[ Christopher Hitchens, "Bush's secularist triumph," Slate.com, November 9, 2004 ]

"The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric bronze age text known as the old testament, three anti-human religions have evolved: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

[ Richard Dawkins, statement to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, September 2001 ]

Quite funny.

Do these idiots really think that saying crap like this is going to help their case ? Help turn people away from religion ?

I suppose it may help affirm a few already atheists. They'll hear/read these statements and clap their hands and grunt in agreement.

Reasonable people will roll their eyes and see them for what they are though.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

(1) According to some it should probably be a goat or a mule. A horse ? A ____ fill in the blank.

"Party" A or B my eye.

(2) Like I said earlier, this crap turns people, individuals and entire civilizations, against themselves.

(3) This is about "love" alright. It's about a love/fetish for death.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

(1) Homosexuals already have all of the rights of every other citizen. They’re protected not only by the U.S. constitution, but by many other hard fought civil rights battles. It’s not about property rights, because even unmarried persons who are not partners have equal rights in the joint ownership of property.

(2) So what's it really about ?

It’s about destroying the family.

(3) In Karl Marx Communist manifesto:

“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course. Do you charge us for wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents ? To this crime we plead guilty. But you will say we destroyed the most hallowed of relations when we replaced home education by social . . . The bourgeois clap track about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting . . . by the action of modern industry.”

(4) The radical fringe of the homosexual movement is socialist. Some are communists and they wish to abolish the family unit so that children will be raised by the state.

(5) And they want to silence churches who speak Gods truth about the destructive nature of homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Hafke

(1) You're comparing two consenting adults of the same gender having sex to people having sex with animals?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

And lets take note;

It's not person A and person B. It's "party A" and "party B."

What's a "party ?"

According to some it should probably be a goat or a mule. A horse ? A ____ fill in the blank.

"Party" A or B my eye.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't think anyone would or could argue that it's normal. "Natural", on the other hand, is vague and subjective enough to be like describing something with words like "pretty" or "unpleasant".

Originally Posted by B.Tallmadge

I say if the goat or mule or horse can repeat the vows and say "I Do," then let them get married. But until talking animals who can express free will and consent show up, you're using this as an outlandish argument to skew the facts. This argument, if it can legitimately be called that for all its stupidity, is moronic.