The crazy, it’s coming! »« Torrential torrenty torrents!

Open thread on episode #712

I’m not Hitchens, and so I’m often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe’s arguments.

His obsession with words and their proper definitions would be a lot more persuasive if he weren’t being so self-serving and hypocritical about how he argues his position. When he called Tracie and me two weeks ago, the burden of his argument was that the word homophobia has a colloquial meaning that has changed and evolved from its dictionary definition, so as to incorporate such things as “disgust” rather than strictly “irrational fear” (the meaning of “phobia” in a nutshell). Charlie was supportive of this evolution of homophobia’s meaning, of course.

But he is not similarly supportive of a change and evolution of the definition of marriage. While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples (even though the almighty dictionary says it can). And Charlie’s whole justification for opposing any expansion of marriage‘s definition is an appeal to tradition and consensus, the very things he thinks should be ignored in the case of homophobia.

It’s a pure double standard, of the sort that people who are smart enough to know better often hold, so as to convince themselves that an intellectually and morally offensive point of view is in fact intellectually and morally justified. But as Russell said, if the guy isn’t actually out to impinge on anyone’s rights, then his word games are just so much noise.

I personally still don’t get why people so desperately latch onto these kinds of justifications. I’d find it ridiculously presumptuous of me to instruct a couple of strangers, who happened to be consenting adults, on what term they were allowed to apply to their personal relationship commitment, because “traditional” terms made me uncomfortable. If gay people want to be married and call it “marriage,” how does that harm me? How does it negatively impact my life in any degree whatsoever? What’s it got to do with me anyway? Nothing, that’s what.

And yet Charlie is so desperate to justify his folly that he’ll call my position irrational. Whatever. Seems to me the dude’s on no more sensible, let alone honest, ground than Tony Perkins.

Comments

  1. says

    Martin:Maybe if you were just a hair quicker on the mute trigger… just to give yourself the space to present your view without the person on the phone shouting over you? I think you guys handled this fairly well, but I think if you'd cut the guy off sooner you might have made your case more clearly and with less difficulty.

  2. Martin says

    Well, I wasn't in charge of the buttons today. But Russell handled it expertly. The "schmarriage" question was gold.

  3. says

    This is Charlie,You said,"While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples" That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACYUnlike the word marriage, the term "homophobia" was a misnomer and full of DECEIT every since it was invented. Even though the suffix is "phobia", It was NEVER a phobia. It was NEVER about fear of gays. The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place. They allowed this MISNOMER in the dictionary when it was never supposed to be in the dictionary. The suffix "phobia" of the word it outright DECEIT and TRICKERY. The term homophobia has been and still is deceitful by default. So the word never really "evolved" because it was never what it was suppose to mean in the first place.On the other hand, Unlike homophobia, the term marriage is NOT a misomer.. Unlike homophobia, the term marriage was NEVER been deceitful by default. Unlike homophobia, the definition of marriage has always been CLEAR. The problem I have with the gay movement is since they refuse to stop using the term incorrectly, the next best thing is to apply pressure on them to at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.

  4. Martin says

    The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place.Citation needed.In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology.This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not. In those cases, the term "homophobia" might apply less well than simply to say the person is prejudiced. But in the end it's all the same. I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever.Anyway, definitions do change, and that of marriage is expanding to include same-sex couples, as the dictionary.com link reveals. You may not like that fact, but really, that's your problem. Your faux-intellectual justifications for what is simple bigotry still fail to convince.

  5. says

    Oh good god. Can someone post the timestamp for this assclown's call, so I can fast-forward when I get the podcast edition in the morning?Unless he got royally served, you know.

  6. says

    @CharlieHomophobia is not a misnomer unless you willfully disregard its common meaning. It still has its medical meaning, but the far more common meaning means something different.This is very similar to a related issue, where 'theory' has both a common and scientific meaning, and creationists so love to purposefully use the wrong definition based on the context.In the case of 'homophobia', using the medical definition in a common context is deceitful, and using the common one in a medical context is confusing. That doesn't mean either definition is inherently wrong or deceitful, just that you're being far too anal about a specific definition that you feel should be the only one.In the case of the use of 'marriage', besides your bizarre preference for a specific definition once again, why should anyone care?

  7. says

    It's standard religious practice to make assertions that aren't true. It ranges from calling atheism a religion, to insisting that scientific evidence points to a 6,000 year old earth, yet includes varying things such as, "the evidence is 'inconclusive,'" or my favorite old chestnut, "science is flawed because it's created by man." We won't mention that anything we know about the bible would be flawed by that logic, that would hurt their brain. The arrogance and willingness to deceive and lie seen in theists is quite astounding, even to the point that theists have *told me* what I believe, even after being corrected. What the homophobe was doing is classic religious rationalization; protecting and assaulting the same standards in a double-think mindset. It's similar to insisting that evidence for god exists, and having to resort to it being a matter of faith, which can often then "red herring" into the further self-deluded rationale, "you'll understand *when* you have faith." In short, Charlie was a common, lowly mind.

  8. says

    Incoming shitstorm detected."The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior."That must make me a homophobephobe.By the way Charlie, is your problem only with regard to this petty marriage "misnomer", or do you actually think that homosexual couples should be treated as second-class citizens by the law?

  9. says

    Charlie: that's okay, we'll just call you a bigot.I haven't listened to the episode yet, but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history? For most of the time in the west, it's meant "a financial transaction between families where a young woman and some assorted property are sold to a (usually much older) man." In other cultures, it's meant "an arrangement where any number of women are held in sexual servitude by a single man." The idea of "one man and one woman sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love" is a comparatively new innovation. And before that, it was "one man and one woman of the same race and religion sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love." And all that, of course, ignores marriages of convenience, political marriages, or shotgun weddings. The "one man, one woman, monogamous and in love for life" marriage model makes up a minority of marriages. Not that any of it matters. I don't see what harm is done to Charlie by a gay couple in Massachusetts falling in love, deciding to be monogamous, and applying for the same rights everyone else has to visit each other in the hospital and claim each other on their taxes and so forth.

  10. says

    Missed this: at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Citation please. Quick question, Chuck: why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights? And before you say HIV, note two things: that it's a recent disease (and so wouldn't explain anti-gay bigotry stretching back into antiquity) and that it crossed over due to butchering bushmeat in Africa. If disgust is a disease-avoidance adaptation, then why weren't the industrializing Africans at the turn of the century adapted to feel disgust toward primates with SIV? And what about cultures who don't have that disgust? There are lots of heteroflexible societies in history (ancient Greece, for instance) who apparently lacked that disgust. Can you demonstrate that there's a biological component (necessary if it's an evolutionary adaptation) and that it's not just cultural? I'd be very interested in seeing that study.

  11. says

    If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.

  12. says

    This is Charlie,To Martin, You said,"Citation needed"The burden of proof is on you, Mr. atheist. You should know that. Cite the study that shows homophobia IS rooted in fear. Just like I thought, many pro gay atheists become like Christians when discussing gay issues."In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology"Where's the study to support this??? There is none and the FATALLY FLAWED study from the Univ. Of Georgia doesn't count because1. It was too small ( no more than 70 subjects)2. It wasn't repeated or duplicated even once3. It didn't cover various people from varous cultures and backgrounds4. it was possibly rigged. "This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not"Then that makes the term homophobia a misnomer and DECEITFUL. Why would anyone invent a word with the suffix phobia added to it KNOWING the word is not really a phobia??? That's like someone inventing the word homo-schizo knowing the people who will be labeled that aren't really schizophrenic. "I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever"Feces doesn't affect my life in anyway but I have the right to express disgust of it and expressing disgust of gay men is NOT "bigotry" or "irrational"…I don't think you want to claim that every single human is a "bigot" because everyone is disgusted by something. Disgust is not "bigotry". Is that the best you can do? Many pro gays including atheist pro gays are clearly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their views regarding gay issues and that's TRUE bigotry. Denying someone a Miss America title because of a disagreement is PURE bigotry.Thy Reaper,

  13. says

    To Thy Reaper,"Homophobia is not a misnomer unless you willfully disregard its common meaning"You mean the meaning that doesn't even apply to 99% of the people they label "homophobes"?The "common" meaning is a LIE to begin with. It's like going around calling a bunch of skinny people "fat"…It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites. "It still has its medical meaning, but the far more common meaning means something different"Homophobia doesn't even have a diagnostic criteria. Religion and homophobia are equally major bullshit LIES"just that you're being far too anal about a specific definition that you feel should be the only one"That's FALSE,I'm not a "demon" or a "devil" and if a Christian labels me that, I'll become "anal" about that too because deceit and false labels are simply wrong and unethical. Shame on my fellow atheists.I treat pro gay deceit the same I treat religious deceit. Deceit it deceit. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays???

  14. says

    You mean the meaning that doesn't even apply to 99% of the people they label "homophobes"?The "common" meaning is a LIE to begin with. It's like going around calling a bunch of skinny people "fat"…No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach. Or, as someone mentioned in the previous episode's thread, calling an anti-Judaism person an "anti-Semite," which literally means "against people who belong to Semitic cultures" and, literally, encompasses many Arabs and excludes many Jews.The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous?

  15. says

    To Tom Foss,"but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history?"if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do. "why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights?"You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease? Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk. STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids. Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.

  16. says

    Harrod: If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.Great. And after they've discussed how there's no God, what will they do with the other 58 minutes?Listen to the intro again, Harrod, specifically about how the ACA is an organization dedicated to positive atheism and the separation of church and state. That latter bit is the significant part here, since arguments against gay rights and marriage equality, 9 times out of 10, are derived from religious positions. As Rebecca Watson recently pointed out, most of the religious right's current attacks on church/state separation aren't just creationism in schools and Ten Commandments monuments, but attacks on women's rights, reproductive health, and gay rights. Which puts those issues squarely within the purview of the ACA's mission statement. Not that I think they'd need to justify those conversations.

  17. says

    Charlie,It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language. Look, as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons. Those people might be homophobes. There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality. They would be prejudiced. And you know what? Some people might mistakenly call themselves a homophobe when really they're just prejudiced. *clears throat in an accusing manner* But your whole premise relies on some study showed that all homophobia is based on disgust instead of fear? Or are you sure that this study wasn't just showing that people who call themselves homophobes actually aren't? I want a citation of this study that shows that homophobia is actually disgust and not fear. As Martin said, there have been studies that have shown that homophobia is more about the homophobe than it is the object of the homophobia. I really want a citation. And even if you do have a citation, I'm already skeptical of the study. I want to know how they conducted the study, what were the objectives, all of the variables present, etc. Moreover, I want to know what the results really were, because I sincerely believe you may have misinterpreted the results.

  18. says

    "No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach"This is a HUGE faulty analogy fallacy. Accusing someone of suffering from a "phobia" when they're not really suffering from a "phobia" is NOTHING LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear. Why won't you pro gay, deceitful, irrational atheists be truthful about it??? You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission. The word homophobia is nothing but a verbal political weapon…The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous? 6/05/2011 10:59 PM

  19. says

    P.S.It's silly for anyone to make a blanket statement about two distinct groups of people. It seems like for you, Charlie, it's either all people who are homophobes are disgusted or not. Instead, it makes a whole heck of a lot more sense to say that there are some who have a fear of homosexuality, and others who are disgusted by it. You're trying to cram both of those into one word that already has a precise definition.

  20. says

    "No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit"Pro gay atheists support the gay movement and the gay movement supports and promotes deceit so therefore, anyone who supports the gay movement supports deceit."See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support"Pro gay atheists are being deceitful and trying to deceive the masses but they're against religion partly because of deceit.I said, I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.You responded,"2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous?" Pro gay atheists and pro gays try to punish certain people by falsely labeling them homophobes and bigots… Conformity is when a person agrees to avoid punishment. So I won't conform for atheists or religion

  21. says

    "The eligibility requirements for blood donation "i could find make no mention of sexual orientation at all. Examples: http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirementshttp://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htmhttp://www.donatingplasma.org/whydonate/eligiblity.aspx" I can do even better than that.Men who have sex with men are not allowed to donate. It's standard precedure for all plasma centers.Phone: 1-800-374-4927Address: 4954 van nuys blvdCity: Sherman OaksWebsite: http://www.hemacare.com

  22. says

    And don't start appealing to evolution for moral judgments. That's simply absurd. Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be. For example, just because we have an evolutionary urge to procreate does not mean that we should go fuck everything with two legs. There's still an "ought" to be present there. And if there were an evolutionary IS statement about disgust for homosexuality, how is it that so many people missed that disgust? Evolutionary Developments never justify anything. ALL they can do is serve as the basis for some kind of justification. But, let's say for a second that we can get morality from evolutionary IS. It doesn't work out too well for you, I think. For example, it seems to me that most of humanity places some kind of value on the respect of persons, or at least desires the respect of persons. Rousseau called it our Second-Order Desires. This would mean that even if we have an evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, we have another evolutionary urge to respect them as a person capable of making their own choices. Odd how that works out, isn't it? Evolutionary is-statements are never moral ought-statements when left alone.

  23. says

    What Charlie does not understand is that the meaning of words change over time and take on extra meanings. A great example is the word 'gay'; it used to be mean merry and carefree. Today it also means a homosexual man. It is slowly gaining another meaning of "absurd", as in, "That movie was so gay." (Also this meaning tends to tick some people off). So, this just means that Marriage 'used' to mean a union between a man and a woman, but now it also means between any two people. Either way though, I think that the Schmarriage was a great word and we should start using that ;)

  24. Martin says

    You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission.Charlie, I'd be perfectly happy to replace "homophobe" with "raving ignorant bigot" in reference to you. No sweat.But anyway, if you're going to make such easily refutable false claims such as that gays are disallowed from donating blood, perhaps you ought to change your nick to "atheistdeceitpurveyor".Why won't you pro gay, deceitful, irrational atheists be truthful about it???I never took clinical psych, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest you're projecting like a motherfucker on at least two of those.Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.Replace "evolutionary" with "Biblical," and guess who sounds like a Christian now?Seriously, you're impressing no one with this crap. In any case, the majority of HIV infection in Africa has been through heterosexual contact and the sex trade.

  25. says

    Dawkins frequently says that we abandon our Darwinian drives every time we use a condom. If you're going to appeal to an evolutionary disgust to say that homosexuality is wrong, then you better stop wearing a condom for the sake of consistency.

  26. says

    "Std's among gays are so serious"Assuming that the rate of STI's is higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals, of the top of my head, I can think of a possible causal reason for this.Not all people wear condoms to reduce the risk of STI's, the risk of unwanted pregnancy is also a factor. As pregnancy via gay sex is impossible, this may lead to a decrease in the usage of condoms and thereby a higher risk of homosexuals contracting an STI.This isn't an intrinsic fault in homosexuals, Charlie, it may have more to do with a lack of proper sexual education.By the way, if your disgust is about "disease avoidance", then you have nothing to fear from gays with STI's, as they won't be having sex with you anyway."Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified"Why "evolutionary disgust"? Who says that having a portion of homosexuals in our population isn't evolutionarily beneficial?

  27. says

    Blindmansleeps"It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language"The entire gay movement uses a word that CLEARLY misleads people into thinking the word "homophobia" is a "phobia" and manages to use the definition "irrational fear" WITHOUT ONE STUDY to support their DECEIT… I'm not putting enough weight on language. The gay movement are CONTORTIONISTS."as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons" Those people might be homophobes"Where are the studies Mr atheist? So far, it's all hearsay. That's what Christians do."There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality"More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice".

  28. says

    I would point out that a full podcast of The Infidel Guy featured Charlie.It is on ITunes and is "Episode 500 – Fighting Against 'The Gay agenda'" It is 2 hours long and is actually quite informative. Also, his justifications are hilarious.

  29. says

    Charlie: if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do. There's no right or wrong, but changing back to "husband and wife" would be good? Boy, for someone with such a mad-on about word definitions, you seem to have a lot of trouble with them. You realize, Chuck, that no one has changed marriage away from "husband and wife," right? Even the states with marriage equality still allow straights to get married. It's not like it's one or the other, or like there's only so many marriage licenses they can give out each year. You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.You're like a Christian dodging questions and making unsupported assertions. What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease? Every year, between 5 and 20% of people get influenza. That means, during flu season, if you're in a crowd of twenty people, chances are one of them is carrying a contagious and potentially fatal disease. And that's just one of the thousands of communicable diseases that are out there (quick citation). Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk. And that's what I call discrimination based on a practice started in the '80s and never revised. But this isn't a citation, Charlie, and has nothing to do with data. It has to do with regulations, which may or may not be reasonable and evidence-based. STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids.Please provide a link to this study. And, for that matter, why it's relevant. Large cities tend to attract larger proportions of gays (and minorities of other types as well); large cities also tend to have better medical facilities. You may be getting correlation and causation backwards here; HIV-positive folks may flock to cities because A) they have the medical support they need and B) they are likelier to have HIV-positive communities for support and to prevent outside transmission. Not that it supports your thesis, of course. If your argument is that disgust is an adaptive trait based on disease avoidance, then HIV is too new to account for anti-gay bigotry. Incidentally, 26% of women test positive for genital warts. One in six people has genital herpes. If you feel disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism, Charlie, then why aren't you just an agoraphobic misanthrope?Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.You have not demonstrated that gay men are a greater disease threat than other groups (incidentally, black men are the next largest group of HIV-positive people. Is racism also evolutionarily justified?).You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry has any heritable component.You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry is the result of specific adaptive traits rather than a side-effect or spandrel.You have not demonstrated why homosexuality would induce these feelings of disgust when other disease-transmitting activities (heterosexual intercourse, being in crowds, eating bushmeat, etc.) do not induce those feelings.You have not provided any citations to support any of your claims. So, once again, who's arguing like the Christian?

  30. says

    "ho says that having a portion of homosexuals in our population isn't evolutionarily beneficial?"STUDIES show homophobia is rooted in disgust and study shows disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. On the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit. Spreading hiv is not a benefit.I"m going to bed, good nightWhy can't you stop acting like Christians and accept the harsh truth for what it is. God is fake and homophobia is a DISEASE AVOIDANCE BEHAVIORDEAL WITH IT.

  31. says

    Charlie, after that response, I'm convinced that you simply don't understand language at all. Either that, or you've got the worst case of selective reading possible. Regardless…http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901001179"Findings suggest that homophobia is related to heightened levels of masculinity and may develop in men who feel threatened by individuals whom they perceive to have feminine characteristics (e.g. women, gay men)."http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm"Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "—It seems as if the homophobic reaction is quite a complex one. It might be part disgust, part repressed homosexuality, part anxiety, partly feeling threatened. To say it's all disgust is exactly what I was worried about in your supposed study in the first place: it's a blanket statement that you assume covers all homophobia. However, that's not the case.

  32. says

    "Marriage" is an important and loaded word though. If I MARRY an American, I automatically qualify for a Green card; if I enter into a CIVIL PARTNERSHIP with an American, I don't. IOW, "marriage" is a LEGAL definition, Charlie's word games notwithstanding.

  33. says

    LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear. Black is "specifically" the absence of color. It is "specifically" not-brown in the same way that phobia is not-hate. Except (as I mentioned in the other thread) we use "-phobia" to mean things other than "irrational fear" in other contexts as well. In biochemistry, certain molecules are described as "hydrophobic" based on their interactions with water (or more specifically, their lack of such interactions). Molecules, lacking minds, are incapable of fear, rational or otherwise. In other words, language isn't as rigid as you want it to be, Charlie. You're wrong. Get over it. You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission.I use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word to describe anti-gay bigotry. It's the word that our culture has developed to describe that phenomenon, for better or worse. But again, I don't need to use the word homophobe for you, Charlie. "Bigot" is just fine with me. Ignorant bigot is even better, if a little redundant. Pro gay atheists support the gay movement and the gay movement supports and promotes deceit so therefore, anyone who supports the gay movement supports deceit.Which doesn't make them a hypocrite, again, unless they specifically oppose deceit. You have a real problem with reading comprehension, Charlie. Pro gay atheists are being deceitful and trying to deceive the masses but they're against religion partly because of deceit.Ah, now here we come to it. Except that deceit is defined as "The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth," and nothing about pro-gay atheists is misrepresenting or concealing the truth, from their perspective. You can bitch and moan about the word "homophobe," Charlie, but would you be any less angry if every time a pro-gay atheist used "homophobe"–the culturally recognized term for anti-gay bigotry–they instead used "anti-gay bigot"? Pro gay atheists and pro gays try to punish certain people by falsely labeling them homophobes and bigots… Conformity is when a person agrees to avoid punishment. I'd say you're being truly labeled a bigot, that is, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance," Charlie. More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice". You're right. Prejudice would be "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason," while disgust is "a strong distaste; nausea; loathing." Totally different.

  34. says

    And besides, you haven't answered my big point, which should really turn you on your head. So what if we have an evolutionary disgust, how do you derive a moral-ought out of that is statement?As I said, we also have an evolutionary drive to procreate, yet we all agree that it's wrong to go around raping women. So, something happened between the "is" (the drive to procreate) and the "ought" (thinking it's wrong not to rape women) that made the "is" inferior to the "ought."I don't see how it'd be any different in your case.

  35. says

    "But anyway, if you're going to make such easily refutable false claims such as that gays are disallowed from donating blood, perhaps you ought to change your nick to "atheistdeceitpurveyor"Are you ready to feel like an irrational Christian? My source FDAhttp://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm"Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals"

  36. says

    Ugh… I'm sick of the whole definition argument. Claiming that definitions don't change or that words can be put "under attack" is akin to saying that language has never evolved in all of human history — that the people living 10,000 years ago spoke exactly the same language with exactly the same phrases that we speak today.You don't even need to look a few decades to see new words pop up, old words fade out, and existing words change definitions. Look more than a few decades — out to a few hundred years, and you'll see even more dramatic changes. Go back a little more than 500 years to pre-Shakespearean England and they're not even speaking "Modern English" anymore. You wouldn't be able to understand that. Go back a few more centuries to before the Black Death and the Great Vowel Shift and you'll discover the pronunciation of English is not even the same, and you wouldn't be able to pick out more than one or two familiar words (yet differently pronounced)!Words mean what they mean now, regardless of their original intent. For all of it's history, English has been borrowing and warping words from other languages, and today it is one of the most versatile languages on Earth. More than 50% of the words we use today are not technically "English" as they come from Latin and Greek roots via French. North American "English" contains hundreds of words of Native American origin. Every word we use today has changed from its original meaning, spelling, and pronunciation. The argument to a word's past definition is so utterly meaningless, and it betrays a complete lack of thought on the part of the person making the argument. Not even one full minute's worth of brain activity should make it patently obvious that languages change, and if you haven't taken the time to invest that much thought into your argument, then your argument is not worth making.

  37. says

    "Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be"So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window??? That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system…That's sillyAlso, consider this."Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article

  38. says

    On the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit.You really know nothing about evolution. Read up, dumbass. Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom, and is known to be an adaptive trait in various instances (another example are the lizards who are all female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but need to engage in homosexual conduct to stimulate the process) and not an adaptive (but also not a maladaptive) trait in other instances. Not every trait confers an evolutionary benefit or has an evolutionary explanation. And even if it did, as blindmansleeps pointed out, deriving "right" or "wrong" from them would be committing the is-ought fallacy.

  39. says

    So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?You do understand Gay people existed prior to AIDS/HIV right?People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do. So what's the point? Are racists really just afraid of contracting sickle cell anemia or a scorching case of the 'blacks'!? I mean that's the same sort of argument you're making. This is all an exercise in trying to rationalize your bigotry. The more sources you cite, the more you hamstring your argument.

  40. says

    Mathew Meyers,Your'e right…Definitions do change so the few states that have legalized gay marriage can change back to marriage between man and woman. So YOU need to realize that definitions change

  41. says

    "If you're going to appeal to an evolutionary disgust to say that homosexuality is wrong"That's a straw man fallacy. Theists use those all the timeI never said homosexuality is "wrong". I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior.

  42. says

    "So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window???That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system…That's silly"Have you ever used a condom, Charlie? You're throwing evolutionary drives out of the window!We consider it immoral to commit rape. I guess you're okay with rape, too?And seeing how evolution requires procreation, I assume that you're fully aware that you're now morally required to father as many children as your poor groin can push out with as many women as possible. Yes. That's right. Morally required. And, in the medical world, vaccinations are just about the most unnatural slap in the face to evolution we could issue. So, stop vaccinations! Just letting you know some things you're going to have to commit to in order to be consistent.

  43. says

    "I never said homosexuality is "wrong". I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior."So, wait. Homosexuality is then a moral action. And you are disgusted with a moral action. Wow. This just keeps getting better.

  44. says

    charlie, you're a bigot. if you want the proper definition of that just search it in a dictionary. Martin is way to intelligent to waste his time arguing with a bigot about a topic that has little relevance to the show. I want to see the host and co host destroy some christian's ideas, not get a vocabulary lesson!

  45. says

    "I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior."There is another little flaw in your syllogism here. Well, homophobia isn't a disease. And disgust is used in many ways conversationally than "disease avoidance behavior." For example, I can say that the Yankees disgust me. Yet, the Yankees aren't a disease that I'm trying to avoid. That might not be a literal use of the word, but it's common nonetheless. You're taking the common use of the word and mistaking it for the literal. But, I'm pretty sure that homosexuality isn't a disease. I mean, I've never heard of anyone catching homosexuality. And if they were to say something as silly as that, I'd probably just assume that they were *AFRAID* of homosexuality. Hmm.

  46. says

    the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit. "Read up, dumbass. Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom""dumb ass"???? You just broke the respect code you straw man fallacy spewing FAGGOTI never denied that homosexuality and mental disorders don't occur in the animal kingdom stupid queer.Homosexuality AND mental disorders occur in the animal kingdom. So homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders. AS a matter of fact, Schizos and queers BOTH have abnormal brain structures.Hey faggot, When queers accuse me of "hate speech", keep in mind that I didn't break the respect code. Respect me and I'll respect you, ya nasty faggot. DES mothers increases the risk of a female fetus going gay. That's a PRENATAL ERRORtaking certain diet pills while pregnant increases the risk of a female fetus going gay. that's a PRENATAL ERROR.There's evidence that mercury POISON causes some birds to go gay. so that's caused by fuckin TOXINS.There's evidence that a woman's body mistakens the male fetus for being a foreign object and attacks it when the woman has already gave birth to several males.The existence of queers is PROOF that natureis NOT perfect and god is NOT real….Queers are a common malfunction in nature.

  47. Martin says

    If you want to use supposed evolutionary drives as a justification for your views, well heck, all we're supposed to do as far as evolution is concerned is live long enough to pass on our genes through reproduction, and then die to make way for the next generation. So you could say that if you live long enough to become a grandparent, you're denying your evolutionary drive.There are any number of ways we've done an end run around evolution. The whole of modern medicine, which seeks to cure every disease imaginable, is devoted to it.Using evolution to justify what is nothing more than routine anti-gay prejudice is really just the naturalistic fallacy all over again. And as Tom Foss has pointed out, homosexual behavior is not unique to homo sapiens. So it's an ignorant position at best.Yes it's true, heterosexuals find gay sex distasteful or even disgusting. That's part of being heterosexual. Expanding that distaste for the act (which no heterosexual is in any way obligated to take part in) into some elaborate series of justifications for treating an entire group of people as undeserving of the same rights as the mainstream is accurately termed bigotry. (I know you said on the show that you're happy for gays to have all the same rights as married straights as long as they don't call their union a "marriage." But why you think calling something by a different name makes it something else is still a mystery to us.)Anyway, I'm disgusted by brussels sprouts. But I'm pretty sure they won't give me a disease.

  48. says

    Charlie, Please point us to the, "more than one study", Facts of the disgust for gays?The following is taken from a very nice assay about the Topic "Homophobia" (http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm)It's disgusting! Has the person who says that ever watched sausage being made?There are many things that go on in society that we would consider disgusting, but we don't outlaw them just because of that. In fact, many of these activities are quite essential to the functioning of a modern society, but we simply turn our minds to other matters and don't concern ourselves with them.Heterosexuals need to remember that they themselves are 'disgusting' to many homosexuals; it will come as quite a surprise for them to discover that the feeling is mutual. Yet it would be ludicrous for the gay person to suggest that heterosexuality ought to be persecuted; why shouldn't it work just as well the other way around? Isn't respect and tolerance a two way street?And frankly (pun intended) you disgust me, but I can live with that, can you?

  49. says

    flexible elf,"So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?"Are you ready to feel like an irrational Christian?Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat. Disgust is like a window to the past. It tells us what's bad for us.Before you use the race card, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust Mr "atheist"You pro ghay athests are just like Christians. There's so much you don't understand.

  50. says

    "Heterosexuals need to remember that they themselves are 'disgusting' to many homosexuals"Where's the study to support this? You pro gay atheists are just like christians.

  51. says

    "People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do"Are you ready to feel like a dumb ass Christian AGAIN?Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it. You're just like those dumb Christians. You think you have a point but then you end up feeling dumb.

  52. says

    "Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it."No, that universal disgust of gays is just you and bigots like you.

  53. Martin says

    Charlie, the petulant replies are just making you sound more and more desperate. If people who point out the myriad failings in your arguments are "just like Christians," then seriously, you've run out of ammo long ago even though you keep squeezing those triggers.Protip: You need to quit talking about "studies" without citing them.Again, racists consider interracial sex disgusting. Does this mean that people of different races pose a "disease threat" to one another? Or does it just mean that racists are stupid?Again, I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts. So does this mean they pose a "disease threat" to me? Or do I just not care for the taste?See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance, stupidity, or a simple case of "different strokes," as much as any kind of legitimate "threat".

  54. says

    ""http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm""Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "Are you ready to feel stupid again???This is nothing but a FLAWED STUDY.1, too small (mot even 70 subjects)2. wasn't repeated or duplicated EVER3. didn't cover a variety of cultures and backgrounds4. It was contradicted by more reliabe studies more than once.5.possibly rigged.

  55. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterCharlie, I made not claims about any studies. You did however make that claim. All I ask was you back that claim up. Oh, by the way do a Google Search on; "disgust of heterosexuals by homosexuals". Note you'll get about 5 million hits, the top ten being very to the point. Their not studies of course there opinions as was stated in my previous post.Oh again, I'm still disgusted by you.

  56. says

    Charlie, how was it flawed? The study makes the results rather clear, and even provides alternative explanations of the results. It makes no sweeping claims about the nature of the result – indeed, it makes barely any claims about the result at all.The part you seem to disagree with is a summary of a theory that would explain the response they observed, but that isn't even really important in that study at all.

  57. says

    "See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance,"but being the fact that studies show homophobia is rooted in disgust and gay men are in fact a disease threat, the disgust of gays is in fact a disease avoidance behavior. (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)disgust as an evolutionary survival instinct, disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman) stupidity, or a simple case of "different strokes," as much as any kind of legitimate "threat""

  58. Martin says

    Okay, Charlie, new rule. One more bullshit crack telling the people who are arguing with you that they're "just like dumb ass Christians," and I'm going to disemvowel your stupid ass. You are no longer arguing or even trying to defend your position like an adult. Wailing about what you think "studies" do or don't show, without links or citations for backup, is not an argument. Comparing your opponents here to Christians is especially egregious and stupid, since it's obvious to everyone here who isn't out of his goddamn mind (that is, everyone but you) that your anti-gay ravings are far more in line with Christian attitudes than ours and you damn well know it.Frankly, you lost any kind of argument you could have hoped to make a while ago, and you're just flailing around trying to save the scraps of your ego at this point. But you'll get a chance to redeem yourself. Don't say I never gave you nothin'.

  59. says

    MARTIN,"Again, racists consider interracial sex disgusting"Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. I'll tell you like I tell Chritians. Hearsay won't work."I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts"Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust.You FAILED AGAIN.My sourcesGay men are a health risk to public safety(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes)

  60. Martin says

    Having read the FDA page, what I saw was that the ban on blood donations was indeed based on the potential risk of infection, but there is no discussion on the page of "disgust." Indeed, no passage anywhere on the page makes a moral value judgment about homosexual relationships. It merely points that that the risk of infection is statistically higher among men who have sex with men.Still, you're finally getting around to the citations. That's better.

  61. Martin says

    Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust.You FAILED AGAIN.Uh…fucktard? I don't need a "study" to know how I feel about brussel sprouts.>

  62. says

    "Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior."People have been disgusted by interracial and even intertribal or interethnic couplings "before religion" and by your argument that same disgust is "disease avoidance behavior." care to explain that? You know what don't bother because much like the rest of what you've said, you really haven't thought it out. Homosexuality and Bisexuality have been prevalent in many cultures of antiquity.. where none-such disgust for the act existed.. it wasn't considered even deviant behavior. Where did the evolutionary disgust go? Maybe.. it was.. *gasp* a societal thing."So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat"You're willing to grant your disgust as an indicator for Gay (male) sex as some sort of evolutionary queue. My are you trusting of your instincts.. it's almost like… wait for it.. faith. Since your whole argument pretty much hinges on AIDS/HIV your point is foolish. Unless of course we are hardwired to be afraid of having a good sense of decor.Not to mention you're willing to discount other 'disgust' or even 'pleasure' sensations as evolutionarily unfounded which means.. *giggle* you're cherry picking! Hmmm it's almost like.. No I won't go there. (Sorry Martin)You're also making plenty of equivocation fallacies with the word 'disgust' anyway. A racists' use of disgust at seeing an interracial couple kissing and your definition of disgust toward a gay couple kissing is indistinguishable as much as you'd like the contrary.Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom. Your knowledge about evolution is an indictment of our educational system…you're really starting to look like you're sautering into the troll category with all the ad hominems and talks about 'conforming' as if equality is some kind of shadow agenda.I would really like to continue, but there's paint drying somewhere I'm sure. *yawn*

  63. says

    just taking your offensive analogy to its logical conclusion… are you disgusted by flu victims. did the flu victims do anything that merits your disgust, or are you simply making a special pleading argument?

  64. says

    Was not happy to see a whole 9 minutes spent on a wingnut that doesn't understand basic language evolution, especially one who is incredibly rude and doesn't understand fallacies.

  65. says

    To everyone I've been debating with,"are you disgusted by flu victims. did the flu victims do anything that merits your disgust"Many people won't even kiss their own husband or wife when they're suffering from the flu..That's because they're disgusted.Cite some studies that shows racism is rooted in disgust??? If you can't, your claims are simply baseless.Using race as an attempt to appeal to emotions and spew faulty analogy fallacies is getting old. Try that on Christians. It doesn't work with me.Cite some studies that shows vegetables elicit disgust. If you can't, your claims are simply baseless.I don't believe what pro gays say regarding gay issues. Just like I don't believe what Christians say regarding religionI need EVIDENCE. Gay men are a health risk to public safety(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes) It all makes sense considering these facts1. There's evidence that gay men are a health risk to SOCIETIES worldwide. Gay men are one of the few groups who can't even donate blood.2. Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust3. Study shows disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. 4. Gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of some of the worst std's WORLDWIDE.

  66. says

    It seems apparent that Charlie is a bit of a troll who employs a bait-and-switch tactic to generate controversy thereby getting his kicks and everyone elses goat. It wouldn't make any difference what the subject matter was. He could claim the sky is red and not blue just to be contrary to see if he could get a rise from the person unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his poke. A troll and nothing more I think.

  67. says

    ahh but are disgusted by the existence of flu victims. you seem to be disgusted by the existence of gay people even though there is an extremely minute chance that you will catch a disease from them. (far more chance at catching the flu) (just to say I don't buy your premises, but since you are putting this up and I'm extremely bored, I'm going on your premise)

  68. says

    By the way, I figured I'd share some info on him. He's a failed rap artist known as CharlieboyCheckm who's only trying to fire up controversy towards gay folk so he can peddle his hate rap. Among his antics were creating sockpuppet accounts to rate himself as "AWESOME music!" (made obvious by the fact that HE is the ONLY "artist" these "people" recommended).

  69. says

    Thinking of my parents having sex disgusts me. I don't really want to know about most peoples' fetishes either. I'm also disgusted by bigots having sex come to think of it. I think bigots should have the same rights allowed to non-bigots in their states… but I think marriages between them should be called scarriages. I mean they can have all the same privileges of marriages, but people like Charlie can only have "scarriages" because thinking of them procreating and spreading whatever genes makes them bigoted disgusts me.

  70. says

    mmorten"you seem to be disgusted by the existence of gay people even though there is an extremely minute chance that you will catch a disease from them"I'm disgusted by feces even though I know I will never stick my hand in it. I'm disgusted by dirty smelly homeless drunks but I know I will never touch them.So do you get it now? I feel like I'm debating with Christians.

  71. says

    @MartinBrussels sprouts protip! Try making a cut in the bottom, and put a couple of teaspoons of sugar in the water with them. It takes the bitterness away ;)@CharlieIsn't past your bedtime already?By the way, if disease aversion is your main reason for being homophobic, why aren't you racist? There's a huge HIV epidemic in Africa right now, so those darkies must be viewed with disgust and avoided, amirite?

  72. says

    "if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good."Oh, so this change is good? But if states that didn't legalize gay marriage legalize it (and change their definition of marriage) that's somehow bad?Why? Oh, wait, I know why. Because you're a bigot.Change CAN be good, you say. So it's mostly bad then? Progress. Equality. You'd desperately cling to your preferred cherrypicked definition of marriage or homophobia just so you can justify your bigotry.

  73. says

    Actually in my small home nation (the principality of Liechtenstein) there is just an election going on to allow same sex couples to marry. I voted Yes of course, though it might currently only affect 10 couples or so (our nations population is around 36'000).Let's hope that despite consisting of 80% catholics and there being quite some noisy right wing nuts (we have a small closeted nazi segment) we get to pass the law. The buzz around it seems to be going in the right direction and the government supports a "Yes" as well.

  74. says

    -England/United Kingdom – visited or lived in from 1980 to 1999-Western Europe – visited or lived in since 1980-Born in, lived in or had sex with anyone who lived in, or received Blood products in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977 -people who have spent a cumulative three months in Great Britain or those who have spent six months in any part of Europe since 1980If you fall in any of these categories you are deferred indefinitely from giving blood just like men who have sex with men. You have stated that homosexuals are a "disease threat" and being disgusted by them is "justified" because of this. If your opinion is not about bigotry but rooted in facts as you claim surely you would have no problem saying you are disgusted by africans and europeans as they are also a disease threats.

  75. says

    This underlines what happens when an atheist takes on a strictly theistic conclusion. Without being able to quote the bible the arguments are insubstantial word play. Learn from Julia Gillard, an atheist who is against gay marriage but has avoided answering any questions on the subject. Because, she knows a secular argument against gay marriage will just make her look stupid.

  76. says

    "Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot."By calling your bigoted we are being bigoted to your bigotry…gotcha

  77. says

    Charlie, My name is Jonas.I have never(as far as I can recall anyway)been disgusted by gays, admittedly I was a bit weirded out when I learned about them in sex ed, and I am a heterosexual, am I abnormal?

  78. says

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/Charlie's basically saying that because we're intolerant of his bigotry we're discriminating against him, as if he has some special right to label homosexuals secondrate citizens.It's what theists have been doing since the beginning. And his justification for it? It's icky. What is? Man on man sex.But they never mention girl on girl sex. Because then suddenly it isn't disgusting, it's amazing and not a threat, and all consistency goes straight out the window!

  79. says

    All they're asking for is equality and Charlie would stand in the way of this progress by clinging to a tradition of bigotry, just like the pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-woman's rights following had done for ages, and when we cite those occassions it's suddenly nothing like what he is proposing!Is he that selectively blind?

  80. Admin says

    Ironically, the word 'gay' itself has undergone quite a transformation in language and definitions, just over the last century. These changes are much more than the change required to go from marriage as straight-only to one that includes gays. And as another poster pointed out, the meaning of 'marriage' has already changed throughout history, with some current dictionary definitions already including gays. I wonder if Charlie, apparently being a black man himself, would like to have this debate with that southern preacher who refused to marry the inter-racial couple because it is not what the word 'marriage' used to mean.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#OverviewCharlie's argument is silly, boring, and has little to do with atheism. Please do not entertain this argument from him on the show ever again.

  81. says

    I find Charlie, boring. As for his definition of Homophobia, I bet hes not disgusted by Lesbians.If you are disgusted by Lesbians, Charlie then your definition stands.But i think all Heterosexual men will find that answer very telling. I found the Fine tuning argument more interesting its lame but interesting.I would say that observation of the Universe would suggest that Humanity as a species was fine tuned by Evolution to live on this planet in this universe.I would be prepared to say that the Universe is God.Is the Universe self aware? I have no way of knowing.But no reason to think so.Erm does that make me a theist?

  82. says

    Considering that we are considered part of the universe then yes, the universe is self-aware.

  83. says

    "Considering that we are considered part of the universe then yes, the universe is self-aware."That's very close to committing a Composition Fallacy.Don't presuppose mankind exists because it was meant to. There's no reason to think that; it's merely human-bias and arrogance and sollipsism and the desire to feel special. The universe doesn't end or begin with humanity. We're just there.Humanity adapted to Earth via evolution. Earth, not the Universe, mind. Big difference. Humans would die instantly when exposed to the vacuum of outer space!

  84. says

    Charlie: "It's because oranges grow on apple trees."Bob: "Why do you think oranges grow on apple trees?"Charlie: "That is a strawman fallacy! Only irrational theists use those!"

  85. says

    Tondeb got there first: what about lesbians? You won't find anything barring them from giving blood, because lesbian sex is generally pretty safe. Heterosexual sex is a better transmission vector. So why aren't all women disgusted by the thought of disease-ridden heterosexual contact?I'm going to look at your citations, Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction.It would be nice if we had a natural mechanism for reliably avoiding disease, but if it existed, we'd expect history to have gone quite differently. Why is it that, for the whole of human history, people weren't disgusted by not washing their hands or medical implements? Why is it that we had to discover independently that those activities lowered the rate of disease transmission before we became disgusted by the guy who passes the sink on the way out of the bathroom? Why is it that, for most of the history of the western world, we happily tossed pots of urine and feces into the street? Why is it that everyone living from the Renaissance up to the reinvention of indoor plumbing wasn't in a perpetual state of disease-avoiding disgust? Why would those behaviors, responsible for most classical ilness, fly under our disease-avoidance radar, but gay men–who only present an increased risk if you fuck them–would trigger it? Score another sloppy point for evolution.Or does the disgust kick in only after we've independently discovered that the behavior or group is a disease risk? In which case, disgust isn't necessarily a disease-avoidance reaction, but a reaction to the perception of a disease risk. In which case disgust like yours is easily more a matter of misunderstanding, misinformation, prejudice, and innumeracy, than actual disease-aversion.

  86. Martin says

    Again, Tom, you've put your finger on the nub of why Charlie's "disease avoidance" argument fails so epically: straight people aren't avoiding gay sex, even if they are disgusted by the thought of it, because they're afraid of disease. They're avoiding gay sex because they're not gay.And anyway, you're right that people don't instinctively avoid potential disease threats either. Cleanliness and sanitation are comparatively recent phenomena in Western civilization. We literally cannot conceive of how filthy pre-modern cities were. And through most of Christian medieval Europe, people hardly ever bathed at all, partly because of church warnings about the evils of their own naked bodies, and partly due to ignorant ideas that bathing left open pores which increased the likelihood of sickness.So any argument that it's somehow natural and intuitive for people to avoid disease causing things, and thus homophobia is part of our self-preserving nature, shows a total ignorance of history, to say the very least.

  87. says

    To Tom Foss,You said,"Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction"but gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST. People in EVERY culture of EVERY society have found gay men disgusting. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completelly against it. It makes perfect sense because as science catches up with our disgust, we're beginning to understand why our disease avoidance behavior is causes us to frown up on gay men. Men who have sex with men can't even donate blood. Think about it. Gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.

  88. says

    No, gay men do not elicit universal disgust – they disgust you. Please do not speak on behalf of the civilised community in which you live in a feeble attempt to convince us that we all think like you but are somehow in denial.

  89. says

    "Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot." I am quoting this again just to underline the self-righteous stupidity of this particular caller.Two points:1) Marrige was not always clearly defined as one man one woman. Throughout history you had all sorts of versions of marrige including marrige with animals and even today: Marrige with multiple women.2) Most importantly: WHAT DOES IT MATTER?! If a gay couple loves each other and want to get married I am more than happy to let them do it. How pathetic do you have to be to significantly impede the life of others just so your skewed up view of the definition of one word is upheld?Do us all a favour and kill yourself horribly.

  90. says

    To Thy Reaper,"Charlie, how was it flawed"A study that small is unreliable. ON top of that,it has never been duplicated or repeated AND it didn't cover a variety of cultures.

  91. says

    CCH"No, gay men do not elicit universal disgust – they disgust you"Like Christians, you're completely disregarding studies and historyStudies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society. Even many people who support gay marriage are disgusted by them. Even the societies that embraced homosexuality ended up turning completely against it.

  92. says

    "Please show me your source on ancient greece being disgusted by homosexual behaviour" Nice straw man fallacy. Christians do those all the time.AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality.

  93. says

    "Nice straw man fallacy. Christians do those all the time.AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality."So when is the actual citation coming up?

  94. says

    "Studies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society"Please cite your sources. Which societies that "embraced" homosexuality turned completely against it? Furthermore, how would that matter in any way? Even if every society prior to our own had been as bigoted as you regarding homosexuality, how does that make it somehow the correct attitude?

  95. says

    A friend of mine, Michael Jones, would like me to pass the following along: "Charlie, disgust is as much a conditioned response as a disease avoidance behaviour, and as much a response to individual foibles of gustatory aesthetics as to conditioning or to the presence of disease. Your attempt to explain away your disgust at gay sexuality is a transparent piece of sophistry; you try to disguise a prejudice by claiming that it is a response to threat in the absence of any evidence that a threat exists. Your sense of being threatened by gay people exists only in your mind; you are in fact irrationally afraid of gay people. In other words, you are homophobic according to the strict meaning of the term. Your aggressive nit-picking over so trivial an issue as the elasticity of the term in common usage, and your unspecified but obvious and dubious assumption that irrational fear of gay people has no correlation with irrational hatred of gay people and the commission of acts of violence against them, and that the term 'homophobia' is therefore an inappropriate descriptor for the motivation for gay-bashing, is irrelevant to the issue of anti-gay violence at best, and at worst covertly supports anti-gay sentiments.""Martin: In debate involving the meaning of terms, insist on agreement as to which dictionary will be used as the source of the meaning of all terms referred to as part of the ground rules, before the debate begins – I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary. Personally, I have little time to waste on people who spend all their time attacking the people they claim to support and share views with over hair-splitting details, particularly when they distract from and/or trivialise the issues of a serious debate. 'Homophobic' or anti-gay violence is an ugly fact; it needs to be addressed. The strict details of the dictionary definition of the words 'marriage' and 'homophobia', and the question of whether these terms can be, or have been used in what can be called 'deceptive' fashion,are fripperies by comparison. If Charlie wants to be the conscience of atheism, let him stick with his own atheism and allow the rest of us to do the same."

  96. says

    barefoothiker,"Explain how, specifically"1. The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer, deceitful by default and is not even a phobia. Even after the gay movement realized homophobia is rooted in disgust and not fear, they still continued to purposely use it incorrectly…Being the fact that it's such a misnomer,they shouldn't be using it at all2. The gay movement CONSTANLTY spew a false dillemma fallacy by claiming gay marriage is a "rights" issue when many people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rights.3. The gay movement CONSTANTLY spew faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race. Many pro gays even attempted to put words in Martin Luther King's mouth without a shred of tangible evidence that MLK would have supported gay marriage.

  97. says

    "A study that small is unreliable. ON top of that,it has never been duplicated or repeated AND it didn't cover a variety of cultures. "I'm gonna need a study of this study that shows that it is not justified.I NEED EVIDENCE! Hearsay doesn't mean anything!Look, studies are a fantastic thing. But, we're still dealing with an is-ought problem. Studies cannot give us ought judgements; they only show what IS.

  98. says

    1. You're getting hung up on semantics. The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with, so I won't linger on that. Secondly, you keep talking about purpose – why would using the term "homophobia" instead of "disgust" make the slightest bit of difference? Cui bono?2. How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!? If you are being denied the right to marry, you are e priori being denied a right.3. What words have been put in MLK's mouth? Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?

  99. says

    cch and petr,Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG.

  100. says

    "The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with"No it hasn't..It's not over. STUDIES show disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Disgust of gay men is a perfect example being the fact that homophobia is worldwide. LIke Christians, many pro gay atheists completely disregard studies when they're not in your favor. Shame on you. "How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!?" because many people who oppose gay marriage support gays having full equal rights"What words have been put in MLK's mouth?"Many pro gays claimed MLK would have stood for gay marriage "Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?" There is no difference. There is however, differences is identities.There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights. .

  101. says

    @Charlie:"The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer"Well, no, Charlie; you've repeatedly (and repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly) purported it to mean something other than what it is commonly understood to mean; that's not the same thing. It may please you to insist the word "orange" actually applies to a colour commonly referred to as "blue" on the basis of what it once meant to fishermen in the 12th century, but that's hardly binding on the rest of us. They know what they mean when they use the word, and so does everyone else: this is the purpose of communication. You can stand on a street corner on a tinfoil soapbox till you need a shave, telling us we don't know what we mean when we say what we mean, but we're not obliged to agree that you're right. If you're about disgust, fine… you need to find another word for yourself, not insist a billion English-speakers agree that they're deliberately misleading the world when they use a word and as a result, turn on a dime to suit you. That's nuts.people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rightsIf they refuse to recognize the right of a person to marry another person whom he/she loves, then by definition they do NOT support equal rights where homosexuals are concerned. The twee reply to this is that gays would have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as anyone else, which is the sophistry of whitewashing it with clever wordplay and simply avoids the issue by pretending it doesn't exist. It does, and anyone who actually DOES espouse equal rights for gays accepts that. If they don't, they're claiming something they don't embrace, and that's hypocrisy, your eighth deadly sin."faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race"In what aspect is it false? Do they claim to have endured 500 years of slavery? Not to my knowledge. No, they claim that, like blacks once were, they are prohibited from the enjoyment of certain rights taken for granted by others, but denied to them in their own particulars. This appears to me to be entirely above board and an apt use of analogy, one aimed at opening the eyes of others who have understood the wrongs done to one group and may begin to understand the sensibilities of another."Many pro gays even attempted to put words in Martin Luther King's mouth"How many? Can you name any? Give us examples?

  102. says

    "Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG"Wow. Just wow. You've sort of got it bang-on, but completely the wrong way around, if that makes sense. For the sake of argument I'm going to respond assuming your premises are correct. You seem to be implying that the Ancient Greeks turned to religion to cope with homosexuality, completely ignoring that the Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted. Furthermore, if by "religion", you mean "Christianity" (Greek Orthodox being prominent over there), you're dead right. This was not a reaction to homosexuality though, but the reverse. People became more homophobic as the Christian message of anti-homosexuality was being preached more and more. So whereas you once had a society that was tolerant of homosexuality, it was the religion that turned them against it, not vice versa.Re our other thread, when I said "dealt with", I meant "discussed on this forum". "Full equal rights" includes marriage, so you're making no sense there.I'm happy to let people speculate as to whether MLK would have supported gay marriage, when in truth it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. So what if he didn't?

  103. says

    Look, studies are a fantastic thing. But, we're still dealing with an is-ought problem. Studies cannot give us ought judgements; they only show what IS. the entire gay marriage fight is based on "ought" judgements. Gays say "we ought to get marriage"The flawed study (univ of Georgia) is obvioiusly flawed. All you have to do is count the number of subjects. That alone makes it unreliable. NOt to mention it was never duplicated even once. It was also contradicted

  104. says

    CharlieThe term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal". I'm going to take a inductive leap and presume you understand the arguments against that. It's a matter of identity. A=A, B=B if A=C and B=C than A=B.The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way. By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight. Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage? "Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG."Christianity went wrong, you fuckwit."AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality."Because no society is eternal No society by your regards has ALWAYS accepted monogamy or marriage. You're same argument can be made by communists————————————————Your own "Agnostic Theist" caller sounds like Shiloh, a troll from Pharyngula.

  105. says

    Wow, you guys are letting yourself be lead around by a red herring here.So WHAT if people's anti-gay bigotry is based on disgust, instead of fear? It's a debatable point, but ultimately it's completely irrelevant to the issue of gay rights. I personally find the image of my parents having sex rather disgusting, and I'm sure studies would support the notion that many other people do as well. I'm sure a lot of people find the image of senior citizens or morbidly obese people having sex to be disgusting. But so what?There's no rational path from that disgust to curtailing the freedoms of those involved.

  106. says

    ""The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.""If you're avoiding homosexuals like a disease…congrads you ARE phobic.

  107. says

    @Charlie:There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights.Or the rights of people to marry between races, faiths, or Beatles fans and rose cultivators. If it's between two consenting adults, what skin is it off your nose, my nose, or anyone else's? There are lots of things in the world that I, and you, would not chose to do, even given the option and the right to do so. That doesn't equate to proposition that they should not be allowed. NASCAR — watching overpaid nobodies in clown suits and clown cars go 'round and 'round and 'round in a circle for hours — comes close to disgusting me, but my dad gets a kick out of it; why should I insist it be banned, if I could? I don't know whether it was Jefferson or Franklin who made the remark about my rights ending where my neighbour's nose begins, but it's a good one.

  108. says

    "Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted"That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it.

  109. says

    @Charliethe entire gay marriage fight is based on "ought" judgements. Gays say "we ought to get marriage"Much like non-whites and women used to say "we 'ought' to get the vote", even though the law (or rather, those empowered to make it) at the time disagreed. You're on the cusp of catching on.

  110. says

    @CharlieYou talked before about how feces disgusts you. Does this mean that it is wrong for people to produce feces? I am fine with you being disgusted by homosexuals. I disagree with you but that is your reaction and that is fine. But how do you get from this behavior disgusts me therefore it should not exist at all.In terms of history there are cultures that have accepted homosexuality and never turned on it. Ancient Greece never turned on homosexuals, they turned upon the philosophers, and on the people who didn't agree with their religion but never on people who were homosexuals. Then their culture died out. So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded.

  111. says

    ing,"If you're avoiding homosexuals like a disease…congrads you ARE phobic"So you're claiming disgust is a phobia?studies please????Now that's irrational…think about it. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia.

  112. says

    "That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it. "Argument from "historical retardation"

  113. says

    "So you're claiming disgust is a phobia?studies please????Now that's irrational…think about it. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia. "I'll spell it out because you are a cargo cult logiciana) Disease is something that provides a real dangerb) Avoiding something that poses no danger LIKE a disease is treating something that is not dangerous as dangerousc) Such a behavior is phobic; responding to a stimuli with a disproportionate fear/avoidance response. You're no different than Tesla avoiding fat people or human hair

  114. says

    Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks out on hardwood floors. You're panicky and emotional about a non issue and you look ridiculous doing it. The only difference is that the damn dog isn't insane enough to insist to others that the floor is dangerous. I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous. It's an irrational behavior and one that your mind is desperate to justify. I don't believe most people labeled homophobes are mentally ill in some regard but your behavior makes me think that you might be. Get professional help. You have issues.

  115. says

    "The term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal"THAT'S FALSE Different identities is not separate but equal Are you claiming because I"m "african american", and you're maybe "white", we're separate but equal??YOure IRRATIONAL."The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way"How in the hell could we oppress gays if many people who oppose gay marirage will support FULL EQUAL RIGHT??? AND THAT'S INCLUDING the ATHEIST prime minsiser of australia "By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight"That depends on what you consider marriage. Mariage to me is husband and wife. That's the identity of marriage"Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage?" if it's against the law, of course. if it's not against the law, I will just watch them model after heteros because that seems to be all they want to do. There's usually the woman playing man and the woman playing herself. That's how gays get down. haha. They model after heteros

  116. says

    "So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded."There are extensive tomes of romantic prose and praise of homosexual love from Feudal Japan. And while Western influence and other social factors have made it less acceptable Japan is still somewhat less homophobic than the west in some regards. Btw read Rene Girad before you insist that people society turns on during times of trouble actually deserve it. You're same argument could be made to justify pogroms. There has never been a culture that permanently tolerated Jews after all /snark

  117. says

    "if it's against the law, of course. if it's not against the law, I will just watch them model after heteros because that seems to be all they want to do.There's usually the woman playing man and the woman playing herself. That's how gays get down. haha. They model after heteros "A) So you would insist that they could not use the term?b) Your ignorance is baffling. C) Define Husband and Wife.

  118. says

    "THAT'S FALSEDifferent identities is not separate but equal Are you claiming because I"m "african american", and you're maybe "white", we're separate but equal??YOure IRRATIONAL."You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?

  119. says

    Charlie, you clearly gate gays, are ignorant of what being gay is, and want to prevent them from doing things that don't involve you at all or hurt anyone else, and you compare them to disease. Yet you call me irrational? One of us is talking out of emotion and trying to dress it up in the lab coat of rationality…the other one is Ing

  120. says

    "Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks" You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK."I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous:That's because your brain is gay.It's not functioning properly. What about polygamy?? Is opposing that like racism too???? Now, when you fellow queers acuse me of "hate speech", remember, you broke the respect code, queer. IF you respect me, I'll respect you, ya bitch.

  121. says

    Okay, please stop. Everyone. Charlie made his mind up well before he called the show the first time. Starting at 5:15 this exchange occurs:Russell: Why should straight people get married?Charlie: Because the word marriage has been established to be the identity of the ultimate commitment between man and woman.Russell: Established by who?Charlie: By the majority of the societies in the world. People around the world have already established another name for marriage which is "husband and wife".Russell: So this is just a case of majority rules? So if a majority now decides that it's okay for-Charlie:(cutting Russell off)Actually, actually, that is a strawman fallacy, I never claimed that. Nice try.Now in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't quote Charlie's second statement verbatim, but that's because it was a confused, disjointed set of statements that barely made sense when listened to and would probably make even less sense if read. But the sentence that starts with "By the majority" is verbatim so I won't hear any arguments that claim I took your words out of context Charlie.Like others have pointed out, Charlie is a rude, arrogant, and not particularly smart person. I don't mean that as a dig against Charlie, I honestly feel those traits accurately represent his character.I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility.

  122. says

    "You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK."A) Wow you assume I'm gay because I disagree with you. How do you not know I'm not black and straight? B) And you honestly say that you are not biggoted."That's because your brain is gay.It's not functioning properly. "Ad hom mother fucker"Now, when you fellow queers acuse me of "hate speech", remember, you broke the respect code, queer.IF you respect me, I'll respect you, ya bitch. "Oh did I break your respect code by disagreeing with you? So sorry. "What about polygamy?? Is opposing that like racism too???? "If you have a husband and wife who both agree the other can date and have relationships would you be against it?

  123. says

    "You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?" That's a straw man fallacy. You must think you're debating with a christian.I never mentioned "two institutions". Marriage and gayrriage can be under the same instituion. So again, it's not separate but equal. that was a nice deceitful attempt to appeal to emotions.

  124. says

    "I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility. "Keeping Charlie talking is futile for him, but for me it serves the purpose of exposing his absurdity and irrationality further. As we see he unravels like a spool and when his 'reason' is challenged he falls back on the sort of volatile hate and bile I see from white supremacists and other bigots.

  125. says

    ""You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?"That's a straw man fallacy. You must think you're debating with a christian.I never mentioned "two institutions". Marriage and gayrriage can be under the same instituion. So again, it's not separate but equal. that was a nice deceitful attempt to appeal to emotions. "BWahaha ok, so how is that different? It's the same institution? So why can't it have the same name? A=C +B=C == A=BThat's what we call "Logic" you might want to try it sometime. Oh and it's not a fucking strawman just because I'm repeating your argument.

  126. says

    "Oh did I break your respect code by disagreeing with you? So sorry"Here's when you broke teh respect code."Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks"

  127. says

    Semantic arguments are stupid and quite frankly not worth the time of anyone involved.Language is a pain in the arse, a lot of words are fuzzy, there is no single source for a definition and so no one can claim an authority on the matter. Not only that but words change their meaning over time.The best thing to do is simply explain what you mean, kind of like the way Matt D asks people what they believe and why, because labels just don't cut it.To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality.

  128. says

    @CharlieUmmm yeah making a comparison to show how it's like a phobia. You have a stimuli which poses no danger to you and you respond as if it does. Your panicked, emotional style of talk sounds to me like a Dog skittering and sliding across the floor in a panic.

  129. says

    "To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality. "Considering how fast Charlie went to screaming faggot at me, I cannot rule that out. I can't say it is either though. Charlie has psychological issues and it may just be a irrational fear/repulsion like a crippling fear of clowns.

  130. says

    ""So why can't it have the same name? A=C +B=C == A=B"because that would be disrepsecting the value placed on the identity called marriage. "Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?Thus separate but equal. Same reason we can't risk letting the races mix and mingle.

  131. says

    "STUDIES show fear and disgust derive from completely different places. Go ahead with your christian-like behavior and disregard studies. "Cite themBut it doesn't MATTER. Treating something harmless like disease (as you did) or like a danger is a psychological problem. Btw. ONE of us is for hating people because they break an Abrahamic law and the other is Ing. Which one of us is like a Christian? Is there anything more Christian than fag bashing?

  132. says

    "Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?"That's another STRAW MAN FALLACY and you're appealing to pityMy point is, marriage to heteros is like homosexuals to gays. That was established before gay marriage made it's way into the political arena.

  133. says

    Oh and STUDIES show that homosexual is normal, not contagious, natural, and beyond someone's control and isn't due to a 'malfunction'. If you want to play Logic Tennis we keep the net up for both of us, we don't' take it down when you want to serve.

  134. says

    ""Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?"That's another STRAW MAN FALLACY and you're appealing to pity"It's not STARWMAN you said it. Explain how it isn't what you said. What is disrespectful about lumping gays in with straights under marriage. WHAT exactly?

  135. says

    Charlie most theists against gay marriage I know are ideologically ignorant. You are actually hateful and virulent.

  136. says

    Oh and I note no apology or explanation on why you think I'm gay and thus feel you can attack me as brain damaged?

  137. says

    Charlie are you aware there is evidence for a natural and evolutionary selected for underpinning for racism? It's true. The idea is that fear/disgust of those who are different than those you raised with was a benefit to protect people from competing tribes or some such. I'm sure you'll grant the same "disgust" argument to racists as you demand for yourself.

  138. says

    "Cite them"Gay men are a health risk to public safety..They're not even allowed to donate blood(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes) "But it doesn't MATTER. Treating something harmless like disease (as you did) or like a danger is a psychological problem"So you're saying disgust is a psychological problem. Now that's irrational. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.

  139. says

    "So you're saying disgust is a psychological problem. Now that's irrational. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. "Because WHAT are you avoiding? "Gay men are a health risk to public safety..They're not even allowed to donate blood"No they aren't. The Blood donation policy is outdated and has been criticized for quite some time. And the public safety WOULD have been from HIV, which was first IDed in the US in gay populations. Gay itself poses no risk. A clean gay poses less risk than a HIV straight.

  140. says

    Its a psychological problem when you are trying to avoid a disease that is not a threat to you. That is where the irrationality lies

  141. says

    "Explain how it isn't what you said. What is disrespectful about lumping gays in with straights under marriage. WHAT exactly?" In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind. When we attach two men or two women to marriage, it's not the image that we've grown to value and accept as the identity of marriage.Just like when gays think of the word "homosexuals", gay people come to mind, not mentally ill patients.So we have grown to value the identity and image of marriage. GET IT NOW???

  142. says

    Charlie makes me more empathetic to the plight of homosexuals, if this is the sort of cutting blathering irrationality they receive from others.Atheism doesn't seem so hard now.

  143. says

    "In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind.When we attach two men or two women to marriage, it's not the image that we've grown to value and accept as the identity of marriage."No not WE. YOU! And that's not the point. You agreed that A=C and B=C so what is it about B that makes it disrespectful to lump it in with A.There's no reason NOT to change the identify if it's more inclusive and makes some people's lives easier while hurting no one else. GET IT NOW.

  144. says

    [i]In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind.[/i]Thats not true. not in our minds. in your mind. in my mind marriage is about commitment and love, something that transcends gender

  145. says

    Charlie isn't just a shitty logician and a shitty atheist, he's a shitty person. If anyone is brain damaged it's charlie due to his retarded empathic abilities

  146. says

    I think we should adopt the shmarriage label. and leave regular old marriage label to gather dust in the religious institutions. then the definition of marriage will shift to an antiquated ritual held by religious crazies

  147. says

    "Because WHAT are you avoiding?" Disgust of feces causes human to avoid feces because our brains have evolved to develop a behavior immune systemDisgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system.The blood donation policy was enforce by FDA. Go ahead and challenge them. Once the media catches on, that will only promote the fact that gay men are a health risk. So please, challenge FDA

  148. says

    @CallumNo. Charlie is the reason we need the marriage label. He needs to learn that life is not about what makes him comfortable.

  149. says

    you can aviod feces and gay people all you want. But where does the moral claim come from. That being homosexual is wrong?

  150. says

    "Disgust of feces causes human to avoid feces because our brains have evolved to develop a behavior immune systemDisgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."Think for a fucking second. If that was true HOW ARE THERE GAY MEN!? If gay people were dangerous those without the gay avoidance would have died off. Not everyone has that avoidance even straights. So you're full of shit. "The blood donation policy was enforce by FDA. Go ahead and challenge them. Once the media catches on, that will only promote the fact that gay men are a health risk. So please, challenge FDA "In Africa Black Heterosexuals are the big risk for HIV and other diseases. You want to play that card? Should white people be disgusted by blacks because of the perceived statistical likelihood of carrying disease?

  151. says

    @Callumhe's using the "Gays are a public health threat" like they're spreaders of filth and disease.An argument made from studies by anti-gay fucking Christians. But no WE'RE like Christians. Charlie just uses them as sources.

  152. says

    Oh and if your fucking disgust evolution was valid at all, people would be disgusted by mosquitoes considering they're histories greatest killer of humans.A fear of them would FAR outweigh any fear of gay or feces.

  153. says

    @ IngA label is just that, a label. It holds no inherent value. Its what is underneath that matters. Its the meaning.

  154. Ptah says

    Charlies mind is so full of the juicy cocks he imagines sucking that there is no place for rational thought.

  155. says

    Oh sorry not fear "disgust"Cause objectively you can tell the difference between an animal avoiding something because of fear and avoiding because of disgust (sarcasm) rather than just one avoidance response to stimuli.

  156. says

    "There's no reason NOT to change the identify if it's more inclusive and makes some people's lives easier while hurting no one else"If not having a simple identity hurts gays, that means gays have other issues that need to be dealt with like some self esteem problems It's not like something was ever taken away from gays. The identity of marriage has always been about man and woman…It's not even a tradition. It's a definition of a word.

  157. says

    @CallumI disagree. Language informs thought and influences it.If that were true we would still be calling Black people racial slurs because it's just labels. No the labels have baggage which infer and imbue additional emotional weight and value. Marriage is important because of that. Giving up the label is a surrender and implicit agreement of lesser status.

  158. says

    "A label is just that, a label. It holds no inherent value"If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm)

  159. says

    "It's not like something was ever taken away from gays. The identity of marriage has always been about man and woman…It's not even a tradition. It's a definition of a word. "Bullshit. Gay marriage existed. Gay relationships were esteemed and valued in other societies. There are legal rights and privileges and social acknowledgments tied to marriage. Denying it from gays because they were so hated in the past that it was defined so as to alienate them is absurd. The difference between "Partner" and "Spouse" is clear in our language. Partner is vague, business? Romantic? Tennis? Spouse is clear.

  160. says

    @atheistdeceitbuster It's not simply disgust that makes you a homophobe. I'll admit that engaging in homosexual sex would be disgusting for me. I personally wouldn't do it. And I'm sure many homosexuals find heterosexual sex equally disgusting and wouldn't engage in it either. It's not the disgust itself, it's how you decide to act on it. I think you can still say "I think gay sex is nasty" and not be labeled a homophobe. It's when you say "I think gay sex is nasty, and therefore I want to stop other people from doing it, or discriminate against them" that labels you as a homophobe. It's a phobia when what other people do makes you insecure and you act to limit them.If you think homosexuals spread disease more than heterosexuals, you are simply wrong (heteros engage in anal too), and clinging to that irrational belief is a phobia.

  161. says

    @ CharlieThe definition of a word comes from its use and its use is dictated by tradition. You have one view about how the word marriage is/should be used and we have a different one. We are all now at an impasse.

  162. says

    "If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm) "Because they don't HAVE an abnormal brain structure.Jesus fucking Christ, I have a spelling abnormally, and I am driven nuts by your spelling mistakes. Are you just typing with one hand? Here's a new evolutionary narrative for youHomosexuality is on the same spectrum and in the same bundle of behaviors as pair bonding and social bonding. To form tight communities to survive and provide team work evolution co-opted the sex related pair bonding so it could tie the early human societies.

  163. says

    If you want to shift the label then fine but then homosexual people will find a new label that more accurately reflects who and what they are. Also it wouldn't be a broadening because homosexuals are not a subset of the group "People with abnormal brain structures".

  164. says

    ing,"Marriage is important because of that. Giving up the label is a surrender and implicit agreement of lesser status"Why give up anything??? Sacraficing is unneccessary. Adding is better than taking. We can just make up a new word for gays.Queeriagegayrriageparriage smarrriageseriouslygaygaged in instead of engaged (joking)geddings instead of weddings (joking)

  165. says

    "lso it wouldn't be a broadening because homosexuals are not a subset of the group "People with abnormal brain structures"Tha'ts FALSE. Just like I tell Christians, get ready for the harsh truthStudy shows homosexuals brains are not like heteros. They literally have different brain structures in specific regions. The same is true for schizophrenic people

  166. says

    How is a union between a man and a woman and better or worse than a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman??

  167. says

    @Charlie (atheistdeceitbuster)- That's a terrible argument. By that standard, no one should work in sewage systems or as septic tank drainers or even as farmers (if you're surrounded by manure). I'm not doubting that you might be disgusted by homosexuals, but how you act so anal retentive about the inclusiveness of the word marriage to exclude homosexuals you do seem homophobic whether you want to be or not.

  168. says

    "Oh and Charlie is dead wrong about the disease because the safest sex is lesbian sex"That's a STRAW MAN FALLACY. You pro gays argue very similar to christians.I never even mentioned gay women ( Lesbians are gay women) in regards to the disease avoidance behavior.

  169. says

    the same is true for those who like James Blunt music. and those who have synesthesia. and those who are geniuses and those who are savants. You have a different brain structure to me, the point is that they are not significantly different to warrant being called "abnormal"

  170. says

    "Homosexuality is on the same spectrum and in the same bundle of behaviors as pair bonding and social bonding"Are you ready to feel stupid????If your claim was true, many birds wouldn't need to be exposed to MERCURY POISON to go gay.Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.You FAILED AGAIN

  171. says

    Blacks are 12.6% of the country and were 46% of all new AIDS cases last year. 75% of which came from heterosexual contact.Charlie, do you think the racism and the jim crow laws of the 19th and 20th century could have been disease avoidance behaviors?

  172. says

    "How is a union between a man and a woman and better or worse than a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman??" That's a loaded question. You know Christians use those a lot.It's not a "better" or 'worse" issue. It's an identity issue. I

  173. says

    Calm down. you have committed the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" right there. If you are not going to cite sources when you make claims like this then it is pointless to continue. You could just make things up. Also it doesn't show a damaged brain it shows a different brain. maybe mercury is the process that nature uses to induce homosexuality in birds.

  174. says

    Now Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species. To focus on some study with mercury is being willfully ignorant.Citation, since posting one seems to be a rite of passage in this thread:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspxAlso, I'm wondering if Charlie is familiar or maybe apart of those racist nationalists that Dillahunty recently wrote a note about on his facebook page.

  175. says

    ej AND MARTIN"Now Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species"That's a straw man fallacy. Christians use those a lot… I never claimed that homosexuality and mental disorders don't occur in many speciesMental disorders and homosexuality occur throughout natureMental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak. Abnormal brain structures have been detected in mental disorders and homosexuality. HAPPY NOW????

  176. says

    @atheistdeceitbuster For someone who loves to shout "STRAW MAN!" you seem to put a lot of them forward. Mercury poisoning can cause irritability. Does that mean that all irritability is brain damage? Is mercury poisoning necessary for homosexuality? Are birds humans? You are putting forth one unsourced study suggesting correlation in a separate species as causation in another. Also, we can now add "NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN" to your list of fallacies, because no REAL MAN WITH a whole male brain would use that argument.

  177. says

    Actually it's not, it's a separate statistic. What is "deceit and trickery" is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population. The fact that they are the fastest growing does not mean they are the majority. Seeing that your study was done in 2007 and the results I posted were done in 2008. Gays are still the minority of black AIDS cases. Here's a fallacy for you, it's called special pleading. You can't dismiss the AIDS among blacks because of ulterior reasons and be numb to the contributing factors of the high AIDS rate among gays.

  178. says

    The identity of marriage has always been about man and womanSimply not true. It's the most common form, but by no means the only one. Not presently and not historically.

  179. says

    "If it is no better or worse the why wont you allow them to be included in the marriage label?" Because we value the established identity of marriage. According to your argument, there's nothing wrong with changing the identity of everything including ethnic groups, races, cars, countries, states, genders,ectlet's change the definion of man to mean man or woman. Your argument is flawed

  180. says

    @atheistdeceitbuster- You sure do love that word "strawman fallacy" don't you? The implication in your argument (a segment mentioned below) was that homosexuality is not natural and takes a damaged brain for an animal to engage in it. I have not strawmanned you in attacking a part of your argument where you strongly imply that homosexuality in animals is not a natural occurence in your little sexist quip about social bonding. "Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."

  181. says

    "Are birds humans?"I'm not the one who mentioned other species to begin with. IF you want to discuss other species, we can. If you don't then dont mention them because I will mention mercury poison

  182. says

    Actually you said just that…."If your claim was true, many birds wouldn't need to be exposed to MERCURY POISON to go gay.Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."Anyone with inductive reasoning skills can see that you are saying that no normal species would exhibit homosexual behavior.I hate to say this to another person, but Charlie you are just not an intelligent person. You don't get that you don't get it. I'm also skeptical of your claim that you think gays deserve equal rights if you would say something like "There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch."Often times as an atheist you will reach a point in a religious debate where you realize that a person has a portion of their psyche barricaded against reason. I am now at that point.

  183. says

    Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures?

  184. says

    "is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43hiv linked to proverty, not racehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=11194623

  185. says

    Wow, Charlie sure likes to SHOUT when he rebuffs those slippery LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!! ZOMG!!! Time for a commenters ethics panel…

  186. says

    "is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.

  187. says

    Sorry, mods, I'm not sure if it failed or hit spam filter, so trying again."is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.

  188. says

    "In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind."As others have quite rightly pointed out, this is in YOUR mind, when I think of marriage I think of the legalities and responsibilities involved between 2 parties. Why? Because I think it's a stupid idea and has no merit beyond legal advantages.Many other people think of other things, love, commitment etc, they're not as jaded as me obviously.The point is people see it differently, society is diverse and you appear to be the only person here who is asserting their view on marriage is somehow the de-facto."Disgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."This is quite frankly the most laughable thing I've read in a long time.Do you have any credible sources that indicate that homosexuals are any kind of a risk to heterosexuals when it comes to spreading disease?Disgust is an emotion, not everyone has it, it's clearly not evolutionary in this case because not all, in fact very few people have this kind of behaviour. It's more than likely nurture rather than nature, your social bias has caused you to view homosexuality as disgusting, the same way Muslims are disgusted when people draw Mohammed.Why don't you make like the rest of the 21st century and drop your social bias and replace it with a bit of acceptance, come to terms that homosexuality doesn't threaten you or your manhood and just get over it.

  189. says

    "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that." "Crux of the issue. REAL MEN are threatened by being associated with that. Charlie is probably also fairly misogynistic going by this logic. "Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures? "Blackswans? I see what you did there ;)Not to mention Bonobos. You know our closest non-human relative?

  190. says

    Martin,Homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.Again, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak.

  191. says

    Regardless of my gender or sexuality I would never TOUCH someone like Charlie. He is in no way a REAL MAN to me at all. The thought of any contact with him is repulsive.

  192. says

    "Homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.Again, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak. "It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum. There are even strong evolutionary reasons why homosexuality would be selected FOR.

  193. says

    "Gay relationships were esteemed and valued in other societies"but what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexualityHistory repeats itself often so don't expect a gay utopia.

  194. says

    "but what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexuality"Western Imperialism.You know…the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that? Hey you know what, Africans used to have great civilizations and empires. What happened there!? There must be a reason Black run society always goes to shit /spitsYou're a disgusting bigot

  195. says

    "History repeats…"When people don't learn from it. Finish the quote if you're going to paraphrase it, bigot.

  196. says

    "It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"That's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.

  197. says

    And no I don't accept any ideas of racial superiority or that. But I don't reject that because of ideology, my ideology is formed because of the evidence showing the contrary. Charlie should tread carefully because the same sorts of studies have been done to argue blacks as inherently less intelligent or recently less attractive.

  198. says

    "I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature. "You fucking liar. "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.""People can check what you say. You are a liar. And a fucking blind hypocrite, Charlie you argue more like a Christian than any atheist I've ever seen.

  199. says

    Western Imperialism."You know…the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that?" As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.People didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers.

  200. says

    "As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.People didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers. "No you idiot. Religion introduced the taboo. The cultures did not HAVE disgust as you know it. That's what we've established. You cannot assert that into reality.

  201. says

    I'm going to make a point and not refer to anyone else in doing so. This is to avoid having the word "fallacy" thrown at me in relation to someone else's statements.If a person posits that the word "marriage" is to only apply heterosexual couples and some other word (I'll use "shmarriage") is to refer only to homosexual couples, and both words give the respected couples equal rights under the law, then that person is arguing:1) to restrict the definition of "marriage" to mean a union that excludes homosexuals.and2) for the use of a new term for homosexual unions that are in every way equal to marriage under the law If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage" in the same way (institution of shmarriage), since they are essentially the same thing except for the sexual preferences of the respected parties.We now have two separate institutions that are completely equal in regards to the law. Separate but equal.

  202. says

    I'm starting to think Fagbashing is Charlie's religion. He even crafted that nice origin myth for it.

  203. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterJust curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?

  204. says

    "You fucking liar" THE QUOTE below is not insinuating that gays are mentally ill. "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that"Are you ready to feel stupid???Simply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder. you FAILED AGAIN

  205. says

    "It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"That's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.It was just a coincidence Charlie put those two together.I mean, if someone had said "Mental disorders and black people occur throughout nature", Charlie absolutely would not have drawn any association between those two things just happening to be lumped together.I myself frequently bring up two completely unrelated things in the same sentence that have nothing to do with one another beyond the fact they both exist. It's called communication skills.

  206. says

    "Are you ready to feel stupid???Simply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder.you FAILED AGAIN "Yet you argue like it is, knowing people would take it that way. That necessarily is lying. http://xkcd.com/169/

  207. says

    Charlie you haven't by any chance been on the Infidel Guy Show have you? Because you're argument and insane style of repetition and bigotry is frightfully familiar.

  208. says

    "Just curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?"Evidence regarding what? There's evidence in my favor, not yours..Im the one whos been citing studies. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it's about identities. Nothing more an nothing less and there's evidence that marriage is an identity of husband and wife. If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.

  209. says

    Charlie let me fill you in.I am not talking to you because I believe you have anything valid to say.I am not talking to you because you are remotely intelligent.I am not talking to you to convince you.I am talking to you to keep you talking because I know that you yourself are the best fucking evidence against your argument. Keeping you talking lets you lay out more and more of your bile and bigotry and shows everyone exactly what your type are like.

  210. says

    "If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them. 'Then why not marriage? What harm does it do?

  211. says

    @CharlieDisgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia.This is a self-defeating definition. Avoidance is driven by fear: fear, however slight, of a consequence, however remote. You own definition incorporates fear: the fear of disease. "Disgust" is the reaction, avoidance the outcome.Incidentally, disgust is not necessarily to do with disease. After all, the reaction you're garnering here is not really the result of people equating your views to a physical disease, but to their bleak and rather Orweallian upshot with regard to a free society.

  212. says

    @Barefoot HikerAnd even odder that he keeps coming to this and arguing that Homophobia with it's psychological implications is wrong…but this proves that it's right. He has a irrational fear/disgust and argues for it rather than acknowledging it's irrationality. Fear is indeed the mindkiller. The little death that brings total mental oblivion

  213. says

    @CharlieDifferent identities is not separate but equalIn this, you're correct; "separate but equal" is based on the exploitation of different identities, to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power.

  214. says

    @barefoot hikerThe point we made with the separate but equal is that it's the same argument and the only reason to legally divide the separate identities is because one views one is inherently inferior. I've had this argument with non-white racists "blank culture doesn't HATE the other race…they just don't want to mix with them and have their culture tainted" Tainted, by WHAT?

  215. says

    If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.So now that we've got you on record about that statement, let me ask.Do all the studies and discussion about how "bad" male homosexuality is no longer apply because the word "marriage" isn't used?

  216. says

    To Tom Bourgue"If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage"That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacyMarriage and shmarriage can be under ONE institution…It's possible for One institution to have two entitiesThe instution of marriage consist of two entities in which are mariage and gayrriage. So, it's not "separate but equal"Nice attempt to use the struggles lf blacks as a DECEITFUL TACTIC.Institute – to establish, organize and set in operation.

  217. says

    barefook hiker,"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"this is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.Christians use those all the time. We have blacks, whites, asians, ect. Does being labeled "black" gives me less political power? Did we have to change the label "black" to be allowed to vote?

  218. says

    @CharlieThey're not even allowed to donate bloodEssentially because of attitudes like yours. One to one, straight people are just as prone to contracting, spreading, and dying of AIDS as gay people; they also indulge in unsafe sex; they also are prone to promiscuity. There's nothing particular about gay people relative to straight people in any of the regards that affect the spread of AIDS other than their partners are of the same gender — and so this prohibition is, rightly, being legally challenged. After all, blood is screened no matter who gives it. Declaring you're not going to bother with blood from gay people on a basis you figure it's full of AIDS and not worth your time is every bit as prejudiced as refusing to accept blood from black people because it might end up in white people. Blood is NEEDED. Take it, test it, use it. Period. Anything else is blind prejudice that costs lives.

  219. says

    [b]That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacy[/b]This shows clearly that you have no idea what a straw man fallacy is. In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against. I made no reference to anyone else.Also, I made no reference to "the struggles of blacks".

  220. says

    Why are you opposed to marriage being inclusive towards gays. Simply saying it's an identity issue is loose grounds to oppose it. Have you considered that this is an identity issue for gays as well? That they are wanting to be recognized within the marital institution too and not wanting their kind to be dumbed down to the "schmarriages" of civil union (which doesn't always allot them equal rights). I don't think it's so much an identity issue for you as it is one of privileged bigotry. Why your blood curdles at the thought of homosexuals being associated with marriage, I know not why. But vying for exclusivity of the word on little basis other than "it's an identity issue" is a true portrait of how small-minded and fearful you are. I mean it's a word at its most inclusive meaning "a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship". Since when did that come to mean "only people of heterosexual stature get this label"?

  221. says

    "Avoidance is driven by fear"This is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.Many things could cause avoidance. fEAR, ANGER, DISGUST, ECT.The difference is, disgust SPECIFICALLY evolved as a disease avoidance behavior.

  222. says

    "to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"this is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here. His premise is that not being able to get married doesn't give you the same rights as married couples would. He might not understand that you're supposedly for "full rights" of this alternative to marriage.But even if that was your stance, that they wouldn't get full rights, it would be like saying:Bob: "If they don't give me a soda, then I won't have a soda"Charlie: "Slippery slope fallacy!".. because definitionally, your social/economic power, granted through marital rights, would not be granted.

  223. says

    Thomas,"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"that's exactly what you did… You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not.

  224. says

    There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.It took a while for the truth to out. But there it is. Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist.

  225. says

    Charlie said:Thomas,"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"that's exactly what you did… You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not. ——————–I made no reference to you whatsoever.

  226. says

    As a gay person I honestly don't care what word you use for the legal contract that grants me the same rights as a straight person. Unfortunately, the word marriage is written into many legal contracts such as health insurance in companies. To get my insurance with my partner's company we had to pay twice as much as a heterosexual couple simply because we don't have the word marriage. A marriage contract in the my state is less than 100 dollars, but to get one of the legal contracts that come with a marriage my partner and I will have to pay a lawyer 500 dollars for it, because I don't have the word marriage. There are over 1000 legal benefits that come automatically with marriage, start doing the math on that. To say that we can get all the same rights and easier is an outright lie. Charlie says we should already get the same rights just not the word. So Charlie go out and campaign to have all these legal documents changed so that the word marriage and whatever you want to call us mean the same thing when it comes to legal contracts. Though I don't think you'll do that because most of your arguments have been there to back up your disgust for us. Which is fine, I don't care if you like us, or if your disgusted by us. Oh, also, even if my legal contract says schmarriage, I'm still going to say my partner and I are married, and what are you going to do about that? You can't own a word.

  227. says

    jt, "to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power""Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".

  228. says

    Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true.Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?If we're talking about something that's functionally the same, the same bad consequences should apply to each. For some reason, he's fine with the harm done to the group using word-A, but not word-B.If it just comes down to "respect", then I'm sorry, but we're not so irrational to assume that one's subjective perceptual opinion should dictate people's rights. We need something more logical and rational than that.Tradition of words doesn't matter either, as they regularly grow over time. As others have pointed out, "marriage" has had by no means a one-definitional history. Get over it.

  229. says

    "Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist" Thats a red herring fallacyI love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women. I don't usually call women bitches. I was just making a point.

  230. says

    jt, "to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power""Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".It's weird how you get what a slippery slope is, then totally misuse it.I already explained this. His error is not understanding that you are okay with them having the same rights – not about a slippery slope.If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights, it would be definitionally less "less political, economic and social power" – because they'd not be receiving the same "less political, economic and social power".Marriage is more than just two people being together. There's tax deductions. There's automatic right granting over spouses. Etc.So if you don't grant that, they'd have less. Where exactly is the slippery slope?

  231. says

    Jt,You're way way way off base. I have to say the same thing to Christians."Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true""Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.They are two completely different arguments.

  232. says

    "It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women."Then stop thinking about gay sex all the time, seems simple enough. You don't have to participate in it, you don't have to watch gay porn, you don't even have to think about it.

  233. says

    jt,"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.

  234. says

    jt,"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.So do you concede that it wasn't a slippery slope then?Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?..or the relevancy of an irrational emotion like "respect" to guide us in making that decision?

  235. says

    "Then stop thinking about gay sex all the time"That's a straw man fallacyYou simply don't get it.Gendered views aren't wrong or right.My views are very gendered. So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of women. It's not thinking about "sex". It's just that he likes men in a sexual way and according to my gendered views, that's the role of women, not men.

  236. says

    "Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true""Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.What does my question assume that makes it loaded? I'm curious if you know what this fallacy is too.My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you. You have two separate arguments going on.Do you understand that if you can't explain yourself, and people misunderstand you, that it might not be because they're using fallacies?They are two completely different arguments.Then I guess the one I'm interested in is the "m-word" issue.

  237. says

    jt,"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical. It's not about "harm" it's about respect and good ethics.Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacy

  238. says

    Again that's YOUR problem. If you've come to find yourself deeply obsessed with your own idea of gender roles, it's not the homosexuals fault that YOU think that men should love women not men. I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality.

  239. says

    Apparently I should have read that last post backwards. I see the "loaded" part now.As loosely as you use the term, all statements are loaded, because they're ALL assuming something. Go figure. There's a little more to it than that.

  240. says

    Jt,"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians so you assume that I used their same arguments…

  241. says

    jt,"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical.Respect has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is about how to handle morally ambiguous problems.I don't respect you. That's not unethical.Again, if it comes down to "respect", your argument has no basis in rationality.Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacyDo I have to explain it a third time? He did not use a slippery slope. The fact that not giving Bob a soda means he doesn't have a soda is not a slippery slope.It's either that, or you have constructed a strawman, thinking he said something he hasn't, and you are assuming technicalities in his point that don't exist.

  242. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterWell that is your view and that's fine. I find it strange that the only way you can view people is how you have determined what their role in bed is.But maybe I'm making another straw man fallacy, since you think everyone is doing that.Are you just talking about sex, you already said you weren't. So are you saying every gay man is cooking in the kitchen, what are you trying to imply? What is the proper role of men? Working on cars, being the top? We don't know you have never defined your position. You already want gay people to have the same rights but a different word, if gays accept a different word, why are you spending so much time trying to convince people that gays are diseased?What is your goal?

  243. says

    Jt,"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians.Yes, actually, it is your fault. If you weren't such a poor communicator, it wouldn't have been a question that talking about how "bad" male gays are, and how the very same group of people shouldn't be able to use the "m-word" has absolutely nothing to do with one another. so you assume that I used their same arguments..You are employing a strawman argument, assuming that we made such as assumption.I haven't assumed that you have used the same arguments. I have been dealing the the arguments you have presented, in one poorly constructed manner, or another.

  244. says

    I was not able to find the complete study Charlie keeps touting online, but I was able to find a couple decent news stories about it:http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htmhttp://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/703NoFearFactorInHomophobiaStudyClaims.htmFirstly, I find it really ironic that Charlie dismissed other studies for having too small a sample size, while this one consists of 138 participants. Moreover, though, it is most interesting to me that one of the authors of this study specifically contradicts Charlie’s assertion that “homophobia” is an evolution based avoidance mechanism:*Article citation*Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones — that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia. If that's the case, any attempt to treat or reduce homophobia would have to be conducted through a process of attitude reformation, which could occur in a social context such as homes or schools rather than in a clinical setting. "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."*End citation*So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing, even asserting what Charlie has denied many times.The entire idea that disgust is a legitimate motivation while fear is not is completely absurd.

  245. says

    @atheistdeceitbuster So you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"? Would you hold back the 14th amendment until blacks could come up with a word of their own that meant "black citizen"? You are on the wrong side of history on this one. People will look back on these conversations and cringe that anyone ever thought this way.

  246. says

    RORSCHACH,"I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality"1. Nature2. ethics3 values1. disgust of gay men is NATURAL2. Supporting gay rights is a part of my code of ethics3. Opposing gays using the word marriage is a part of my value systemGET A CLUE

  247. says

    Just FYI, charlie,Strawman arguments aren't when someone misunderstands you. It's when someone misrepresents you. Typically, misrepresentation doesn't occur back to the person who's being misrepresented.It's going to happen that people will misunderstand each other. We don't begrudge theists that, as long as they honestly concede they were wrong, and try not to repeat it.Unlike you wailing about strawman arguments every time they have a misconception, we just correct them and continue. It's when the misrepresentation is purposeful and deceitful that it's a problem… not every time someone misunderstands what you're trying to say.

  248. says

    1.If it's natural to disgust then how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature2. and 3. Conflict with eachother. Why make a special allowance for using the word marriage whereas you (allegedly) support them across the board?

  249. says

    RORSCHACH and GHOSTCAT,"So you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights without the word marriage for gays…The problem is, religous people are so used to using a religious argument, they're not exposing their identity/value argument because they think their religious argument is more important.

  250. says

    "it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights"No it isn't, state senators have worked to even prevent gay couples from seeing each other in hospitals. Your argument is faulty.

  251. says

    John K,"So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing"Are you ready to feel stupid?ANY TYPE OF DISGUST is more akin to racism than a phobia.Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgustDisgust of bestiality is more akin to racism than disgustDisgust of incest is more akin to racism than disgust.GET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.

  252. says

    So now the only reason you don't support homosexuals being able to use the term "marriage" is because other people wouldn't approve of it for religious and/or historical reasons?

  253. says

    Crew needs to clarify when they say "with a false premise you can prove anything". This is slightly wrong, with a false premise you can imply anything, not prove. To prove something you must use the formula A and (A implies B) therefore B. The computer nerds will know that if A is false the AND operator will never return true. But the implication operator (<=): 0 <= 0 and 0 <= 1 therefore implications are always true with a false premise.

  254. says

    RORCHACH,"how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature"That's a loaded question….Disgust is natural and disgust of gay men fuels my gendered views.

  255. says

    I disagree that it'd be easier and you do too based on what you've said. And it's not just the religious who argue, it's YOU too! When you call gays a health risk you're offering a justification for your disgust….even though you claim to support them. These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too. Add to it that you have yet to address why you maintain it's nature to be disgusted by gays when you cite the matter of you being deeply gendered as the source for your disgust, and I think you have got to be one of the most confused/ignorant people I've ever wasted time on.

  256. says

    It's not a loaded question. I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust. You've shown yourself that it isn't natural rather your embracement of hegemonics that is your rational for disgust. You call it a loaded question just to dress up your argumentative suit, which by the way looks horrible on you. You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural.

  257. says

    RORSCHACH"These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too"That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACYI oppose gay marriage because of the identity issue. Nothing more an nothing less. I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife…On the other hand, there are SCIENTIFIC STUDIES showing gay men are a health risk. the FDA won't even allow them to donate plasma. I would love to see the gay movement take on FDA.

  258. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterIt was a quote from one of the authors on the implications of your precious study.I will agree at this point that what you are talking about is not based in fear, call it homophobia or whatever you like, but it is in no way vindicated because of that. You will notice I used scare quotes to imply a less common use of the term."Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgust".You have degraded into near gibberish.

  259. says

    I've tracked down some information on the "studies" that Charlie keeps citing. The first, which Charlie described as "Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear," is covered here and here. I wasn't able to track down an abstract of the actual article. Here are some key quotes, though:By using a research tool known as the Padua Inventory, which assesses contamination obsessions, the researchers found "a perception of contagion that feeds into homophobia."In other words, that the homophobes perceive a risk of contamination. More relevant:Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones — that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia.[…]"If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."So even the authors of the study Charlie cites believe that anti-gay disgust or bigotry is not psychopathological, not medical, and is instead "a moral or social problem." Immediate and obvious problems with the study: it's a survey of graduate students, so it's a small non-representative sample size, and it appears that the metric they used is specifically designed to gauge contamination phobias, which may have biased the results in that direction. Notably, from one of the authors: Olatunji said the researchers did not yet know the extent to which the results could be replicated in a broader sample. "Obviously you don't want to make generalizations when you don't have a very inclusive population," Olatunji said. "That may be something we may be able to address in the future." Charlie is clearly jumping the gun, and it's hilarious that the authors admit that their study has the same kinds of problems that Charlie cited in other quoted studies in the thread. One more quote for irony:Olatunji said that anti-gay hostility is a prejudicial attitude more closely resembling racism than a phobia.

  260. says

    As to the other study, it appears to be this one, which does indeed talk about the evolutionary origins of moral disgust. Specifically, how the evolutionary mechanism which causes us to react negatively to things like rotten food was hijacked by the moral part of our brain to elicit similar responses to moral offenses. More information's available here and here.So where did Charlie get this wrong? Aside from his basic misunderstanding that this means "moral disgust" has an evolutionary advantage, he apparently hasn't read past the first couple of sentences. While the disgust response to bitter foods probably did have an evolutionary advantage related to disease avoidance, the study showed that similar responses are elicited from situations where disease isn't even involved. Specifically the last test, where participants were cheated and experienced the same sense of moral disgust. What it does not state is that all disgust is necessarily out of disease avoidance (and in fact, that some disgust obviously is not), that the disgust mechanism is reliable for detecting disease (obviously the bitter and sour liquids these participants took were not disease-causing agents), or that disgust toward homosexuality is an evolved or adapted trait (homophobia was not tested in this study).So, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about.

  261. says

    RORSCHACH"I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust"I just told you…..Disgust fuels my gendered views. There's nothing wrong with that"You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural". Are you ready to feel stupid? Study shows homo "phobia" is rooted in disgust not fear. (Olatunji, doctoral student Suzanne ) 2. Gay men elicit disgust (knobe 2006) 4. Disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior (Hanah Chapman)

  262. says

    Of all the things you choose to attack, you attack an alleged faulty analogy fallacy? I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from and that it's counter intuitive to your position of "supporting gays" to label them as health risks. Scientific studies don't show that gays are health risks, it demonstrates the need for healthful measures of safe-sex practices for gays. Your connotation is in no way supportive and only shows what kind of traitor/hypocrite you are. And as I've pointed out before, the whole identity issue stands on weak grounds. Why do you discount it as an identity issue for gays as well?

  263. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterContinuing to use studies in your argument that have been demonstrated not to imply what you say they imply?You are done.

  264. says

    You still haven't demonstrated it's a genetic/evolutionary issue. You've just shown it's disgust that brings about a phobia and this is more linked to sociology of gender/sexuality. Not so much genetics or evolutionary behavior.

  265. says

    So, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about. You're the one who didn't read the whole study or didn't understand it and that link doesn't have all the information. It's just a small part of it.Here's a quote"Disgust is an evolved psychological system for protecting organisms from infection through disease avoidant behaviour. This ‘behavioural immune system’, present in a diverse array of species, exhibits universal features that orchestrate hygienic behaviour in response to cues of risk of contact with pathogens. However, disgust is also a dynamic adaptive system. Individuals show variation in pathogen avoidance associated with psychological traits like having a neurotic personality, as well as a consequence of being in certain physiological states such as pregnancy or infancy. Three specialized learning mechanisms modify the disgust response: the Garcia effect, evaluative conditioning and the law of contagion. Hygiene behaviour is influenced at the group level through social learning heuristics such as ‘copy the frequent’. Finally, group hygiene is extended symbolically to cultural rules about purity and pollution, which create social separations and are enforced as manners. Cooperative hygiene endeavours such as sanitation also reduce pathogen prevalence. Our model allows us to integrate perspectives from psychology, ecology and cultural evolution with those of epidemiology and anthropology. Understanding the nature of disease avoidance psychology at all levels of human organization can inform the design of programmes to improve public health"

  266. says

    I freed six comments from the spam filter. It seems to get really overzealous on long comment threads. Bad spam filter! Bad!

  267. says

    "I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from" My justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIES…If christians agree with science, they're right.

  268. says

    Congrats, Charlie, you've shown you can copy-paste, but not that you actually understand what's being said. It'd be nice for you to provide a link to what you're copypasting from, but it's largely irrelevant. Nothing in that quote addresses any of the points I made with respect to your misinterpretation of the Chapman-Anderson study.

  269. says

    The thing is you're discounting how society has an influence on disgust. I'm saying that you're discounting the matter of society's influence on the "yuk factor." Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."

  270. says

    John K.Considering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk…They wouldn't not allow them for nothing. So the disgust of gay men is NOT irrational. They are a TRUE health risk.Also, study shows disgust is NATURALhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328101621.htmQUOTE"The reason we experience disgust today is that the response protected our ancestors," said Dan Fessler, associate professor of anthropology and director of UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture. "The emotion allowed our ancestors to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us." Across a series of subtle and ingenious studies, Fessler has managed to illuminate the ways in which disgust may have served to protect our ancestors during such biologically precarious situations as pregnancy and to maximize the likelihood of our forbears' reproduction when they were at their most fertile"

  271. says

    I just don't understand what is Charlie trying to achieve. Regardless of all the argumentation here regarding history, semantics and studies the bottom line is there is no good reason not to allow gay people to marry and while homophobia might be a misnomer of sorts who really gives a shit if it serves its purpose?

  272. says

    @CharlieYou know Christians use those a lot.You know, for a guy who dotes on accusing other people of using strawman arguments, you pull this one out waaaaaaay too often.

  273. says

    @Charlie"Avoidance is driven by fear"This is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.It's neither. It's a direct, plain statement… five words: a subject, copula verb, and adjectival phrase. Nothing vague about it. It's also entirely germane to your central theme.

  274. says

    "Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one"But you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system.

  275. says

    Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable), circular logic ('gay men are a disease risk because the CDC won't let them donate blood, and the CDC wouldn't have that rule unless they were a disease risk'–which has nothing to do with marriage, morality, or lesbians), and evolution (which is not some wise guiding hand that produces perfectly-reliable instincts, nor is it something that is likely to cause major effects over the course of two to three generations, nor does it suggest that every emotion and notion is the direct result of an adaptive trait).Needless to say, these are the least of his misunderstandings, but they're significant nonetheless. He's a kook, and his ratio of abuse/coherence is rapidly approaching Mabusian proportions.

  276. says

    I AM! But I'm saying that an evolutionary impulse isn't exclusively evolutionary influenced! The way your social schema is oriented heavily influences whether you feel disgust or not. It is not purely instinctual.

  277. says

    He's trying to reach ascension into the Timecube dimension. It can take years of argument and mental focus to reach that stage of atheits evolution.

  278. says

    @Charliethis is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.No, it's not, actually. A slippery slope fallacy is one that presents an original case or fact and insists it extends to an outcome that does not necessarily follow. That's not what I was doing in observing that disadvantaged groups end up on the business end of "separate but equal" arrangements.

  279. says

    But you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system. No, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease (and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents) but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain, so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.

  280. says

    @CharlieIt just disgust me to thinkYou're admitting, right here, that disgust is not necessarily tied to an avoidance of disease. There's no threat of a physical disease to be gained in avoiding an idea, which is what you're talking about when you use "disgust" here. You've just tacitly disavowed your own conviction by using the word this way.Perhaps you need to invent another word, because "studies show" you're not using it in the way it was originally intended (at least, as you purport).

  281. says

    @CharlieMy justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIESI'd venture to say it's been long obvious to everyone here, Charlie, that in fact your disgust isn't based on "scientific studies"; rather, it's culturally based, rooted in latent Christian doctrine, and that you've gone out of your way to cherry pick these "scientific studies" both as a means of self-justification after the fact and as a paper-thin shield against the charge that simply parroting the Christian party line.

  282. says

    Can anybody please tell me what homosexuality has to do with atheism??Just because some theists justify their homophobia with their fairy-tale-book? Guess what, all others will find other made up reasons.

  283. says

    @HariseIntrinsically nothing of course. However, you'll tend to find people debating all sorts of things on here, and as (from my experience) the majority of atheists tend to be on the liberal side of the fence, we'll jump to the defence of liberal values and will deride bigotry as and when we come across it. That, and we just enjoy a good argument sometimes, no matter what the subject!

  284. says

    "I love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women. "If women are fine what's wrong with men acting like women.Back to basic logic A=A

  285. says

    All I can say is that I become immediately suspicious of the motives of anyone who is ferociously bigoted against another group. I don't spend this much time or energy thinking about or discussing my own sex life let alone that of others. And, as usual, the bigots cannot present a reasoned, rational argument to justify their opinions.

  286. says

    Can't get enough of these "Are you ready for X?" responses. Please give us some more of those, Charlie.What I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?

  287. says

    You know even if Homophobia is disease avoidence behavoir there's the problem that humans are not purely instinct driven. As I stated there are theories that xenophobia is danger avoidance behavior…the fact that it has a natural origin means squat because we should be able to recognize that evolution has not fitted us perfectly into being 'nice' and 'just'. It's up to us to swallow our pride and choke down our disgust at times when the needs of our higher brain function override that of reflex. Charlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct.

  288. says

    What I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?He says it doesn't. He just happens to be having two debates at the same time.1) Whether homosexual males are "bad" or not2) Whether they should be allowed to use the "m-word" or not, even though he is happy to say that it would be functionally identical to the "not-m-word".These two arguments just happen to be occurring at the same time, and it's just coincidence they're both about a negative attitude towards one select group of people.

  289. says

    Tom Foss,You're about to feel like the complete fool you are."No, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease"You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's. FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. "(and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents)"Don't forget about visual disgust. "but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain"You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases. So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do. We will naturally see it as a threat. GET A CLUE so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.

  290. says

    ing,"Charlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct"Avoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell. So are you willing to move beyond that and eat your own shit??So are you a shit eater????Our disease avoidance behavior towards gay men is obviously useful today because it actually correlates with FDA. FDA doesn't allow gay men to donate blood so gay men are obviously a health risk to society.Disguts of gay men – health risk to society So we're disgusted by the RIGHT people, that's for sure. Out of all the people in the world, the disease avoidance behavior should be used on gay men and it is because studies shows it..It all makes perfect senseBy the way, this argument is unrelated to the gay marriage argument.

  291. says

    "So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do"What should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots? Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black. Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order. So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential things.

  292. says

    Tom Foss,"Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable)" Are you ready to feel like the IDIOT you are???but that also doesn't mean it can't be right or useful.In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety t

  293. says

    "What should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots?" First of all, expression of disgust is not "bigotry"Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage."Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black"Are you ready to feel like an idiot???Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust. Disgust is natural. I can't help it, sorry. "Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order"Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it. That's why FDA won't allow gay men to donate blood. Disgust of gay men( homophobia)is good for us. So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential

  294. says

    Oh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish. Consider the following:…as humans became more reliant on social groups and the cultural information they provided, basic disgust was co-opted by the emerging tribal instincts to help perform a variety of novel functions that arose in conjunction with this increased sociality. In doing so, disgust’s most characteristic features, features that initially evolved to solve adaptive problems linked to poisons and parasites, were brought to bear on those new functions in the social domain. Moreover, it is exactly this *imperfect fit* between the basic disgust response and many of those social functions it was later coopted to perform that gives rise to the sorts of puzzling results turning up in the recent research on moral cognition. In short, some of the more troubling features of moral judgments discussed in the first section can be understood as cognitive byproducts, generated by the mismatch between “unanticipated” problems and the kludgy solutiondisgust helps provide.(continued because blogger hates long posts)

  295. says

    pro gay "atheist"There is a difference between pro-rights and pro-gay, you know.But in either case – Unapologetically.

  296. says

    "In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC"Yet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails. If you're going to divide people up and tell us who to hate and why, make sure you have a damned good argument. So far you don't have a single one.

  297. says

    Ibis,"Oh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish" BULLSHIT,Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today.

  298. says

    gD44,"Yet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails"Do you realize how irrational your claim is??That's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy pics.Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)

  299. says

    If I had presented arguments based on misused studies, and then had the actual studies presented and had it pointed out where I misused them, I would be "tired of arguing" as well.If there is any instance where a disgust instinct can be shown to prompt the wrong behavior, it cannot be used as a justification for any behavior. This is basic logic.The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism.This guy was out of ammo 100 posts ago.

  300. says

    "You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage."I haven't heard you present anything more than a collection of disparate facts (many of which appear to be things you're making up) and I have no strong opinions on marriage, gay or straight. All I see is you attempting to justify your disgust of homosexuals and doing a remarkably poor job of it. "Disgust of gay men is good for us"No, actually it's not… because you're nurturing your misanthropy, which is inherently anti-human. This kind of divisive tribalism is the cause of too many problems already and is a signature feature of many religions. It's a shame you fail to recognize the analogies. I don't care if you dislike homosexuals. But stomping your feet over it to the extent that you have has damaged whatever credibility your position may have had. Now, there is no mystery that it had none to begin with.

  301. says

    "Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)"You said humans evolved a disgust of homosexuals. I pointed out that homosexuals do not have this alleged "evolved disgust". Then you call me irrational and present an apples-to-oranges analogy in order to distract from the point that your argument failed. I don't expect intelligent arguments from someone who has yet to provide one. All I can say is that I hope you find a bit of peace with yourself and overcome your masturbatory justifications for your disgust. It's kind of an undesirable quality.

  302. says

    A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…Well, at least he knows about wikipedia.So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of womeI suspect it's more that you worry that he views you like a woman.I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife…Why? What's so important about it?Considering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk…They wouldn't not allow them for nothing.Because the FDA is always right and never bows to any kind of political pressure.

  303. says

    @CharlieThat's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy picsNo, Charlie, it's not like saying that because humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not.

  304. says

    @CharlieAvoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell.You'll say anything, won't you? Just pull it right out of thin air… Christians do that, Charlie. Okay, so how do you account for the fact that dogs do just exactly what you're saying there's no way they possible could, given that they have a sense of smell thousands, and for some chemicals, millions of times more sensitive than our own? Please feel free to pull another "fact" out of thin air to explain the previous one.

  305. says

    @CharlieGET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.Charlie, you're a bigoted BS artist who nobody here agrees with… so get your OWN clue, and leave ours alone.

  306. says

    I am still waiting to hear Charlie state his case against homosexuals/same-sex marrige. I will willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia – how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?And by rights I mean they are to be treated the same as heterosexuals. Not like the *rights* of blacks to have their own water fountain for *people of colour* or *schools for people of colour*.

  307. says

    bare foot hiker,"No, Charlie, it's not like saying that because "humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not" Are you forgetting that homosexuals are homosexuals so therefore, what heterosexuals find disgusting, homosexuals find sexually appealing???Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attractionDisgust of homosexuality is a part of being heterosexuals. STraight men are disgusted by same sex sexual attraction and same for straight women.If that's not obvious to you, you have to be delusional

  308. says

    "The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism"You failed to understand that disgust of anything is more like racism than a phobiaAlso, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust.

  309. says

    You're about to feel like the complete fool you areYou'd be the undisputed expert..You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.Don't forget about visual disgust. Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases. In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives. GET A CLUELEARN TO READ.One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic. To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.

  310. says

    "Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"Now you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above

  311. says

    bare foot hiker,Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today

  312. says

    (continued)Common sense and anecdotal evidence is supported by recent research showing that disgust is indeed operative in a number of different types of these social norms. In these cases, the emotion provides the types of intrinsic motivation mentioned above, including motivation to comply with the norm in question, to avoid the actions they prohibit, and to punish or direct punitive attitudes at transgressors of the norm. Indeed, disgust has been shown to play such roles in a number of different types of norms, including the rules of table etiquette (Nichols 2002a, 2002b, 2004), taboos restricting the consumption of meat (Fessler & Navarrete 2003), and taboos against incest (Lieberman et al. 2003, Fessler & Navarette 2004). […]More generally, the anthropologist Richard Shweder and his colleagues have called attention to an entire class of norms that follow the logic of disgust, which they call purity norms (Shweder et al. 1997, Haidt et al. 1997, Rozin et al. 1999). As their name suggests, purity norms are often understood as regulating issues of purity, not only guarding the sanctity of the physical body, but also protecting the soul from contamination and spiritual defilement. Indeed, purity norms are often distinguished from other classes of norms, such as harm norms or fairness norms, in that transgressions of purity norms usually do not result in direct physical harm or the inequitable treatment of any person. More traditional or religious cultures often see transgressors of a purity norm as defiling themselves by disrespecting the sacredness of God (or the gods), or by violating the divine order. Purity norms are not completely absent from largely secular cultures, however; their presence is just not as central to the social structure or prevailing moral code. They are often given a different justification in secular cultures, as well: transgressions of purity norms are usually conceived of as “crimes against nature” or violations of the natural order.Also confirming commonsense suspicions are recent neuroimaging experimentsthat link the disgust response to prejudices and ethnic membership. This research showsdisgust to be operative in sustaining a class of biases and prejudicial attitudes towardsthose in particular outgroups or tribes. As was mentioned above, distinct emotions are often associated with the different types of attitudes directed at different outgroups andtheir members (Cottrell & Neuberg 2005). Particularly interesting (if not completelysurprising) is the demonstration that disgust is often the emotion linked to the mostextreme prejudices, directed at members of the lowliest, most vilified and dehumanizedethnicities (Harris & Fiske 2006).All quotations from Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis by Daniel R. Kelly, a paper to appear in Signaling, Commitment and Emotion, Eds. R. Joyce, K. Sterelny and B. Calcott. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  313. says

    Petr, w"ill willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia – how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?"Hey dumb ass,The two arguments are unrelated. homophobia (disease avoidance behavior)is unrelated to why I oppose gay marriage

  314. says

    Oh, and for good measure, for Martin from the same paper: "Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts, escargot, caviar, pork rinds, Whoppers and deep-fried Twinkies."QED

  315. says

    gd44,"Now you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above" BULLSHIT,SOURCESGay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientistshttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.phpLESBIAN'S BRAINS NOT THE SAMEhttp://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lesbians_brains_not_same/Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

  316. says

    ibis,"Certain types of perfectly edible" "certain" doesn't mean ALL.Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia) correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety

  317. says

    "BULLSHIT,SOURCES"Great! Now all you have to do is show how this "different wiring" has "obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"Also, brains don't have wires.

  318. says

    You're about to feel like the complete fool you areYou'd be the undisputed expert..You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.Don't forget about visual disgust. Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases. In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives. GET A CLUELEARN TO READ.One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic. To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.

  319. says

    "According to this site (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm), 42.6% of people with AIDS are black. Therefore, our "evolved disgust" of blacks is justified. It's good for us and protects our health"Are you ready to feel stupid again???First of all,STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtmlSTudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problemhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=home DEBUNKEDNOT ONE study shows racism is rooted in disgust. NOT ONE study shows blacks elicit digust

  320. says

    So, you want to take the part of the study that relates to your disgust of homosexuals as justification, but ignore the parallels it draws with racism?This is called cherry picking.According to the CDC, HIV infections are highest in black/African Americans in the United States. Would disgust based discrimination against this group be justified? If not, you are engaging in special pleading.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/race-ethnicity/slides/race-ethnicity_2.pdf“Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction”So your disgust is justified but theirs is due to a ruined brain, special pleading again.

  321. says

    Should we find it interesting that a whopping majority of HIV/AIDS infected people are black? If your anti-homosexual stance is justifiable, then anyone can justify, say… policies of segregation or apartheid, or just good old-fashioned, Southern American black hatred – because the AIDS/HIV statistics could justify it. Enough of that sarcasm because you probably won't recognize it. Sir, it seems you're just a typical hater, with no good reason to hate.

  322. says

    Charlie: I'm wondering what your purpose is in continuing to argue this point. If you're hoping to convince people, I think it's clear from this thread alone that the more you discuss the subject, the more people are turning against you.I googled you, you know, to find out more about who we're talking to. Now that I know, when I Google "Charlie Check'm" I get the following results: 1. Your Myspace page.2. "Why Wanna-Be Rapper Charlie Check’m Will Never Represent the Atheist Community"3. An article discussing your getting kicked off of Atheist Nexus. Approvingly.4. A post by Friendly Atheist promoting your video. In the middle of the comments, he finds out that you're a homophobe and is embarrassed. He decides against deleting the post, but it's a struggle.5. A page calling you "retarded."6. A page at the Atheist Nexus noting that you were banned.7. The Rational Response Squad calling you out for your homophobia.8. A post on Yahoo Answers calling you a troll.9. ANOTHER post calling attention to your Atheist Nexus ban.10. A music web page.If I were just speaking as your PR agent, I would call this an epic fail. Among the top ten search results, eight are from sources other than you, and they are universally negative.You seem to be aggressively committed to alienating the very people who ought to be your core musical audience (assuming you have one). I don't entirely understand why. I suppose you could say you are defending your principles, but you have done it remarkably badly. I can't find a trace of any person, either on this thread or on any site I located through Google, who appears to have been persuaded towards your side. And meanwhile, you seem to be killing what appeared to be a promising niche music career a couple of years ago.I'm just wondering what you think you're getting out of it?

  323. says

    It's no secret that a lot of men who employ anti-gay tactics and behaviors are actually gay themselves. Charlie: it's better to come out of the closet. You are gay. Just go with it, finally. You are gay! You are gayer than 8 guys screwing 9 guys. You are gayer than pink balloons shooting out of a unicorn's ass. Come to terms with it and begin enjoying life for a change.

  324. says

    @atheistdeceitbusterYou said, "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that," referring to anal sex.1) What's the difference between male #1 who likes anal-play and male #2 who likes anal-play?Notice: One of those males is heterosexual, one is homosexual. I haven't said which one is which, so you won't be able to tell either. See if you can answer correctly.2) What's the difference between a male who likes anal-play and a female who likes anal-play?Point being, many straight people, male and female, enjoy anal sex.

  325. says

    I apologize if some of this was covered in the previous 360+ message, I couldn't slog thru them all. For one, it is important to differentiate the disgust felt toward a homosexual act and disgust at the person themselves. I might find eating dead animals disgusting but that doesn't mean I support stripping away the rights of carnivores or treating people that eat meat as sub-human. Whether or not you personally don't find homosexuality appealing is rather besides the point.Secondly it is highly doubtful that your disgust is evolved. For one STDS can be received thru heterosexual sex just as easily so obviously it is not a strong selection pressure or we would find that disgusting as well. It appears you are trying to take a small evolutionary principle and extrapolate it out in order to justify your own feelings toward gays.Yes, blood donors are screened for sexuality. As a regular donor I can attest to that but so are people that visited certain nations at certain times. It is an attempt to screen out people that have been subject to disease outbreaks. That fact that homosexual men have suffered from an outbreak of disease does not mean that it is inherent in the act. We don't have an evolved 'disgust' of people that ate meat (mad cow disease) in Europe in 1985 just because it shows up on donor screening questionnaires so it is rather pointless to keep bringing that up.

  326. says

    STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtmlPoverty is also linked to race, genius. Black people are more likely to be in poverty. So are gays, in many places. But somehow I doubt you'll dismiss the confounding factors that complicate the connection between gays and HIV. STudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problemhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=homeThat's for the U.S. Please cite studies to demonstrate that this is true in Africa, where 68% of HIV-infected individuals are.

  327. says

    Please don't let this "Charlie" past the call screeners anymore. He's been booted off Atheist Nexus at least twice that I know of and he never lets up on this nonsense. He's really not worth the waste of time.

  328. says

    You're such a hypocrite, Charlie. You pretend you simply care about the "identity" of words. The original meaning of the word "gay" had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals, but you don't seem to have any problem using the word to refer to them. I don't see you insisting that "gay" is a misnomer and that we have to stop using "gay" to refer to homosexuals in order to preserve the identity of the word. Why is it only with gay marriage and when people label you a homophobe that suddenly you give a shit about what words are "supposed" to mean.

  329. says

    Martin: Anyway, I'm disgusted by brussels sprouts. But I'm pretty sure they won't give me a disease.Charlie: Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust. You FAILED AGAIN.Dr. Kelly: Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts…Charlie: "certain" doesn't mean ALL.Dumbass.Charlie: Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust.Drs. Harris & Fiske: Analyses revealed medial prefrontal cortex activation to all social groups except extreme (low-low) out-groups, who especially activated insula and amygdala, a pattern consistent with disgust.Charlie: [crickets]Double dumbass.Charlie: Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it.Dr. Kelly: The social norms that recruit disgust appear to require, most basically, some kind of avoidance and aversion motivation. In co-opting disgust in particular, the activities proscribed by those norms, as well as those actors who transgress them, are not simply avoided and found aversive. Rather, they are also subliminally infused with a very specific kind of offensiveness, are often considered tainted and contaminating, so much so that they can induce a desire to cleanse or purify oneself. […]The vividness and visceral power of the emotion could lead people to remain doggedly committed to other attitudes and norms that involve disgust, even if those attitudes and norms can be shown to be unjustified or rationally unfounded.Charlie: Wahh. What about the FDA?Unjustified and rationally unfounded.

  330. says

    And while I am at it, in the U.S. of all the HIV cases due to Male to male sexual contact, blacks/African Americans rate highest at 42% with white second highest at 35.7%.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/images/slide5.gifSo, is disgust for say, Asian gay men at 1.2% no longer justified? Why only generalize about the sexual practices of gay people and not by race as well? There was certainly a time when there was revulsion at idea of drinking from the same water fountain or swimming in the same pool as black people, is this attitude now acceptable in light of disease statistics?Why stop there, why not use statistics by state or country to justify disgust?The real factors are promiscuity, anal intercourse, and lack of protected sex, not things you can tell about a person based upon a level of disgust you have for them, or even their gender preference.

  331. says

    Wow, nice party gang. Like it.After all this the purpose of Charlie's disgust argument is starting to elude me. I haven't watched the show yet, but he's vaguely setting up some weak saw that the gay rights movement invented or at least championed the term homophobia to misdirect the public from the NATURAL origin of dislike of gays and turn it into an "irrational fear" isn't he? Thus undermining it with all that postmodernism stuff they use that can do anything! Even turn Man against his very Nature!Interestingly, if he is saying that, he's admitting that ideas have rather a lot of currency in how peoples feel about certain things isn't he. Hmmm.Anyway, the disgust syllogism is obviously absurd, as many have pointed out. No Psych worth their diploma is going to say that there is anything absolute about disgust except disgust itself. What actually disgusts us varies wildly. Take your average westerner to a Cambodian market with all its deep fried spiders and cockroaches for sale as snacks and see what face they make. Hell watch some video of the old ladies in South American countries making that drink that's fermented by spitting in it. Put some cooked pork in front of an orthodox Jew. Let a dog into your house when you have fairly strict Muslims from some places as guests. Show the soles of your feet to some people, go back in time the medieval Rennaisance England and throw your shit out in the street like everyone else (or parts of Calcutta today). Then maybe collect it and sell it to a tannery for a living. etc etc.A quick glance at the world pretty thoroughly ruins any usefulness for that explanation (not that any has been really suggested except "it matches other disease identifying methods in nonspecific ways" Yeah great).So when it comes to 'homophobia is disgust->disgust is a disease avoidance behaviour' let's not pretend there's anything but a vast chasm between those two things, bridged only by addressing a whole lot of human variability (and no widespread cultural homophobia doesn't cut it. It's disgust itself as any truly specific metric of human nature that is failing here).

  332. says

    "There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."Proof that Charlie's problem with gay people is not out of disease avoidance, but out of his idea that gay men act like women.In other words, he's a raging homophobe because he's a raging misogynist.This also explains why his "disease avoidance" excuse falls flat when it comes to lesbians and heterosexual women, but he still chooses to mock gay women by saying that they "play the man".

  333. says

    John K,gay men 44 times more likely to contract hiv than heterosexual men (including black heterosexual men)Source CDCSo are you saying CDC is LYING???Why has FDA deemed gay men a health risk to society???? Why can't gay men donate blood? So they're just fucking with gay men for nothing or is it something to this???Why weren't blacks or any other group deemed as a health risk by FDA???Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven.

  334. says

    "May I ask any and all of the people here to please tell me what on earth we are doing and/or accomplishing here? "Because its worth letting people like Charlie talk because their facade breaks down and they expose themselves as idiotic bile spewing bigots like he did before with his cute little bout of slur slinging. The point is to get Charlie to make a fool of himself"Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven. "Repeated Charlie, it's not universal.

  335. says

    @atheistdeceitbuster: We have already been through examples like ancient greece. By the way do you realise that most gay men and women are equally as disgusted by straight sex as well?for the fourth time: Why shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights.

  336. says

    I just want to know why we should even give two craps about how Charlie feels about gay people. I don't hate gay people; I'm not afraid of them; and they certainly do not disgust me. Does he have any political power? Is he going to act violently towards gay people? He certainly doesn't have the charisma to influence people like him to become anti-gay activists. It seems to me, Charlie, you just want to feel special. You want to be the odd man out in a room full of atheists. But you've got us wrong. This community doesn't fight against theists because we want to feel superior or because we just don't like that they believe something we don't. Maybe that's why you are against them, considering you insist that we conform to your ideas. We are fighting against theists/religionists because most of the time, they are encouraging and spreading ignorance, hate, violence, disgust, and fear. I really couldn't care less WHY or HOW you hate gays. I don't care if a drag queen wearing a rainbow boa and a tiara killed your entire family while you watched, you are still a prejudiced and small-minded individual. In the end, I just plain disagree with you. I don't think you have any power in the world around you and certainly no power to change my mind or world view. Mostly, you have an impotent position that is inevitably going to be crushed by the onward momentum of society.

  337. says

    "Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society."So Italy and Spain aren't real?You realize gay people can freely give blood in Italy and Spain, right?

  338. says

    Just a few high points:DEFINITIONS: Yes, homophobia has drifted from the clinical diagnosis of a pathological aversion to homosexuality, so that it now includes overall bigotry. So what? Dictionaries are written to be descriptive, not proscriptive. And anyway, words, particularly scientific ones, are prone to being co-opted by the public. We call people neurotic who have no diagnosable neuroses. We call people codependent when there is no pattern of abuse/enabling. We call people "psycho" as in "my psycho ex" when there's no diagnosable personality disorder. Deal with it. Charlie is a homophobe, all and sundry understand that I'm calling him a bigot, no miscommunication has occurred. (cue tides go in, tides go out joke.) NATURALISTIC FALLACY: People have pointed out several times that just because something evolved a certain way does not mean that it's necessarily a good idea or behavior to enshrine in our current society. EVEN IF Charlie had made the case that homophobic disgust is adaptive, which he hasn't, then there is no cause to elevate that to a guiding principle. The blood donation issue actually works against his argument, because it involves applying disease avoidance in its most basic, minimalized, necessary context, thus rendering all the associated emotional baggage obsolete. Because we have such things as modern medicine, blood testing, and a scientific understanding of disease, any ostensible instinct on the matter is rendered obsolete and unnecessary–and quite happily, too, as bigotry has clear social downsides. AD HOC FALLACY: Charlie is a bigot. His arguments are clearly emotional as he keeps returning to "disgust," as though his visceral reaction justified anything. He encrusts his emotion with this notion of "disease avoidance behavior" even though he's been given multiple examples where instinctual disgust is inappropriate. If you want to see the fruits of overcoming disgust, go to a French restaurant–they make use of some horrifying ingredients. (Snails! Ewwww!) AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Charlie continually attacks his opponents, not their arguments, saying they are sounding or acting like Christians, and his constant refrain of "get ready to feel stupid again." This is a childish bullying tactic. FALLACIES: Charlie's constant mashing of the "strawman fallacy" or what-have-you is only making him look more foolish, as he clearly has only the vaguest notion of what their criteria are, and more than a few he seems to make up whenever he feels like shouting at someone and accusing them of acting like a Christian. He might as well say, "My hair looks like a bird: your argument is invalid!"I'm out, until Charlie has been banhammered into next week as he has so richly, ostentatiously earned.

  339. says

    Repeated Charlie, it's not universal. Even if it were, that wouldn't necessarily mean what he wants it to mean. It could just be the same moral objection over and over.

  340. says

    @petrWhy shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights.He's not saying that. It's even more inane. He just doesn't want them using the word.

  341. says

    "Charlie continually attacks his opponents, not their arguments, saying they are sounding or acting like Christians, and his constant refrain of "get ready to feel stupid again." This is a childish bullying tactic."Not only that, but despite the constant insults he lobs at his opponents, he seems to think that saying "fuck" means it's totally okay to start spewing bigoted anti-gay language at people, no matter what orientation they have, either because he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is gay, or because he thinks calling someone gay is a horrible insult, which just says so much about him.Because it's not "respectful", yanno.

  342. says

    @JT: Throughout this whole argument he turned out to be such a bigot that I wouldn't be surprised if he now openly admitted that it's not just some sort of silly word game anymore.

  343. says

    I can't possibly respond to everyones claims so, take this test…if you get all the answers right, you agree with me. Take this test..1. Gay men aren't allowed to donate blood so explain why FDA has deemed gay men a health risk to society in Europe, USA and China???? Are they just fucking with gay men for no reason?2. Why do gay men elicit disgust in almost every nation and almost every culture throughout the world??? 3. Why do feces, rotten foods and gay men elicit unversal disgust among humans all over the world and vegetables don't?4. Why do many buddhist dislike gays when buddhism isn't against homosexuality?5. STudy shows gay men elicit disgust. Is this true?6. Study shows some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Could this behavior still be useful today??7. Could our disease avoidance behavior still be used to avoid a group who FDA deemed a threat to pubic health??? Is it possible???if you get all the answers right, you proved my argument is correct.

  344. says

    Can you site any of these studies that show people are disgusted by gays. And why don't you have a problem with lesbians?

  345. says

    "1. Gay men aren't allowed to donate blood so explain why FDA has deemed gay men a health risk to society in Europe, USA and China????"Oh, NOW you expand it to regions outside the US?Gay men can donate blood in Italy, Spain, Sweden, UK, South Africa, and New Zealand. How many of these aren't in Europe? Why do you think the US Food and Drug Administration has any authority over anyone else other than the US? Why are you ONLY using it as a source when you know full well that it isn't the only health organization in the world? Does "universal" only mean "USA" to you?"if you get all the answers right, you proved my argument is correct."So the only way we can answer "right" is by agreeing with you? Why?Why are you pissed off by men who you say "take the role" of women if you don't think women are lesser than men? Do you think that women's only "role" is to be a penis receptacle?Why aren't you disgusted by heterosexual men and women when they're shown to be harbingers of disease? Do you think Chlamydia isn't a disease?

  346. says

    "DEFINITIONS: Yes, homophobia has drifted from the clinical diagnosis of a pathological aversion to homosexuality, so that it now includes overall bigotry"this is a STRAW MAN FALLACY….Homophobia has NEVER BEEN A Clinical diagnosis of a pathological aversion to homosexuality..It was only STAGED to be."NATURALISTIC FALLACY: People have pointed out several times that just because something evolved a certain way does not mean that it's necessarily a good idea or behavior"This is ANOTHER straw man fallacy. I never made that vague, general claim. I SPECIFICALLY was talking about disgust of gay men "The blood donation issue actually works against his argument, because it involves applying disease avoidance in its most basic, minimalized, necessary context"That's FLAWED LOGIC….DISGUST is instinctive and it's usually observed by expression while information from scientific studies ends up in text books "thus rendering all the associated emotional baggage obsolete. Because we have such things as modern medicine, blood testing, and a scientific understanding of disease, any ostensible instinct on the matter is rendered obsolete and unnecessary"FALSE premises AND CONCLUDION… Modern medicine, blood testing, ect doesn't do away with our natural feelings of disgust…"AD HOC FALLACY: Charlie is a bigot" Your'e calling me a bigot because you're intolerant of my views. that's BIGOTRY so you're the bigot"His arguments are clearly emotional as he keeps returning to "disgust," Stating facts about studies isn't an indication of an "emotional argument"..Im not the one using the black race to APPEAL TO EMOTIONS"He encrusts his emotion with this notion of "disease avoidance behavior" even though he's been given multiple examples where instinctual disgust is inappropriate"COUNTERING my argument with red herring fallacies doesn't debunk my claim. Im specifically talking about disgust of gay men and disgust of gay men only. Some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior and some aren't. "AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Charlie continually attacks his opponents, not their arguments, saying they are sounding or acting like Christians"THATS A LIEI never downplay their claim because they act like Chritians so therefore, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. I downplay their claim by the validity of their claim ALONE."and his constant refrain of "get ready to feel stupid again." This is a childish bullying tactic" I dont' disrespect them unless they disrespect me. Plain and simpleYOU FAILED

  347. says

    Hey, Charlie, I skimmed around a lot of the back-and-forth here. I don't know if anyone has pointed this out to you yet since I'm not going to read 8 million comments. All I'm going to say is that I really don't give a shit about anything you have to say, and the reason is because you come off as a fucking asshole. I listened to your original call on the show, and I think you really just like making people look stupid at any cost. When you repeatedly say things like "Are you ready to feel stupid????" when someone refutes a point, that makes you an asshole. You don't seem to be interested in actual conversation unless it's confrontational. So fuck off.

  348. says

    MAK,Do you believe FDA is just fucking with gay men for no reason???Why has FDA deemed gay men a health risk to society??? Why can't gay men donate blood? There's obviously something serious and DANGEROUS going onWhy can't you see that???

  349. says

    Can anyone please update me on what is Charlie arguing about again?- Gays are more deseased than straight people.- Therefore evolution created this feeling of disgust in people towards gays as a defence mechanism.- Homophobia is a misnomer.Yes? No? Is it all? Because if it is then I don't really know why does this thread have over 400 posts.-> Gays may have more STDs on average. I don't know but I am prepared to concede that if there are reliable statistics out there. So what? -> I am not disgusted by gays. Short of hardcore gay porn I don't even flinch. (and I don't really like hardcore anal heterosexual porn either) If you are: Cool. If it really is caused by evolution: Cool. How is it relevant to anything today? You can be disgusted by anything you damn well please. Just don't bash/trample on the rights of others.-> Homophobia is a misnomer. There. I said it. WHO GIVES A SHIT?! As long as all/most people agree on a definition, albeit 'the wrong one' the word serves its purpose.Did I pass your retarded test?

  350. says

    "I never made that vague, general claim. I SPECIFICALLY was talking about disgust of gay men"How does your specific claim not fit into the general claim?"Your'e calling me a bigot because you're intolerant of my views."Because opinions are never wrong and it's always bigotry to call someone on it. Right, Chuck?"I never downplay their claim because they act like Chritians so therefore, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. I downplay their claim by the validity of their claim ALONE."If that was true, you wouldn't feel the need to bring it up all the time. The fact of the matter is that you love to compare people to Christians when they disagree with you, because you seem to think that this is insulting, and yet you have no problem when your own ideology falls in line with those of Christians: "If christians agree with science, they're right.""I dont' disrespect them unless they disrespect me. Plain and simple"And apparently disagreeing with you is all it takes to deserve your disrespect.Chuck, you understand why it's wrong for white people to use oppressive language against black people, right? So why do you think it's okay to do the same to gay people?

  351. Kestra says

    You know, it doesn't follow that disgust for gay men is an evolved disease avoidance behavior unless you were regularly engaging in sex with gay men…Cause they didn't exactly do blood transfusions on the savannah, doncha know.

  352. says

    "Do you believe FDA is just fucking with gay men for no reason???"Unless you think bigotry is "no reason", I'd say no."Why has FDA deemed gay men a health risk to society??? Why can't gay men donate blood? There's obviously something serious and DANGEROUS going onWhy can't you see that???But other countries seem to think it's perfectly okay to let gay men donate blood.Why can't you see that?

  353. says

    Chuck, you claim that poverty is connected to HIV, and yet the FDA lets poor people donate blood.Why do you think that is?

  354. says

    Do you disagree that heterosexual people can and do spread HIV in significant numbers, Chuck?If not, do you agree with barring them from giving blood, since they are a significant risk for HIV?What is your criteria for a disease vector, Chuck?

  355. says

    PLEASE TAKE THIS SURVEYSurvey question Which two statements do you dislike the most? Please choose two? 1. God is real and Jesus loves you 2. Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust and study shows disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia has to be a disease avoidance behavior because its' rooted in disgust. So homophobia is good for humans 3. Disgust of gays (behavior immune system or homophobia) influenced humans to create religions to be against gays. 4. Jesus is coming back 5. God loves you no matter how much you don't believe he exist. I'm starting to doubt that you pro gay atheists are true atheists. You seem to be more pro gay than anything

  356. says

    How is it a disease avoidance behaviour if straight people won't have sex with these disease-ridden gay people? And what does our argument about gays have to do with our atheism?And I will just post this again and again until you answer, leave this place or get banned:'Can anyone please update me on what is Charlie arguing about again?- Gays are more deseased than straight people.- Therefore evolution created this feeling of disgust in people towards gays as a defence mechanism.- Homophobia is a misnomer.Yes? No? Is it all? Because if it is then I don't really know why does this thread have over 400 posts.-> Gays may have more STDs on average. I don't know but I am prepared to concede that if there are reliable statistics out there. So what?-> I am not disgusted by gays. Short of hardcore gay porn I don't even flinch. (and I don't really like hardcore anal heterosexual porn either) If you are: Cool. If it really is caused by evolution: Cool. How is it relevant to anything today? You can be disgusted by anything you damn well please. Just don't bash/trample on the rights of others.-> Homophobia is a misnomer. There. I said it. WHO GIVES A SHIT?! As long as all/most people agree on a definition, albeit 'the wrong one' the word serves its purpose.Did I pass your retarded test?'

  357. says

    Which two statements do you dislike the most? Please choose two? Way to be manipulative and deceitful. You've taken the most benign statements from Christianity and presented them next to harsh statements against homosexuality. Even if we are "true" atheists, and answered honestly, you'd still get a result that appears to favor your point.

  358. says

    "Which two statements do you dislike the most? Please choose two?"Why are we only restricted to two? "Are you telling me that some people in Spain and Italy aren't disgusted by gay men?"Are you telling me they ALL are?They let gay men donate blood. What do you think?

  359. says

    "It's no secret that a lot of men who employ anti-gay tactics and behaviors are actually gay themselves"If you want to believe that every man who speaks out against gays is "secretely gay", please spread that rumor to as many gay men as possible and watch hate crimes against gays increase because gay men will act on that DELUSION by thinking their straight crush is really "gay"…The more gay men come on to straight men,the more straight men will hate gays. So keep up the good work. You're working AGAINST GAYS.

  360. says

    "If you want to believe that every man who speaks out against gays is "secretely gay"""a lot of men" = "every man"?

  361. says

    @atheistdecitbusterYou are disgusted by gay men, we get that. That is completely fine. But you have already said that gay's (which in you seem to be implying only males, not sure why you don't have an issue with lesbians)should have the same rights. What are you arguing?No gay man is ever going to have sex with you, ever. Gay males are not a health risk to you because your not going to have sex with men. Your disgusted by males having sex with males, that's fine, don't do it. What is your issue?

  362. says

    "The more gay men come on to straight men,the more straight men will hate gays."Does this work the other way around? Can a woman hate and kill men who "come on to" them when it isn't wanted?

  363. says

    I thought you said that hatred of gay people was rooted in disease aversion, Chuck. So why do you think that more men will hate gay people if they "come on to" them? Shouldn't they already hate gay people before having come into any contact with them?

  364. Kestra says

    "The more gay men come on to straight men,the more straight men will hate gays."Gay panic defense, eh? Very classy.When men I don't find sexually appealing come on to me, I don't start to hate all men. When women I don't find sexually appealing come on to me, I don't start to hate all women. And for the record, I find nothing "disgusting" about two men being sexual with each other. In fact, many women find man-on-man erotic fiction to be highly arousing. Most slash writers are women. Your disgust at certain forms of same-sex eroticism is empirically, obviously not universal. And don't think no one noticed that you repeatedly dodged the "what about lesbians?" question. Your position is not internally consistent.

  365. says

    This argument isn't gong anywhere. Charlie hates gays but doesn't want to be called a homophobe, which is fine you have redefined it. You believe we should have the same rights but a different word, but you have done nothing to get that word into legal arguments. Are you going to fight for the word 'smarriage' for us? If not your just a simple man that can't back up your position.

  366. says

    Kestra:Sounds an awful lot like a freudian slip, dunnit? I'm starting to wonder if his arguments about disease aversion aren't just playing cover-up for a fear of having a man hit on him and making him question his masculinity.Because a man "taking the role" of a woman (i.e. being a penis receptacle) is offensive, you see.

  367. says

    Doesn't Charlie have a song about flipping out and responding nastily to a gay guy who hits on him? I seem to recall that from his IGS days

  368. Kestra says

    "Because a man "taking the role" of a woman (i.e. being a penis receptacle) is offensive, you see."Oh yes, I did neglect to mention the inherent misogyny underpinning this idea. "I love women! I love putting my penis in a woman! But I hate her for letting me do it. Because penises are gross, amirite?!"

  369. says

    Thank you for your work. It is important to people like me to know that other people understand that we are not out to harm anyone. How we define our relationships has nothing to do with anyone else.

  370. anonymous says

    Martin (and entire crew):“I'm not Hitchens, and so I'm often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe's arguments.”Performing triage on leftover customers, granting callers too much time when your international audience is suggesting you move on, the need to reformulate your words after the fact for a significantly smaller audience…I feel compelled to suggest a (barely) different format for the show, not unlike a format used by MANY “call-taking” programs;The Caller, while being screened, will be informed she/he has roughly 2(TWO) minuets to ask a question, propose a topic, or contribute to the current conversation. When time is up, she/he will be thanked and disconnected, leaving host and co-host to discuss amongst themselves in constructive way. They can then suggest sources where it has been discussed further, and they can move on.Consider the issues this will immediately resolve upon adapting this 2-minuet rule:1) Callers who interrupt to much, or talk over the hosts, not allowing them a word in edge wise.2) Callers who’s questions are flawed from the get-go which will first need a sort of clarification (I.e. Charlie’s “What if I told you I was an atheist AND a homophobe?”).3) Callers who manage to steer the show in a direction OTHER THAN where the call-screener had envisioned it would go (I.e. semantic arguments over definitions). 4) Callers who simple take too long to get to the point (…..mark….).5) AUDIO MALFUNCTION6) The ever decreasing AMOUNT of calls taken, topics covered, and potential progress made (we only have 60 minuets a week, fellas).7) The lack of finesse you mentioned, Martin… the only constructive part f the show seems to be when the caller is disconnected and the hosts belatedly attempt to get to the heart of the original question (only now with a very limited amount of time)I mean well with this criticism, I do. An international audience is hanging on your every word, anxious to whiteness actual, constructive, steps being taken towards positive atheism and the separation of church and state. While some of the circular reasoning and loopy arguments can be entertaining, I feel compelled to remind you how valuable your one hour of air time is to your growing audience, your cause. And to the fellow fans:If you think this 2 minuet rule is at least worth a shot, let them know so I am not the only one! Let’s see if all seven of the issues I listed aren’t immediately resolved with the 2 minuet rule. This is the general format of countless morning radio shows, A.M. talk shows, and public access shows. Seldom is time wasted, only when the hosts feel it would be more constructive to grant a caller extra time. I see you all screaming “move on!” and “hang up!” in the chat room. You want more Martin and less Charlie, am I right? =]More of EACH of the ACA’s hosts and co-hosts. Who have proven themselves capable of expressing (in a least loose manner) the GENERAL stance positive atheism takes on any given topic or issue. Less semantic arguing, circular reasoning, strawmaning, poe-ing, and derailing of the show.Much love, I do mean well, it’s only a suggestion. Thankyou.

  371. anonymous says

    Martin (and entire crew):“I'm not Hitchens, and so I'm often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe's arguments.”Performing triage on leftover customers, granting callers too much time when your international audience is suggesting you move on, the need to reformulate your words after the fact for a significantly smaller audience…I feel compelled to suggest a (barely) different format for the show, not unlike a format used by MANY “call-taking” programs;The Caller, while being screened, will be informed she/he has roughly 2(TWO) minuets to ask a question, propose a topic, or contribute to the current conversation. When time is up, she/he will be thanked and disconnected, leaving host and co-host to discuss amongst themselves in constructive way. They can then suggest sources where it has been discussed further, and they can move on.Consider the issues this will immediately resolve upon adapting this 2-minuet rule:1) Callers who interrupt to much, or talk over the hosts, not allowing them a word in edge wise.2) Callers who’s questions are flawed from the get-go which will first need a sort of clarification (I.e. Charlie’s “What if I told you I was an atheist AND a homophobe?”).3) Callers who manage to steer the show in a direction OTHER THAN where the call-screener had envisioned it would go (I.e. semantic arguments over definitions). 4) Callers who simple take too long to get to the point (…..mark….).5) AUDIO MALFUNCTION6) The ever decreasing AMOUNT of calls taken, topics covered, and potential progress made (we only have 60 minuets a week, fellas).7) The lack of finesse you mentioned, Martin… the only constructive part f the show seems to be when the caller is disconnected and the hosts belatedly attempt to get to the heart of the original question (only now with a very limited amount of time)I mean well with this criticism, I do. An international audience is hanging on your every word, anxious to whiteness actual, constructive, steps being taken towards positive atheism and the separation of church and state. While some of the circular reasoning and loopy arguments can be entertaining, I feel compelled to remind you how valuable your one hour of air time is to your growing audience, your cause. Much love, i do mean well, it's only a suggestion, Thank you =]

  372. says

    Ing:"Doesn't Charlie have a song about flipping out and responding nastily to a gay guy who hits on him? I seem to recall that from his IGS days"I couldn't tell ya, 'cause I haven't heard any of his music, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least, considering he does it in person to people whether they're gay or not, when they don't hit on him at all.It's as though gay = enemy and enemy = gay to this guy.

  373. says

    MY ARGUMENTS1. Homophobia is a deceitful, misleading misnomer and anyone who labels people that word supports deceit.2. Homophobia is rooted in disgust and study shows some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior(including homophobia or disgust of gay men) in which is still beneficial today3. There is a WORLDWIDE disgust of gay men among humans. Also, FDA has deemed gay men a threat to public health and don't allow gay men to donate blood so therefore, disgust of gay men is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. 4. Gay men have the higest rates of the worse std's WORLDWIDE including hiv and syphillis5. The gay movement and many pro gay atheists are wrongfully trying to convince the masses to ignore our evolutionary disease avoidance behavior of gay men. 6. The gay movement and pro gay atheists should learn to tolerate disgust of gay and expression of disgust of gays…7. There's nothing wrong with heterosexuals having ONLY ONE word (marriage) that specifically represents the ultimate commitment between man and woman8. It's possible for one institution to consist of two entities in which could be 'marriage' and 'gayrriage' or 'shmarriage' so it's not separate but equal.9. Full and equal rights should be given to gays under shmarriage or gayrriage.10. Many pro gay atheists seem to be trying to turn atheists into group thinkers by attacking any atheits who dooesn't conform to their gay views.

  374. says

    "Many pro gay atheists seem to be trying to turn atheists into group thinkers by attacking any atheits who dooesn't conform to their gay views."Or… you know, just those who are blatantly dishonest."There is a WORLDWIDE disgust of gay men among humans. Also, FDA has deemed gay men a threat to public health and don't allow gay men to donate blood so therefore, disgust of gay men is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior."But other countries seem to think it's perfectly okay to let gay men donate blood.Why can't you see that?

  375. says

    Chuck, do you agree that marriage has changed definition several times over the history of its usage, including with regards to polygamy and miscegenation?If so, why is it suddenly wrong to change it again? Do words have limits to how many times they can change?

  376. says

    If your concern is with disease, Chuck, why do you encourage heterosexual conduct when it's a known vector of dangerous and deadly disease?Can women hate and be disgusted by men because of disease aversion, since heterosexual sex is much more risky than homosexual sex among women?Should people who take part in heterosexual sex be barred from donating blood, since heterosexuals are a known vector of disease? What about poor people? You said yourself that HIV is linked to poverty.

  377. says

    "Because a man "taking the role" of a woman (i.e. being a penis receptacle) is offensive, you see."Oh, now I get what the issue is…So, Charlie, the last time you were inside, how many times a week did a prison-mate make you his bitch? How many times were you bent over a bunk and fucked up the ass because you couldn't pay a debt, or made to suck root for protection, or gang raped in he shower because you were such a pretty little thing? Or maybe it wasn't rape at all. Maybe you're on the down-low and just have the balls to admit you asked for all that hot man-on-man action. After all, being gay would certainly hurt your street cred, wouldn't it?

  378. says

    "You know, it doesn't follow that disgust for gay men is an evolved disease avoidance behavior unless you were regularly engaging in sex with gay men"So does one have to eat feces in order for the disgust of feces to evolve as a disease avoidance behavior? Pro gay ahteists are in fact irrational

  379. says

    Chuck, at 11:33 AM, you posted,"Does being labeled "black" gives me less political power? Did we have to change the label "black" to be allowed to vote?"Are you saying that black people aren't still suffering from institutionalized oppression by white people in the US?Are you saying that you think people are trying to change the label "gay" and not the label "marriage"?If not, does this mean that you don't think the definition of "voter" wasn't changed from "white man" to "man of any race" when African Americans were allowed to vote?If not, why can we change the definition of "voter" to be more inclusive, but we can't change the definition of "married person" to be more inclusive?

  380. Kestra says

    Charles, why don't you go find some anti-gay atheists to hang out with, if we're all just so irrational and clueless?

  381. says

    "But other countries seem to think it's perfectly okay to let gay men donate blood"So why isn't the gay movement protesting against FDA? If FDA is wrong, why are gays letting them get away with it? I thought gays cared about equality? So gays must not care about equality if they won't say a word about FDAThe truth is, THEY KNOW FDA IS RIGHT…Gay men are a threat to public health. Until gays attack FDA, I'm just say gays knwo gay men are a threat to public health. they just won't admit it.

  382. says

    "So does one have to eat feces in order for the disgust of feces to evolve as a disease avoidance behavior?"Actually, Chuck, yes, an evolutionary aversion to feces can't develop unless some critters die from eating feces. That's kind of how evolution works. It doesn't just magically appear.But that still begs the question of why you say that men will develop hatred of gay men if they're hit on. If your logic is sound, then shouldn't all men hate gay people whether they've contacted them or not?

  383. says

    "So why isn't the gay movement protesting against FDA?"They are."If FDA is wrong, why are gays letting them get away with it?"They aren't."Until gays attack FDA, I'm just say gays knwo gay men are a threat to public health. they just won't admit it."Or it could just be that you're wrong.

  384. says

    Petr,"How is it a disease avoidance behaviour if straight people won't have sex with these disease-ridden gay people?"STraight people wont have sex with gays of the same sex BECAUSE of the disease avoidance behavior. Think about this….Disgust of feces is a disease avoidance behavior but do humans want to eat feces???You atheists are clearly unevolved. 1. Gays claim to care about equality but they ouright reject equal rights under shmarriage2. Gays claim to care about equality but they won't say a word about FDA not allowing gay men to donate blood3. Gays claim to care about equality but

  385. says

    Mak,"yes, an evolutionary aversion to feces can't develop unless some critters die from eating feces"You missed the whole point. Your fellow pro gay atheists want to know why straight people aren't having sex with gays NOW..

  386. says

    "STraight people wont have sex with gays of the same sex BECAUSE of the disease avoidance behavior."So straight men are sexually attracted to other men, but the only reason why they won't bone them is because they're afraid of disease? Or are you saying that men have sex with women only because they're not a disease vector, even though that's not true? Why aren't women repulsed by men and exclusively gay, since having heterosexual sex is more risky than sex with another woman?What if the man clears a STD test, Chuck? Will the straight man then want to have sex with the man, now that he knows he's disease free?What about all that stuff about men "taking the role" of women that you said was so offensive? What does that have to do with disease?

  387. says

    Kestra,We're talking about disgust so being the fact that your gay brains can't understand disgust of gays, I figured I will use the word feces so you can understand the level of disgust we're talking about.

  388. says

    "You missed the whole point. Your fellow pro gay atheists want to know why straight people aren't having sex with gays NOW.."Your question was: "So does one have to eat feces in order for the disgust of feces to evolve as a disease avoidance behavior?" I simply answered your question, Chuck: yes.Do you find women sexually attractive, Chuck? What about men?

  389. says

    "Gays claim to care about equality but they won't say a word about FDA not allowing gay men to donate blood"Why do you say this even though me and Kestra both gave you examples to the contrary? Do you realize you're lying, now?

  390. says

    "We're talking about disgust so being the fact that your gay brains can't understand disgust of gays"Why do you think that we're gay, Chuck? Is it because we disagree with you?

  391. says

    MAK,"So straight men are sexually attracted to other men"Now I know your brain is gay. Disgust is on the opposite end of the spectrum of attractionThe reason why straight men won't have sex with gay men in the first place is because IT'S disgusting. and disgust is not sexually attractive AT ALL. It's worse than the ugliest fat chick. It's just gross. GET IT NOW???

  392. says

    "The reason why straight men won't have sex with gay men in the first place is because IT'S disgusting. and disgust is not sexually attractive AT ALL. It's worse than the ugliest fat chick. It's just gross."So the only reason why you won't bone a man right now is because you're afraid you'll catch something?Then why do you bone women? Women are disease vectors, too.

  393. says

    mak,"So straight men are sexually attracted to other men, but the only reason why they won't bone them is because they're afraid of disease?" You're way way way off base.We feel disgusted..Gay men are worst than the ugliest fat chick. They're not even women. THat's worse than being the most ugliest woman. It's disgust. We dont' think about a disease…All we know is we won't go there. the disgust itself is the disease avoidance behavior. GET IT NOW???1. very beautiful woman2. beautiful woman3. kind of beautiful woman4. fair woman5. kind of ugly woman6. ugly woman7 very ugly woman8. extremely ugnly woman9, men OUTRIGHT DISGUSTING

  394. says

    Ahaha Kestra, that's a beauty. Thanks for the link.By the way, Chuck, why DO you think that being gay is gross? Gay people do the same things that straight people do. So wouldn't that mean heterosexuality is gross, too?

  395. says

    "We dont' think about a disease…All we know is we won't go there.the disgust itself is the disease avoidance behavior."But if you don't think about disease, why do you claim disease is the excuse for hating gay people?Why do you have sex with women, Chuck? Are you not sexually attracted to women?

  396. Kestra says

    "1. very beautiful woman2. beautiful woman3. kind of beautiful woman4. fair woman5. kind of ugly woman6. ugly woman7 very ugly woman8. extremely ugnly woman9, men OUTRIGHT DISGUSTING"This… this here is a work of art. A gentle snowflake thought cast loose, to float along the currents of the internet, before it melts away into the oblivion of dead posts. A metaphor for our times. A poem scrawled on the digital underground. All our lives are richer for you having created it. Thank you.

  397. anonymous says

    deceitbuster :history will lump you in with the likes of those apposing black rights, womans rights, elderly, disabled…it's disgusting to learn about the progress we've made over the centuries… and know that there have been apposing voices along the way.you are merely one such apposing voice. if a second civil war were to break out over gay equality, i have no doubt you would be on the front line ready to shoot us all. this blog will never disappear, the words you post here will will never be erased, such is the nature of the internet. history will literally point to your words as proof that there was an apposing force to equality, when students find it too hard to believe. Teachers will be able to say, "no, it's true. some people actually fought it. here's an example of their rational…"and they will say "but teacher, he's comparing them to poop. was he really that bothered by it?"you are shooting yourself in the foot, digging your own grave, embarrassing yourself. but only history will reveal this to any undeniable extent.your what the world is waiting to see die off, to disapear into the past. were all ready to move forward, we just have to wait patiently while the likes of you grow old and die… hoping you don't poison and impressionable children on your way out. regardless of ANY argument you manage to make today, your opinion is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme. you are talking to a wall. you are alone in a losing battle. i would rather eat feces than read your words any further.

  398. says

    For that matter, Chuck, your whole argument seems to stem from the position of an evolutionary aversion to disease, akin to our aversion to feces.If that was true, Chuck, then why do we have to teach children to stay away from feces?Why do we have to teach children about condoms and STDs?Why do children have to be taught to hate gay people?

  399. anonymous says

    I park my car, i don't gay park my car,I toast my bread, I don't gay toast my bread.I might ask my boyfriend to marry me. it wont be gay marriage, it will be marriage. you're not invite, chuckyou dumb black fuck.(im sorry. offensive?)

  400. says

    Charlie the homophobic troll is afraid of getting a disease from gay men. Well, well, this sounds just like every homophobe I have personally met and usually found out they are afraid they will have sex with a man. I have had lots of gay friends (I am a male) and I'm not disgusted or afraid of getting a disease from them because I know I am not going to have sex with them because I am straight.

  401. says

    "Charlie the homophobic troll is afraid of getting a disease from gay men."I'm wondering if that's just his excuse. :D Especially because he said:"There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."And:"It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women."Which have nothing to do with disease. Hmmmmm…

  402. says

    Jolly,Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust, not fear. Not one reliable study shows homophobia is rooted in fear. As an atheist, please don't act like christians and disregard studies.

  403. says

    Mak, You so called "atheists" are clueless…The disease avoidance behavior is not on a conscious level. All we know is that it's disgusting. NOthing more and nothing less but that disgust is what keeps us away from it

  404. says

    "you're not invite, chuck"Why would i want to go to a wedding to see two faggots kiss? I dont want to see a faggot wearing a wedding dress..so which one of you fags will play the bride??? ha ha ha.Your existence is a joke.

  405. says

    anonymous,When bisexual and gay men spread a deadly disease throughout the human species and wipe out the majority, Christians will claim that atheists were supportive of the actions of gay and bisexual men in which fueled the outbreak….A few atheists will mention me as a rebuttel claiming not all atheists supported the actions of gay and bisexual men which lead to the worse std epidemic in human historyChristians will say FDA and CDC warned us but atheists and gay activists were only concerned about gay marriage and completely ignored the forming of a major std outbreak.I will end up being the savior of atheism because I will be one atheist who warned many people that we should listen to our disease avoidance behavior.

  406. says

    "Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust, not fear."Disgust of what, Chuck? Of men "taking on the role" of women?Why does this disgust you?"Not one reliable study shows homophobia is rooted in fear."Are you sure?

  407. says

    "The disease avoidance behavior is not on a conscious level. All we know is that it's disgusting."Why is it disgusting?Why do you have sex with women, who are known disease vectors?DO you have sex with women, Chuck?

  408. says

    "When bisexual and gay men spread a deadly disease throughout the human species and wipe out the majority, Christians will claim that atheists were supportive of the actions of gay and bisexual men in which fueled the outbreak…."Is this a slippery slope, Chuck?Are you saying that heterosexual men don't spread diseases?"atheists and gay activists were only concerned about gay marriage and completely ignored the forming of a major std outbreak."Are you saying that heterosexual men don't spread diseases?"I will end up being the savior of atheism because I will be one atheist who warned many people that we should listen to our disease avoidance behavior."Then why do you encourage having heterosexual sex, which is a known disease carrier?

  409. says

    As of now, im the only atheist who is concerned about gay an bisexual men spreading major std's.As of now, there's is a new outbreak of hiv/aids, new strand of gonorhea and syphillis cases among gay men and bisexual menWhy should heteros worry?? Because bisexuals exist.If atheists do show concern, they refuse to admit that it's fueled by gays even when CDC confirms many gay men are fueling std's FDA obviously know something is seriously dangerous about gay men because they don't allow gay men to donate blood.

  410. says

    "As of now, im the only atheist who is concerned about gay an bisexual men spreading major std's."Why do you only care about gay men who spread disease?Do you not care about straight people spreading disease?"FDA obviously know something is seriously dangerous about gay men because they don't allow gay men to donate blood."But other countries seem to think it's perfectly okay to let gay men donate blood.Why can't you see that?

  411. says

    Chuck, if your concern is that gay men spread disease, why did you state that you're disgusted by men "taking the role" of women?

  412. says

    "Are you saying that heterosexual men don't spread diseases"I'm saying gay and bisexual men are FAR more likely to carry std's than straight men.New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQhttp://www.synergyaids.org/hiv/new-gay-sex-disease-outbreak-in-netherlands-482208.htmlHunting for a new strain of chlamydia among gay men in D.C.http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1991Search resultsReport: Closeted gay men fueling HIV in China | News Story …http://www.365gay.com/news/report-closeted-gay-men-fueling-hiv-in-china/Young Gay Men Fueling Rise in HIV Rateshttp://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=110029CDC: Gay Men Over 44 Times More Likely HIV+ than Hetero Menhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10031715Gay Sex Called Key to Rise in Syphilis – Los Angeles TimesSTD rates rise sharply in amongst American gay men – PinkNews …The STD Challenge: resistant gonorrhea is on the rise among gay menGay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts SayNearly All HIV-Positive Gay Men Have HPV. Many cases of anal cancer are linked to certain types CDC: Gay men vast majority of syphilis cases — Project Q …Syphilis rise in gay, bisexual men causes worry – Health …

  413. says

    "Are you saying that heterosexual men don't spread diseases"I'm saying gay and bisexual men are FAR more likely to carry std's than straight men.New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQhttp://www.synergyaids.org/hiv/new-gay-sex-disease-outbreak-in-netherlands-482208.htmlHunting for a new strain of chlamydia among gay men in D.C.http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1991Search resultsReport: Closeted gay men fueling HIV in China | News Story …http://www.365gay.com/news/report-closeted-gay-men-fueling-hiv-in-china/Young Gay Men Fueling Rise in HIV Rateshttp://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=110029CDC: Gay Men Over 44 Times More Likely HIV+ than Hetero Menhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10031715Gay Sex Called Key to Rise in Syphilis – Los Angeles TimesSTD rates rise sharply in amongst American gay men – PinkNews …The STD Challenge: resistant gonorrhea is on the rise among gay menGay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts SayNearly All HIV-Positive Gay Men Have HPV. Many cases of anal cancer are linked to certain types CDC: Gay men vast majority of syphilis cases — Project Q …Syphilis rise in gay, bisexual men causes worry – Health …

  414. says

    "Are you saying that heterosexual men don't spread diseases"I'm saying gay and bisexual men are FAR more likely to carry std's than straight men.New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQhttp://www.synergyaids.org/hiv/new-gay-sex-disease-outbreak-in-netherlands-482208.htmlHunting for a new strain of chlamydia among gay men in D.C.http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1991Search resultsReport: Closeted gay men fueling HIV in China | News Story …http://www.365gay.com/news/report-closeted-gay-men-fueling-hiv-in-china/Young Gay Men Fueling Rise in HIV Rateshttp://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=110029CDC: Gay Men Over 44 Times More Likely HIV+ than Hetero Menhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10031715Gay Sex Called Key to Rise in Syphilis – Los Angeles TimesSTD rates rise sharply in amongst American gay men – PinkNews …The STD Challenge: resistant gonorrhea is on the rise among gay menGay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts SayNearly All HIV-Positive Gay Men Have HPV. Many cases of anal cancer are linked to certain types CDC: Gay men vast majority of syphilis cases — Project Q …Syphilis rise in gay, bisexual men causes worry – Health …

  415. says

    Charlie sez:"He encrusts his emotion with this notion of "disease avoidance behavior" even though he's been given multiple examples where instinctual disgust is inappropriate"COUNTERING my argument with red herring fallacies doesn't debunk my claim. Im specifically talking about disgust of gay men and disgust of gay men only. Some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior and some aren't.—————————————–And there's the problem. It's not a red herring to point this out at all. It's a hole in the argument apt for the transport of heavy machinery, drilling rigs, oil tankers etc.You haven't shown that the disgust in the case of homophobia is any more appropriate than any other, highly culturally variable, form of disgust.Don't say the CDC and the FDA. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc on your part, with some twisted argument from authority thrown in I dare say, resulting in you begging the question.And the question is thus: if there is such a link and you understand disgust so well as to discern one type from another, you can show the mechanism by which it functions in the case of homosexuality.We know it's the smell in the case of poo and rotting food. There's probably good evidence for visual identification of gore and decay.What is this mechanism in the case of homosexuality? You will be able to show this if your argument, that gay-disgust is more fundamental than all the other culturally determined forms of disgust, has any strength. If not it is void.

  416. says

    Yeah so… people overcome disgust about things that actually are disease threats all the time. I used to work with raw sewage. Ever smell cooked shit? I have! (PS it is horrible) But my job was necessary for public health and safety.A lot of people are grossed out by blood, organs, other people's mouths, anuses, genitals, and yet medical professionals deal with this every day, as well as people that are carrying diseases! Like, actual diseases that the doctor could catch from the patient! Yet somehow they manage to overcome their disgust to help these people, and gosh, as someone who has been sick before, I sure do appreciate it.Also, as a straight, cisgendered female, I'd like to say that not only do I not find gay men disgusting, I enjoy watching gay porn. The actors are far more attractive than in straight porn and also there are no women involved, and I don't like women. Kind of a turn-off because in straight porn the camera tends to focus on the woman, and obviously I want to look at the man. I don't care about boobs, I have my own!Anyway I don't even see the point of this argument at all, like, why should I care if some random asshat thinks gay men are disgusting? (since as far as I read in the comments, and admittedly that was like halfway, I never saw a reason to persuade me that gay marriage was a bad thing, or that it would affect me in any negative way).Oh and by the way, I wasn't able to donate blood for years because the American Red Cross said so. There was clearly something "seriously dangerous" about me! Except no, I had just lived in Spain for a year, and now they've changed the regulations and I can donate blood again.In conclusion: if you can, donate blood! Protip: don't try to do it right after your period, if possible.

  417. says

    "A lot of people are grossed out by blood, organs, other people's mouths, anuses, genitals"The funny thing is that all those things have to be taught. If you place a kidney or a big stick of dog doo in front of a toddler, in all likelihood they're going to pick it up and try to eat it. If you don't teach kids that mouths are germy, they're going to trade suckers and share drinks. If you don't teach them that you have to wash your hands after using the bathroom, they're not going to do it.And, just like every other form of bigotry, if you don't teach them that being gay is somehow wrong, they don't hate gay people. :D

  418. says

    @anonymousI actually dislike the "two-minute call" format of most talk shows. I like having more in-depth conversations even if there are fewer of them.That said: if Charlie calls in again, I would shed no tears if they hung up on him.

  419. says

    Last time I checked many lesbians don't even come close to anal sex. While many hot heterosexual couples do. This whole anal sex argument is so fractually wrong it's ceasing to be funny…….after 500 posts.

  420. says

    @anonymous: That's an incredibly bad idea. The reason why I fell in love with the AE were the 10-20 minute calls with theists and the argument going on between them. Nobody gives a damn about people who just call it to call one question and then hang up. You picked the wrong show for that.

  421. says

    The fuelling of STD's is fuelled MUCH more by heterosexual sex. Self identifying Bisexuals account for around 1-3 percent of the population. The overwhelming amount of sex that is happening is heterosexual – heterosexual sex, not heterosexual – bisexual sex. You seem to imply in your rants that Heterosexual – Heterosexual sex is somehow safer than Heterosexual – Bisexual sex. Yet the transmission of STD's by female-female sex is extremely low, so as a male, the chance of you catching an STD from a bisexual female is lower than that of catching an STD from a "straight" partner! A bisexual Female is MUCH more likely to have caught an STD from the Heterosexual Male, than the Homosexual Female…Your argument about gays/bi's spreading the disease makes so little sense its painful trying to wrap my brain around it.I would be much more concerned about the chance of catching an STD from a heterosexual partner than on the off chance the partner might be bisexual (Where as a male the chance of catching an STD would statistically be LOWER)

  422. says

    "It's not a "better" or 'worse" issue. It's an identity issue."Ok… WHAT identity? This seems to be you and the christian rights' identity? Is it something that you were told when you were growing up that you don't want to change your mind over because you think its all icky so you find superficial and pathetic excuses to keep your bigoted view?

  423. says

    @ Everyone else:While I'm boggled as to why this thread is ongoing–unless it's for camp value at this point–I think I should point out that his hypothesis, that homophobia is disease-avoidance based disgust, is factually wrong.Venereal disease, like nearly every disease that has a great impact on human health, is a very recent phenomenon which is completely dependent upon post-agricultural dense population centers. We know syphilis originated in the New World, and in that culture, with its less-intensive farming and low population density, was a much more mild, tolerable form. Only after European contact did it spread to large cities where more virulent strains could flourish.All of this was an evolutionary eyeblink ago, far too short a time to develop any complex behaviors surrounding disease avoidance in this context. Avoiding blood, feces, vomitus? Those stimuli are present throughout the animal kingdom and "disgust" behaviors are likewise ubiquitous. But homosexuality? No good reason to think it's in the same category, other than Charlie wants a scientific excuse for his own hate and fear. Unfortunately, he has a lot to learn about Evolutionary Psychology.@ Charlie: This isn't for you. YOU can go screw yourself. End of line.

  424. says

    CHARLIE YOU BROKE THE FALLACY CODE! RESPECT THE DECEIT TRAIN AND GET READY TO FEEL LIKE A UNICORN!*AHEM!*Interestingly enough, there is actually a study that shows Charlie really is a flaming homophobe (in every sense of the word) who seems to be desperate to prove that his fear of his own latent homosexual urges are not fear and are actually disgust by establishing that "STUDIES SHOW THAT HOMOPHOBES ARE ACTUALLY DISGUSTED BY, NOT AFRAID OF HOMOSEXUALS". He does so by repeating his assertions over and over as a kind of mantra… It is thought that Charlie hopes to one day convince himself that he isn't truly afraid that deep down, he just LOOOOOVES the willy.Link to the original research document below:Charlie the Homophobic Unicorn Fallacy Study, 2011 /meta deconstruction skit

  425. says

    Charlie sounds akin to the white supremacists that claim that their position is justified because there is a genocide taking place on the white race globally (and by genocide they mean interracial babies). Yet, if you tell them they sound ridiculous they will tell you that they are using the 'legitimate' definition for the word they have bastardized out of the Geneva Convention by the UN, that anti-racist means anti-white and therefore you support the destruction of white children. This is the same level of fuckery.

  426. says

    @CharlieWhy should heteros worry?? Because…But you've been trying to convince us this ISN'T about fear, Charlie. Why, then, are you evoking worry?

  427. says

    @MakThen why do you encourage having heterosexual sex, which is a known disease carrier?Because he's a hypocrite. Y'know, 'cause after all, Christians do that… ;)

  428. says

    What's frustrating about this debate is all the energy wasted on defining a particular persons reasons for discriminating against another person. Does it matter if it's hate, fear or disgust? The bottom line is one group of people have an irrational response toward another group of people. And worse so, they believe they have a right to deny that other group a basic right. As if stopping gay-marriage will stop people from being gay. Or legalizing gay-marriage will turn straight people gay. Pure nonsense. Somewhere in the deep recesses of their minds they know that same-sex marriages have zero impact on their lives. There are same-sex marriages in multiple states right now and I challenge them to say how those unions are effecting them in any way.What difference does it make if same-sex marriages were legal? Besides a marriage industry economic boom, none. What is the effect of it being illegal? Millions of Americans are being denied a basic right.

  429. says

    I haven't bothered to read this thread since it seems like it would be a waste of time, but here's a serious question for Charlie:Why do you give a fuck what two other people do in private or whether two other people want to marry each other? Let's pretend that all of your other points — including the dubious idea that disgust of homosexuality is some kind of "disease avoidance behavior" or whatnot — are completely accurate. Let's also grant the fact that you, and lots of other heterosexuals, are grossed out by homosexuality.OK, now let's put that aside. Why do you give a fuck what complete strangers do? And it's not just that you care about the private actions of complete strangers — you care so much that you want to call in to a television program to talk about it and write post after post about it.Why would anyone care so damn much about the private actions of complete strangers?I mean, I'm grossed out by, for example, people who have a sexual fetish for eating shit. I am willing to bet that my disgust of that act most definitely does have its root in disease-avoidance behavior.But for all that, I could care less if someone wants to eat someone else's shit. Why on earth would I care? If that's what someone's into, let him eat a huge bucket of shit in his living room while he watches the game. It doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever.Furthermore, I don't care if these people want to form a shit eaters club and have social events and even, gasp, get married.Any individual's personal disgust — and even the fact that this disgust might have an evolutionary basis — is completely and totally irrelevant to social policy.

  430. says

    "The disease avoidance behavior is not on a conscious level. All we know is that it's disgusting. NOthing more and nothing less but that disgust is what keeps us away from it "Again Charlie is arguing that he is basically a stupid animal that can't overcome his basest emotions even when corrected. My comparison to a dog with a phobia seems 100% correct. His own argument presupposes that he is incapable of putting aside any visceral feelings for the sake of reason. And he calls others irrational. As a side note I have to wonder how someone with such a poor grasp of language and communication had any success as a musician at all. ((Of course by Russel's provided information the answer is 'he doesn't')) He's like an anti-communicator. Nothing is clarified and people come to the opposite conclusion than what he is arguing for. I want to make a motion that we declare Charlie the Anti-Hitch

  431. says

    1. Homophobia is a deceitful, misleading misnomer and anyone who labels people that word supports deceit.Homophobia is a misleading term if interpreted literally. I have already discussed precedent for non-literal use of the term "-phobia" (and you can find lots of other examples here). It's the word we have, misleading or not, and you're not going to change the language. Hey, did you know that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing? Isn't that crazy?2. Homophobia is rooted in disgust and study shows some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior(including homophobia or disgust of gay men) in which is still beneficial todayWrong, wrong, wrong. A small study of some graduate students showed that some homophobia may be rooted in disgust, but the authors said that the results are preliminary and they can't draw broad conclusions without replication. A different study showed that the moral parts of the brain has hijacked the disgust response for situations and events that could not cause disease, so we experience the same physical response to a fart and a cheater. By the way, that disgust response? It was defined by the researchers of the second study as crinkling up the nose–specifically, flexing the levator labii muscles. For that study, disgust was defined as anything that would cause those muscles to flex at a certain amount. Gee, I wonder if any racists experience a nose-crinkling response to interracial kissing or black folks drinking from whites only water fountains. At least according to the parameters of this second study, that would demonstrate that racism is rooted in disgust. Seems like an easy study, if only we could find some racists.3. There is a WORLDWIDE disgust of gay men among humans.You have not substantiated this claim, and the authors of the studies you cite say that the phenomenon is social.Also, FDA has deemed gay men a threat to public health and don't allow gay men to donate blood so therefore, disgust of gay men is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior.No, it is not. Other organizations do not prevent gay men from donating blood, and the FDA prevents many other kinds of people–who do not provoke disgust–from donating blood. Also, this is a circular argument, and is not supported by the evidence you've cited.Moreover, gay men do not present a health risk unless they are A) one of the minority of gay men who are infected with an STI (you keep citing the statistic for HIV; a larger percentage of women have genital warts, so why aren't we equally disgusted by them?) and B) unless you have sex with them.

  432. says

    I do love this bit, Charlie:STraight people wont have sex with gays of the same sex BECAUSE of the disease avoidance behavior.I've been staying out of the "Charlie's just afraid of his own homosexual leanings" camp, because that's not true of all homophobes, but it sure looks like you just said that the only reason you're not out blowing dudes right now is because you find them disgusting. Not because, you know, you're not attracted to dudes. Incidentally, a lot of fetishes have their roots in things we find taboo: cuckolding, diaper play, S&M, rape fantasies, blowing anonymous dudes in rest stop bathrooms. Any of those sound familiar, Chuck?4. Gay men have the higest rates of the worse std's WORLDWIDE including hiv and syphillisThe vast majority of HIV cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. Are all the infected people in Africa gay dudes?5. The gay movement and many pro gay atheists are wrongfully trying to convince the masses to ignore our evolutionary disease avoidance behavior of gay men.This is just idiotic.6. The gay movement and pro gay atheists should learn to tolerate disgust of gay and expression of disgust of gays…The gays have a great saying that shows just how much your disgust is tolerated: "Old bigots die." 7. There's nothing wrong with heterosexuals having ONLY ONE word (marriage) that specifically represents the ultimate commitment between man and womanThere's nothing wrong with changing the meaning of that word, either. 8. It's possible for one institution to consist of two entities in which could be 'marriage' and 'gayrriage' or 'shmarriage' so it's not separate but equal.No, that's the very definition of separate but equal, you nitwit.10. Many pro gay atheists seem to be trying to turn atheists into group thinkers by attacking any atheits who dooesn't conform to their gay views. No, we are at this point making fun of an ignorant, arrogant, dipshit troll who shores up his bigotry with mangled science and completely fallacious arguments. Also, you're hilariously dumb. Like, seriously. You're like a train wreck, Charlie, sitting here all this time, doling out abuse like you think you're winning, when you're barely literate and completely self-unaware. You're like the ur-troll.

  433. says

    People are asking why we are wasting energy on this fool as well, and I think there is another good reason that I haven't seen mentioned yet.When Theists say something crazy, we constantly call the other theists of the same flavour out for not standing up and saying "Thats crazy", they always humm and haw about it.Here we have a proffessed athiest saying crazy shit. He IS being called out for saying it. We ask it of others, so we must show that we are prepared to do it ourselves.

  434. says

    Charlie, with every new post I see exactly why you were banned from Atheist Nexus. In fact, I wish the mods here would ban you. It's clear at this point that your perspective has nothing to do with reason, but it's rooted in the worst case of fear, hatred, and prejudice that I've ever seen. The worst part of it is that you're completely aware that it's rooted in all of these things, except you think that those responses are justified. It's simply wrong, Charlie. And if I were gay, you would have sincerely offended me as a person at this point. Gays already have enough to deal with, and now they have dumbasses like you to deal with: the most dehumanizing perspective of all. This is no longer an argument, it's a podium for an asshole to spew his hatred; it's a soapbox for people akin to Westboro Baptist. If possible, mods, please follow in Atheist Nexus' footsteps, which have gradually been shown throughout these comments to be the best way to deal with Charlie.

  435. says

    Take Action: Urge Your Governor to Reject Extremist Prayer Meeting InvitationBy ACTION ALERT – SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA Declaring that “some problems are beyond our power to solve,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is asking his 49 fellow governors to join him at an evangelical Christian prayer meeting in Houston to “call upon Jesus to guide us” and ask for “God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision.Or focus on the deluded ravings of a loony?

  436. says

    "but it sure looks like you just said that the only reason you're not out blowing dudes right now is because you find them disgusting"What you FAILED to understand is disgust is the OPPOSITE of attraction. It's on the opposite end of the spectrum. If a woman finds a man disgusting, he would be considered extremely unattractive. I thought atheists were rational. Radical pro gay views are making you pro gay atheists stupid"The vast majority of HIV cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. Are all the infected people in Africa gay dudes?"One thing for sure, the hiv rates are disprportionately higher among gay men Gay men are 19 times (possibly a lot higher) more likely to have hiv/aids than hetero males in Sub saharan Africa. To make it even worse, many gay men in africa are afraid to come out so we don't really know how many gay men have hiv. Are you really to feel stupid???Aids: Role of Gay Men in Spreading Virus Is Ignored in Africa …http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/health/21glob.htmlAlarming Africa male gay HIV ratehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8158469.stm"There's nothing wrong with changing the meaning of that word, either"If you agree that there's nothing wrong with heteros having one word that represents the ultimate commitment between man and woman, your claim contradicts would you agree on because if they changed the meaning, it would no longer be specifically for heeros and heteros would no longer have one word."The gays have a great saying that shows just how much your disgust is tolerated: "Old bigots die"This is EXTREME bigotry…Gays are intolerant of our disgust so they want us to die??? That's downright wicked"No, that's the very definition of separate but equal, you nitwit"So you're claiming labeling races asian, african american, white, indian ect. is "separate but equal??? You are in fact IRRATIONAL"No, we are at this point making fun of an ignorant, arrogant, dipshit troll "So you're admitting to appealing to mockery…Thanks dumb ass. Nice closing statement

  437. says

    Hey Charlie, you seem to have accidentally switched to one of your trolling accounts. You know, one of those you use to promote your own videos, so it'll seem like people other than you give a shit.

  438. says

    "Here we have a proffessed athiest saying crazy shit. He IS being called out for saying it. We ask it of others, so we must show that we are prepared to do it ourselves"CRAZY DELUSIONAL BELIEFS AND VIEWS BY PRO GAY ATHEISTS1. Gay men are not fueling the hiv/aids epidemic even though MANY MANY MANY STUDIES worldwide CONFIRMS IT2. Gay men are not a threat to public health even though the FDA deemed gay men a threat to public health by not allowing them to donate blood3. Gay people are the new black race even though homosexuality is more akin to mental disorders than race4. Homophobia is an irrational fear even though not one so called "homophobe" has been diagnosed for having an irrational fear of gays5. Disgust of gay men is irrational even though it's a disease avoidance behavior and many gay men have sexualized human waste and are the undisputed champs of anal cancer, hiv/aids, and syphilis WORLDWIDE6. Any negative views of gays has to be fueled by religion even though Buddhism isn't against gays but many Buddhists dont like gays. Also, China has not legalized gay marriage. Study shows gay men elcit disgust and homophobia is rooted in disgust, not religion7. All atheists must support gay marriage or else be outcasted even though atheists are suppose to be freethinkers and not groupthinkers8. Any atheist who doesn't want be called a bigot by pro gay atheists must pretend to not be disgusted by gay men even though disgust is not bigotry9. Atheists must downplay any negative study about gays no matter how valid it is.10. Any straight man who says anything negative about gay men has to be secretely gay It's obvious, PRO GAY ATHEISTS ARE DELUSIONAL

  439. says

    What you FAILED to understand is disgust is the OPPOSITE of attraction. It's on the opposite end of the spectrum. If a woman finds a man disgusting, he would be considered extremely unattractive. I thought atheists were rational.Can you cite the neurological or psychological studies to show that this is the case? Because research into fetishes would call bullshit on your claim here. One thing for sure, the hiv rates are disprportionately higher among gay menAnd black men.Gay men are 19 times (possibly a lot higher) more likely to have hiv/aids than hetero males in Sub saharan Africa. To make it even worse, many gay men in africa are afraid to come out so we don't really know how many gay men have hiv.And why would gay men be afraid to come out? Could it be because homosexuality is illegal in many countries in sub-Sarharan Africa? A lot of gay men in the United States are afraid to come out too. Particularly gay black men, because of the strong Christian streak and anti-gay stance of much of the black community. Consequently, black culture has developed the "down-low," where straight-identified men secretly have sex with other straight-identified men.The CDC statistics you keep citing state that a huge proportion of people spreading HIV are people who don't know that they're infected. Perhaps the high proportion of urban gay men with positive HIV diagnoses is in part due to the increased likelihood that urban gays will A) self-identify as gay (less stigma in the big cities with big gay communities) and B) get tested. How many guys on the down-low know their HIV status?Maybe you should ask next time, between mouthfuls of another "straight" guy's cock.Incidentally, white culture has a "down-low" too. We just call it "Congressional Republicans."Alarming Africa male gay HIV ratehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8158469.stmDid you read that article, Chuck? Because I love this bit: The report said prejudice towards gay people was leading to isolation and harassment, which in turn led to risky sexual practices among gay communities.Take a second to focus real close and try to understand what those words mean: the reason gay men are so much more likely to have HIV in Africa is because of homophobes. That "disease-avoidance behavior" is having the effect of spreading more disease.

  440. says

    If you agree that there's nothing wrong with heteros having one word that represents the ultimate commitment between man and woman, your claim contradicts would you agree on because if they changed the meaning, it would no longer be specifically for heeros and heteros would no longer have one word.I don't think heteros do have a word that means "the ultimate commitment between man and woman." I think heteros have a word that means "a legal contract that allows a couple certain benefits and can be terminated at any time for any reason." I think couples have a word for "a commitment recognized by law that is only 'ultimate' less than half the time." You're making marriage out to be something that it's not. This is EXTREME bigotry…Gays are intolerant of our disgust so they want us to die??? That's downright wickedYeah, that's totally what that means.1. It's not bigotry to hate bigots, you idiot. 2. It's not a wish, it's a statement of fact. Homophobes skew older. The more generations that pass, the smaller the proportion of homophobia gets, until they're a complete fringe group minority. Same thing happened with racists. 3. Homophobes like you, Charlie, are exacerbating the spread of AIDS in Africa. Homophobes like you, Charlie, are trying to make homosexuality punishable by death. When it comes to wickedness, go fuck yourself. So you're claiming labeling races asian, african american, white, indian ect. is "separate but equal??? You are in fact IRRATIONALI'd accuse you of strawmanning, but it's clear that you can't read. We label different races by their chosen race group. But whether you're African-American, white, Native American, etc., the word for a legal contract affording a couple certain legal benefits is the fucking same, you dipshit. So you're admitting to appealing to mockery…Thanks dumb ass. Nice closing statement There's no appealing to mockery, you asshat. There's just mockery. Because you're so eminently mockable. You're ridiculous, and the proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule.

  441. says

    "…Gays are intolerant of our disgust"Do you not understand how ridiculous this statement is? You're getting angry at a group of people for getting angry at your disgust of them?!?Tell me how you think they should react? What, in your mind, is the proper response to be being hated and vilified?That's really a rhetorical question…because it's pretty clear based on your responses to the criticism you've gotten here.

  442. says

    ""The gays have a great saying that shows just how much your disgust is tolerated: "Old bigots die"This is EXTREME bigotry…Gays are intolerant of our disgust so they want us to die??? That's downright wicked"I think what was being said is that much like the decrease in the perception of taboo about interracial relationships, as the old generations that held steady convictions about such things die off they are replaced with newer generations. Those newer generations are going to grow up in a culture which emphasizes more tolerance than that which the older generation grew up in. Over the span of generations in this manner, such bigotry will ultimately die out.

  443. says

    @Mak (way up there)Indeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed! Not to mention studies have shown that people who personally know more gay people are far less likely to be homophobic.And only a sith deals in absolutes! (those prequel movies are terrible I'm so sorry to quote them) Besides I don't see how, even if all gay people had HIV/AIDS, that would be a reason for them not to get married. People who are HIV positive or have AIDS actually DO get married now. Sometimes to partners that aren't infected, too. It's not like we have blood tests to get a marriage license or anything.Also, ultimate commitment = suicide pact, y/n?

  444. says

    "even though disgust is not bigotry"Your disgust seems to be based in bigotry as during discussion in this thread as you've outright attacked others using anti-gay slurs and insults. That type of language is not steepled in a dislike based on public health concerns…and don't get me wrong, you are allowed to dislike whomever you wish BUT if the best thing you can come up with to justify it being reasonable is 'disgust is natural' then you need to put on your big boy underoos and get over it. That's a lame arse excuse for being as hateful as you have demonstrated yourself to be here.

  445. says

    So Charlie considering we haveA) developed treatments to make HIV not a death sentence and found ways so that HIV infected can live 100% normal livesB) Developed drugs that can greatly reduce risk of infectionC) Allegedly actually CURED someone of HIV (practically)Will you concede that there is no rational reason to avoid gay people in terms of disease? I can't help but note that Charlie not only slips from Homophobia to misogyny but also into HIV bigotry.

  446. says

    One thing was bothering me that I just rememberedCharlie was upset I used an "appeal to pity" by associating his stance with separate but equal (which it is).But his entire argument is an "appeal to revulsion"Or rather it's a appeal to alleged revulsion that no one but him seems to really espouse to.

  447. says

    OMG XDI just realized that Matt is going to do a show in drag because of the PZ donation war.PLEASE LET CHARLIE CALL IN THEN! It would be fucking hilarious!

  448. says

    7. "All atheists must support gay marriage or else be outcasted even though atheists are suppose to be freethinkers and not groupthinkers"This isn't true. I think most freethinkers came to the conclusion that discriminating against a group based on their sexual orientation is just wrong. Whereas most of the bigots that support discrimination against a group based on sexual orientation usually do so for the "group-minded" thinking reasons, such as religion.However, in your case, I'm willing to knowledge an acceptation. I believe you came up with your disgusting, hateful, view-points all on your own. You actually manage to make some of the bible-thumpers I know seem tolerant. At least they talk a little bit about forgiveness.

  449. says

    Matt in drag, and Charlie calling in. Now that has the potential to be epic.Although that would mean sacrificing time to ths douchebag again…

  450. says

    Will you concede that there is no rational reason to avoid gay people in terms of disease? I'd add that as with heterosexual sex ed, through protection and education, we can drastically reduce the risks before people become infected. The point is to help people be happy in living their lives, not to oppress them.

  451. says

    I've read less than half of this thread and I'm bored with it. I want to talk about something far more important: Television!I enjoy watching all sorts of shows my 50-inch LCD projection HD Television. However, my enjoyment has been recently threatened by various electronics companies introducing these new devices that show 3D images. I, personally am outraged that they dare to call these devices televisions.STUDIES have shown that human eyesight never evolved to both focus and converge at the same distance. Therefore, I am perfectly justified in my disgust for viewing such artificial 3D images.In our minds and in the dictionary, the word "Television" has been ESTABLISHED to mean a device used for showing 2D images and video. The IDENTITY of the word television is "2D images and video". It simply can not mean "3D images and video". (Nevermind that the word originally only applied to Cathode Ray Tubes that showed only grayscale images, and the definition has been expanded multiple times to include devices that show color images as well as display them in different ways such as plasma and LCDs. I'm going to conveniently ignore those little facts, as they don't support my argument.)Now if these electronics manufactures would just choose a different word for these new devices, I would be perfectly fine with them. They could call them Schmelivisions, or Theelivisions, or something. I might even buy one then. But I simply can not accept them being called Televisions. Television means 2D images only.

  452. says

    Tom Foss,Fetishes are not rooted disgust. Fetish and disgust are not the same. People aren't sexually attracted to disgust. That should be obviousWhen you mention black men fueling the hiv rates, you PURPOSELY and DECEITFULLY avoided mentioning WHICH BLACK MEN. That's because the GAY black men are the ones fueling hiv along with the rest of the hiv infected gay menYou are in fact DECEITFUULHomo 'phobes' are NOT responsible for hiv rates among gays because countries who accept homosexuality the most show the LARGEST increase of hiv among gay menNeatherlands – First country to legalize gay marriageHIV incidence increasing among gay men in Amsterdam / MSM …http://www.eatg.org/eatg/Global-HIV-News/MSM/HIV-incidence-increasing-among-gay-men-in-AmsterdamNew Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQhttp://www.synergyaids.org/hiv/new-gay-sex-disease-outbreak-in-netherlands-482208.htmlGay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexualshttp://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Gay-Gang-in-Netherlands-Lures–Rapes-and-Infects-Fellow-Homosexuals-With-HIV-AIDS-21023-2/HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio …http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/many-new-hiv-infections-among-dutch-gaysBelgium – Second Country to legalize gay marriageactup.org – HIV among gay men continues to increase in Belgiumhttp://www.actup.org/forum/content/hiv-among-gay-men-continues-increase-belgium-1541/Scientists Blame White Young Men For HIV Increase In Europehttp://www.gay2shareworld.com/2010/09/08/scientists-blame-white-young-men-for-hiv-increase-in-europe/Massechusetts -First state to legalize gay marriag in the USA"BOSTON — Gay men continue to make up nearly half of all HIV cases in southeastern Massachusetts, according to a state report issued for World AIDS Day on Monday"http://www.enterprisenews.com/homepage/x611342608/Gay-men-still-make-up-many-of-new-HIV-cases

  453. says

    Massechusetts -First state to legalize gay marriag in the USA"BOSTON — Gay men continue to make up nearly half of all HIV cases in southeastern Massachusetts, according to a state report issued for World AIDS Day on Monday"Can you explain the causal link between gay marriage in Mass and high HIV rates?

  454. says

    Basically, Chuck says he can recognise disease because he's disgusted by it and people with diseases shouldn't be allowed to marry. Or even people who potentially might be more prone to disease shouldn't have equal rights as everyone else because they might infect you with cooties or try to fuck you.Even more basic, Chuck is against equal rights for everyone because he's scared of contagious cock.

  455. says

    Chuck is against equal rights for everyone because he's scared of contagious cock.No, he's not. He just doesn't want them using the "m-word".I think people should understand what he's saying, because if on any occasion someone doesn't get it 100% correct what he's thinking, despite his incredibly poor communication skills, he'll start screaming in a high pitched voice about logical fallacies without really understanding their application.

  456. says

    farmboy,"Basically, Chuck says he can recognise disease because he's disgusted by it and people with diseases shouldn't be allowed to marry"This is a FAT LIE.. You are in fact a CONTORTIONISTS. SHAME ON YOU…Christians don't even lie that muchMy point is, disgust could be an INDICATION of a disease avoidance behavior.My argument about disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument against gay marriage.GET A CLUE you LIAR.

  457. says

    JT"Can you explain the causal link between gay marriage in Mass and high HIV rates?" 1. Gay people believe the word marriage will normalze homosexuality2. Once gay people feel normal, they began to be more expressive of their homosexuality3. Once gay men become more expressive of homosexuality, many of their behaviors becomes a threat to society.Neatherlands was the first to legalize gay marriage"New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQ""Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexuals""HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio"POSSIBLE HISTORICAL PATTERN1. Heterosexuals ignore their disease avoidance behavior of gay men2. Heerosexuals Accept homosexuality3. Homosexual behavior becomes chaotic and spread diseases4. People run to religion for a safe haven5. Religion teaches people that god hates homosexuality because they don't understand the disease avoidance behavior6. Homosexuals blaim religion for bad treatment of gays

  458. says

    Fetishes are not rooted disgust. Fetish and disgust are not the same. People aren't sexually attracted to disgust. That should be obviousLife couldn't just happen by accident. That should be obvious.Something can't be both a particle and a wave. That should be obvious.Something can't come from nothing. That should be obvious. Maggots are spontaneously generated by rotting meat. That should be obvious.Things that are obvious are not necessarily things that are true. When something inspires fear or disgust, our brains have various ways of dealing with those feelings, and one of those ways is by eroticizing them. Consequently, a lot of things that inspire disgust in large numbers of people (feet, dead bodies, morbidly obese people, amputees, rape, cuckolding) are altered into paraphilias by certain people's erotic imaginations. You're once again making unsupported assertions. You might want to get that checked out. When you mention black men fueling the hiv rates, you PURPOSELY and DECEITFULLY avoided mentioning WHICH BLACK MEN. That's because the GAY black men are the ones fueling hiv along with the rest of the hiv infected gay menNo. While gay-identified black men do have a higher proportion than other black men, black heterosexuals have a higher rate of HIV infection than heterosexuals of any other racial group (source). Yes, among blacks, gays are more likely to test positive for HIV. And among heterosexuals, blacks are more likely to test positive for HIV. Homo 'phobes' are NOT responsible for hiv rates among gaysYour source said otherwise. Why do you keep citing these sources as support for your position if you disagree with what they say?because countries who accept homosexuality the most show the LARGEST increase of hiv among gay menI wonder if there might be any confounding factors to skew those results, Charlie. Perhaps because gays, HIV-positive or negative, are likely to go places where they're welcome. As to your newest deluge of sources: HIV incidence increasing among gay men in Amsterdam / MSM …However, the investigators note that the increased incidence in recent years was not significant.New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQArticle's 7 years old, describes a rare infection that people with HIV appear to be more susceptible to. Other infections people with HIV are more susceptible to: all of them.Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexualsBecause gays are HIV-positive rapists.You still haven't established how HIV, a disease that has affected humans for only a few generations, could have had such a huge evolutionary effect that stretches back to antiquity. Whenever anyone points out that blacks seem to be right behind gays in terms of HIV, and that the majority of people with HIV in Africa aren't gays, you're ready to make excuses. But whenever you come across a study or story that fits your prejudices, you draw a causal link and ignore any confounding factors. That's what we call special pleading, Charlie. Just like how guys can have sex with other guys and still be straight as long as they do it on the down-low. Right?

  459. says

    1. Heterosexuals ignore their disease avoidance behavior of gay menAnd so have sex with them? You seem to be missing a step, Charlie. Once again, Charlie admits that the only reason he doesn't have a cock in both ends right now is because it's "disgusting." And yet he can't seem to stop talking or thinking about it. Three whole days he's been here, nonstop, talking about how gross gay dudes are. Aren't they so gross? I mean, the only reason he doesn't have sex with them is because they're so gross. If he could just ignore the grossness, he'd totally be having sex with the first hot gay dude who walked by. But he won't. Because they're gross. So gross.

  460. says

    "Can you explain the causal link between gay marriage in Mass and high HIV rates?" 1. Gay people believe the word marriage will normalze homosexuality2. Once gay people feel normal, they began to be more expressive of their homosexuality3. Once gay men become more expressive of homosexuality, many of their behaviors becomes a threat to society.Do you think gay marriage:1) Increases monogamy2) Decreases monogamy3) Monogamy stays the same… and why?If anything I've observed, the married gay couples take their relationships very seriously, because they had to work so hard attain it.You also seem to be assuming that homosexuals in an accepting society are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, otherwise this argument makes no sense.

  461. says

    And other question.If we allow them to have the same functional thing, but call it something other than "marriage", how does that negate the supposed HIV problem you point out in your syllogism?

  462. says

    "And so have sex with them? You seem to be missing a step, Charlie" This is a slippery slope fallacy…You've taken too many steps.You don't understand the disease avoidance behavior. It's disgust and the expression of disgust causes us to treat gays badly in which keeps gays and bisexuals away from us in which causes gays to be less expressive of their sexual orientation.The less expressive gays and bisexuals are of their sexual orienation, the less likely they are to spread diseasesNEATHERLANDS IS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE"New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQ""Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexuals""HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio"EXPLAIN why the first country to legalize gay marriage is having homosexual chaos????

  463. says

    Hate to belabor the obvious, but this BiggThinker guy talks exactly like Charlie, aka atheistdeceitbuster. Is Charlie sock puppeting now? If so, why? If not, why is he using a new screen name? Something wrong with the old one?

  464. says

    I'm completely confused why this obvious troll is being entertained for so long. He just repeats the same argument over and over, and whenever people point out the obvious flaws, he retreats to fallacy-calling and starts all over.

  465. says

    According the the EVIDENCE, gay marriage either decreases monogamy, increases homosexual expression or a combination of bothHere's why,Let's examine Neatherlands since it is the first country to legalize gay marriage"New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQ"Out of all places, why is gay marriage land (Neatherlands) experiencing a new gay disease outbreak???According the the EVIDENCE, gay marriage either decreases monogamy, increases homosexual expression or a combination of bothNote: There was no gay sex disease outbreak until gay marriage became legal.So possibly gay marriage caused an increased homosexual sexual expression"Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexuals"Out of all places, why is gay marriage land (Neatherlands) a problem with experiencing gay gang rapes and infecting other homosexuals.Again, It's either because of decreased monogomy, increased expression of homosexuality or a combination of both."HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio"EXPLAIN why the first country to legalize gay marriage is having homosexual chaos????

  466. says

    According the the EVIDENCE, gay marriage either decreases monogamy, increases homosexual expression or a combination of bothYou've employed the fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc".You still haven't defined a mechanism.. just that things supposedly got bad after, therefore it MUST have… somehow.

  467. says

    TO EVERYONE,What's your explanation for the homosexual chaos in gay mariage land???NEATHERLANDS IS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE"New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQ""Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexuals""HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio"

  468. says

    @JTyou can't corner that. He was cornered in every second comment. He just ignored those, or skipped over them as 'fallacies'.Its like trying to corner a 3 year old with rational arguments, when the kid puts fingers in his/her ears and sings 'lalalalla'

  469. says

    Someone needs to get a screengrab from 300 and emblazon it with the phrase "Homosexual Chaos????"in honour of our man Chuck.Is there a special anti-gay news clearinghouse blog along the lines of WordNutDaily that Charlie has tapped into?

  470. Martin says

    Russell: Yes, disemvowel. For the last 500 comments Charlie has been arguing for the sake of his ego, not because he gives a shit about facts.

  471. says

    @charlieIf that's "chaos", then society has been plagued by "heterosexual APOCALYPSE" for a long long time.

  472. says

    1. Gay people believe the word marriage will normalze homosexuality2. Once gay people feel normal, they began to be more expressive of their homosexuality3. Once gay men become more expressive of homosexuality, many of their behaviors becomes a threat to society.So, just to be clear, are you saying that you're against homosexuals being allowed to feel normal?

  473. says

    It's disgust and the expression of disgust causes us to treat gays badly in which keeps gays and bisexuals away from us in which causes gays to be less expressive of their sexual orientation.I have news for you, Charlie: gay men do not want to have sex with straight men. The fact that you can't deal with your own desire to have sex with men doesn't mean that all men want to have sex with men, or that gay men want to have sex with you.The less expressive gays and bisexuals are of their sexual orienation, the less likely they are to spread diseasesThe source you posted about homosexuality in Africa, as well as the spread of HIV in 1970s-80s America, shows that this is not the case. When gay men are less accepted, they take greater risks. It's risky sex, not homosexuality, that increases the spread of disease. Before you go busting out the ALL CAPS words, dipshit, you might notice that as a common theme in nearly every one of the articles you keep citing about increased rates of various diseases.

  474. says

    JT,it's not a post hoc ergo propter hoc because I explaned the mechanisms. 1. Gay people believe the word marriage will normalze homosexuality2. Once gay people feel normal, they began to be more expressive of their homosexuality3. Once gay men become more expressive of homosexuality, their behavior becomes chaotic in which is exactly is going on in Neatherlands

  475. says

    @LukasThat's exactly what he's saying, and he has also, quite plainly stated that treating gays badly is to be considered a good thing.

  476. says

    "Charlie has been arguing for the sake of his ego, not because he gives a shit about facts"FACT 1 – FDA has deemed gay men a threat to public health..FACT 2 – Gay marriage land (Neatherland) is experiencing homosexual chaos."New Gay Sex Disease Outbreak in Netherlands | HIV | Aids HIV FAQ""Gay Gang in Netherlands Lures, Rapes and Infects Fellow homosexuals""HIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio"FACT 4 – Gay men are fueling hiv rates in china, Europe and the USA

  477. says

    it's not a post hoc ergo propter hoc because I explaned the mechanisms. What you did was assert a sequence of events without any rationale as to each point.Everything we know about marriage indicates that it tends to make people more monogamous. Thus, asserting that homosexual marriage would increase monogamy flies in the face of known facts.Why do you think that homosexual people would go "chaotic" when feeling normal, but heterosexual people wouldn't? Your argument must still assume that homosexuals are intrinsically more "chaotic" and promiscuous than heterosexual people… for some reason. And somehow they'd have the reverse response to what would otherwise increase monogamy.

  478. says

    GAY PEDOPHILES"There is widespread disgust and outrage expressed over the housing together of two convicted prisoners. The partners-in –crime; homosexual lovers Robbie Sebastian Wheeler, 43, and his boyfriend Victor Leslie Urquhart, 46, have been placed together in Hakea jail, in West Australia" "The two men were convicted last month for kidnapping a teenage boy and sexually molesting him for 20 days, before he was rescued. The pair had even plotted to murder the boy and dispose of"Read more: Outrage Against Gay Partners–In–Crime Kept Together http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=20880#ixzz1OcM4a0Ne

  479. says

    "3. Once gay men become more expressive of homosexuality, their behavior becomes chaotic" prove this is universal. You can not point at one particular place in one particular country and culture and state that it follows that would be the default standard behavior for gays who are able to express their homosexuality. It's just your doomsday assumption, nothing more.

  480. says

    GAY PEDOPHILESConfirmation Bias.You do realize that heterosexual pedophiles far far outnumber homosexual ones, don't you?What's your source for information that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals?

  481. says

    GAY PEDOPHILES?! If this is how far you gotta reach then you must be trolling. Plenty of pedos that rape and kill little girls too.

  482. says

    "Everything we know about marriage indicates that it tends to make people more monogamous"Not a shred of evidence shows gay marriage makes gays more mongomous…You are making baseless claims.As a matter of fact, The first state in the USA to legalize gay marriage shows an increase in hiv rates among gay men. Why aren't gay men marrying and sticking to one partner???Also, gay marriage land 'Neatherlands' shows an increase in hiv AND a new gay sex disease.So I'm not saying gay marriage causes those things BUT it can't be ruled out and one thing for sure, gay marriage IS NOT causing a decrease in std's or monogomy

  483. says

    EXPLAIN why the first country to legalize gay marriage is having homosexual chaos????Easy. It doesn't.According to the statistics of the WHO, the prevalence of HIV in Holland has held pretty stable at 0.2 since the mid 90s. Incidentally, this is below the average for countries in western Europe.What was your source for this "chaos", again?

  484. says

    I can't believe he went for three days on this subject. Usually I like crazy callers, but please never let this guy on the show again.

  485. says

    sorry, but viewing gay sex acts as distasteful is not "part of being straight". There are many sex acts I don't wish to engage in but I do not view as distasteful.What you are describing is homophobia.

  486. says

    Charlie should be our poster boy to Christians on how to deal with the unsavory extremists rather than provide comfort to them.

  487. says

    "According to the statistics of the WHO, the prevalence of HIV in Holland has held pretty stable at 0.2 since the mid 90s. Incidentally, this is below the average for countries in western Europe"How deceitful of you"Nearly 850 gay men in the Netherlands have been diagnosed with HIV in the past year. That number is higher than during the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the Netherlands HIV Monitoring Foundation (SHM) reports"http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/many-new-hiv-infections-among-dutch-gaysThe hiv rates among gay men have INCREASED while the hiv rates among everyone else has decreased so it seems as if it stabled off but the truth is, it's decreased with the exception of gay menHIV infection rate rises among Dutch gay men | Radio …

  488. says

    "sorry, but viewing gay sex acts as distasteful is not "part of being straight"You think that because you have a gay structured brain The distasteful feeling we have of gay sex is what's preventing us from having gay sex in the first place. GET A CLUE..I thought atheists were rationalPr gay

  489. says

    "Usually I like crazy callers, but please never let this guy on the show again"So anyone who cite studies that aren't in gays favor are somehow "crazy"????You must be crazyFDA has deemed gay men a threat to public healthHow does that claim make me crazy??? You're crazy for deeming anyone crazy for stating facts. That's like Christians calling people crazy for saying there's no evidence that God exist.

  490. says

    Gay men are a threat to public health. IT'S TRUEI'll tell you pro gay atheists what I tell ChristiansFACE REALITYThe FDA has deemed gay men a threat to public health. Like Christians, you pro gay atheists can't stand to even THINK about that because it jepardizes your delusionYES, gay men are in fact a threat to public healthTo make it even worse,CDC

  491. says

    Okay kids, fun time's over now. Everyone say bye-bye to Charlie the homophobic troll. Bye, Charlie!Charlie seems not to have gotten the banning memo.

  492. says

    I see. So, I cite statistics from the World Health Organisation (which is apparently a deceitful thing to do) and you counter with… a news article, which doesn't even back up your claim.Remember, your claim was not just that infection rates were going up in Holland. You claimed they were going up as a result of the legalization of gay marriage. The article you linked offers no support for this.Not that anyone is surprised.At the very least, you need to provide statistics showing a clear increase in HIV infections in Holland, starting in 2001 and provide statistics for a representative sample of other European countries that haven't legalized gay marriage, showing that their rates did not increase also.Seeing as you haven't provided such information in the previous 580 posts of this thread and given that you've now been disemvowelled (completely justifiably so), I guess we'll never see it.

  493. says

    Btw, I never noticed before how handy it is when people repeat themselves often. It makes it much easier to decode a disemvowelling when all you have to do is compare to previous stock phrases.

  494. anonymous says

    Saturday I will be marching in Boston Pride, wearing (of course) exact replica ruby slippers.While I'm only in it for the tradition of it all, I always take a moment to remember those who were marching when it was a death wish to do so.The hard part is over folks, people like charlie are akin to that one streak of shit left in the bowl after flushing. He's just about all that remains of a losing battle. and he likes it that way. if he were on the winning side, there wouldnt be enough hatred directed towards him to make his wanker hard (troll gets off on this attention).play with him while you can, cuz there arent many of him left.

  495. says

    It turns out that studies have shown that people who identify as homophobic are actually more sexually aroused by gay sex than men who are straight but are not homophobic. I can post the citation for at least one article that shows this tomorrow when I get to work if anyone is interested.

  496. says

    play with him while you can, cuz there arent many of him leftOn that note, I'll just link to this. Slowly, but surely, we are winning.

  497. says

    hi, i am new to the list! did i miss anything important yet?also there seems to be a "charlie" guy here. anyone keeping score? is he winning?:-)

  498. says

    At least one study showed that homophobic males get more aroused by homosexual sex than nonhomophobic males.Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440-445.

  499. says

    I don't see what we are arguing about at this point. Chuckles hates gay people. We aren't going to convince him otherwise. I realized how pointless it was from the beginning of the latest call where he said a comment, the hosts repeated it near verbatim, and he claimed "I never said that". Well, yes you did. We just heard it come out of your mouth. Then there was the part where he said he'd be fine with using "shmarriage" and even support it. But 30 seconds later proved this was absolutely not the case. It's impossible to have a reasoned argument with someone who won't even take responsibility for their own words. Chuck has proven that he is incapable of defending, or even admitting to, his own thought process. (I would say that's something christians do all the time, but the joke might be lost)

  500. says

    The reason why Gay people should have full, equal rights to marriage, and tolerance in civil society, simply boils down to civil rights. If you come up with a separate word for the exact same union that is forged between heterosexual couples, it's not that different from the "separate but equal" mentality of segregation in race relations issues. To suggest that you can't have "marriage" because that's our word, but you can have this other word for a union that is represents the exact same type of union (except exclusively for same-sex unions) is the semantic ideological equivalent of saying black people must have their own equal, but separate restaurants, movie theaters, and water fountains.

  501. says

    Couples things stick out to me. Charlie is desperate to be right. Probably desperate to fill the void in Atheism that supports civil rights/equalities/human coexistence. Maybe he thinks if it's him he will win the nobel peace prize of atheism.His means to convey his message are the same means that Bill O'rielly uses to bully his guests. If he screams louder or says something more obnoxious, he wins. It's sad to see the TV show and this forum put up with this kind of attitude. It's beyond troll, in the loser category. But free speech is free speech.Martin really nailed it in the original post. Special pleading that the definition of marriage shouldn't change because of tradition is 100% crapola. I'm always surprised when I hear an ethnic person against gay rights. Did black americans not win the same fight in 1964? Take a black guy and a white guy. If you allow the white guy to use the clean bathroom down the hall and tell the black guy to go outside, that's segregation and it's not only illegal, but immoral by all honest, benevolent humans.Take a straight couple and a gay couple. If you allow the straight couple to wed and receive all legal benefits and it's not difficult and make the gay couple move out of state in order to receive the same benefits, that is also segregation.Charlie, I don't respect your position or the way you have acted in all your yelling and sarcasm. If you do not believe that sexual orientation is not on the same level as gender and race in terms of the constitution, think again. Considering 1964 civil rights, your hypocrasy is sickening. That's like a christian saying science is full of shit even though they've been successfully vaccinated.Martin/Russel: I am curious what the call note said Mark from Stone Church was calling about? I have a hypothesis that he keeps calling in order to stall out the show so that the children listening hear less good deconversion content(that is if he isn't a po).

  502. says

    I get it that he broke rules but disemvowling is kind of annoying. I'de rather you banned this guy instead of allowing a bunch of garbledness to make it through.

  503. says

    I'm with DawgI'd rather see Charlie's stupid remain for everyone to see and him banned from further posting than disenvoweling.

  504. says

    Yo, Mart-en, I'm gettin ready to lay a statistic on you ass. I'm gettin ready to hit you right between the eyes with the truth. It's about to happen to you ass. Are you ready? Are you ready to get bitch slapped in the face with a dose a reality? O.K., Mart-en, here goes: "Studies show" that 80 percent of Americans consider themselves to be of above average intelligence. Let's just take a moment to consider the math behind that assertion. I didn't take me long, and I am sure that it did not take you or Tracie long to figure that Charlie is the kind of guy who would proudly boast of his membership in this very exclusive intellectual community.Tracie termed it a "travesty of a call", but I must admit that I often find callers who are full of themselves, and full of shit, and full of piss and vinegar as well, to provide much entertainment to the show. The Theists banana was one such caller that I will never forget. Charlie, simply did not have enough personality to make it interesting for us, and so I was glad that you guys terminated his call. I must admit that it got a bit awkward, last week, when a caller seemed to be paying Tracie compliments at your exclusion, Martin, and, while I, myself, am guilty of being partial to Tracie, I would like to state, for the record, that I especially like you, Marten, because you appear to be the resident smart ass/instigator of the AE/ACA. I particularly enjoy your brand of sarcasm. Thanks to all of you AE personalities for your contributions to the show and to humanity!!!

  505. says

    Yo, Mart-en, I'm gettin ready to lay a statistic on yo ass. It's about to happen to you. Are you ready? I'm about to bitch slap you right in the face with the truth. Are you ready? O.K., Mart-en, here goes: "Studies show" 80 percent of all Americans consider themselves to be of above average intelligence. Let's consider the math behind that assertion for a moment. It did not take me long, and I am sure that it did not take you or Tracie long to figure that Charlie is the kind of individual who would proudly boast his membership in this very exclusive intellectual community. Althoug Tracie termed it a "Travesty of a call", I must admit that I often find Theist callers who are full of themselves, and full of the Holy Spirit, and full of shit, and full of piss and vinegar as well, to provide a great deal of entertainment and opportunities for banter to the AE — like the Theists Banana girl. Charlie, however, was about as interesting as a five pound bag of manure, and I am glad that you terminated his call. Thanks to all of you AE personalities for all that you do for your loyal AE fans and for humanity as well. Thanks, Concrete Pete

  506. says

    Yo, Mart-en, I'm gettin ready to lay a statistic on yo ass. It's about to happen to you. Are you ready? Are you ready? I'm about to bitch slap you in the face with a dose a reality. Are you ready? O.K., Marten, here goes: "Studies show" 80 percent of Americans consider themselves to be of above average intelligence. It did not take me but a few minutes to realize that Charlie is the kind of individual who would proudly boast of his membership in this very exclusive intellectual community. Although Tracie termed it a "travesty of a call", I often find that Theist callers who are full of themselves, and full of shit, and full of piss and vinegar as well, often provide a great deal of entertainment as well as opportunities for banter as well — like the Theist Banana girl. Charlie lacked the personality to keep it interesting, and I am glad that you terminated his call. Thanks to all of you AE personalities for all that you do for the cause.

  507. says

    The disemvoweling, as I recall, can be turned off by disabling Javascript, in case you want to reminisce about Charlie's brilliance. Also, his posts show up as normal on the mobile version of the site.

  508. says

    I can't believe I read through this whole thread. I'm pretty sure I have a brain abnormality.What's worse is I kept reading long after I came up with this post.

  509. says

    I already have concluded that trying to talk sense to Charlie (the bigoted homophobic irrational atheist) is a conmpletely fruitless endeavour. But for the benefit of others I would like to offer another reason why marriage IS NOT considered to be a thing between man and woman. Over here in the netherlands we have had legal same-sex marriage since the mid 90's and surprise, surprise, apart from a minority of fundies (Yes we have them too) who are still hung up on it, the majority of people has accepted this. In fact so much so, that talking about marriage could either point to a same sex OR a heterosexual couple. This seems to me to be a real world example of how wrong Charlie is when he says, that marriage automatically means the union between a man and a woman…. Not that I have the illusion that Charlie will be convinced by this, but it seemed like some pertinet information nonetheless

  510. says

    Russel or Martin, did you see what Mark from Stone Church called in about? The last time he called he really didn't have anything to talk about so if he isn't a Poe, he's probably just trying to intentionally waste air time.

  511. says

    Since Charlie fancies himself such a logic buff and repeatedly accuses people of the same 2 or 3 fallacies, he would do well to look up these ones: "definitional retreat" and "extensional pruning."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>