Support NeoGAF

[HiredN00bs]

y'know, I've always enjoyed your posts. Well most of them, and you've never struck me as the paint with a broad brush kind of dude. In fact, you usually argue against that sort of thing, and I usually agree. Nearly always.

But here you are, talking like, well, a conservative Christian from Kentucky. I realize that, perhaps, you are being baited, but you know how to internet.

OT, of course they should fire her. She'll be a hero, or maybe not. Some clerks here in Arkansas talked about balking, and that blew over like a little popcorn fart.

I don't blame people for having such ire towards Christianity. It's had it coming for a long time.

There are a lot of people in this country whose lives and the lives of friends and family have been detrimented by Christianity. Whether this was being psychologically tortured with the fears of a literal hell or a coming apocalypse, or being told their sexual desires are evil, or just being made to feel like a piece of shit that needs saving.

It's never been about love, but fear.

 

[Amir0x]

y'know, I've always enjoyed your posts. Well most of them, and you've never struck me as the paint with a broad brush kind of dude. In fact, you usually argue against that sort of thing, and I usually agree. Nearly always.

But here you are, talking like, well, a conservative Christian from Kentucky. I realize that, perhaps, you are being baited, but you know how to internet.

OT, of course they should fire her. She'll be a hero, or maybe not. Some clerks here in Arkansas talked about balking, and that blew over like a little popcorn fart.

It's not painting with a broad brush. It's literally stating what's in the scripture he quoted. It's saying that these people shouldn't judge these sinners, no God will judge them instead in place of them (because they themselves are sinners of course. Another terrible way to believe in the human condition). And that means one thing: that they will be tortured for eternity unless they turn from that sin. All because this same deity placed a curse on humanity for what Adam and Eve supposedly did in the garden. That is undoubtedly some sick and twisted shit. There's no two bones about it.

That's the problem with discussions like these. People want to try to sugarcoat the true implications of what these things actually mean. These words when put together say something clear and indisputable. They say something to the people who read them. And when they're stated, I believe it's important to recognize just how gross that message is. And this message is horrific.

If people don't want to understand the true gravity of what these scriptures are saying, then they should avoid quoting such horrible scriptures in public.

 

[USC-fan]

How do these people still have a job?

You dont want to do it...no problem... quit....

 

[andycapps]

Oh, this is in Morehead. My wife's family is from there. I'm not shocked at all that it happened there. They have probably never seen gay people there at all. Not saying it makes it right at all, but that place is really something. I'm from the south, but that part of Kentucky is something else. It's a whole different level of backwoods than anything I've seen before. And Morehead actually has a college there and is a decent sized town for the area.

 

[Metaphoreus]

man it is some sick twisted shit that you think that scripture is some improvement. There, you tell people to believe in God so that his everlasting hatefulness can sit in judgment against perfectly normal human conditions. The implication being of course that the creator of all things even thinks you're sinning (a condition that he condemned them all to by the even more abhorrent ideology of paying for the sins of your father), and will kill you (read: torture you for eternity) lest you turn from that sin. Some sick shit to believe in this monster of a deity.

Sorry, Ami, I was talking over you. The verse I quoted was as an aside to Squirrel Killer. Again, the question I've been discussing in this thread is whether Christianity teaches Christians to love gay people (and, more broadly, whether love is possible without endorsement, acceptance, agreement, etc.). I'm not going to derail the thread further by discussing with you the relative merits or demerits of Christianity or its teachings.

 

[Amir0x]

Sorry, Ami, I was talking over you. The verse I quoted was as an aside to Squirrel Killer. Again, the question I've been discussing in this thread is whether Christianity teaches Christians to love gay people (and, more broadly, whether love is possible without endorsement, acceptance, agreement, etc.). I'm not going to derail the thread further by discussing with you the relative merits or demerits of Christianity or its teachings.

You don't know what love means. But you're not going to post hate about these people in any form and not get called out for it. You don't get to do that, you're not amongst a crowd amenable to that sort of hate. We've established you have no idea what love means, and you continue to use Biblical scripture to shield yourself from the criticism. How about you drop the morality crusade from that book and try to make an argument without it about why you should be allowed to hate freely these people? You don't even have to want to make laws about it. Why do you believe you're allowed to treat other human beings as if they are not acceptable for being who they were born to be with fellow consenting adults?

 

[soco]

Oh, this is in Morehead. My wife's family is from there. I'm not shocked at all that it happened there. They have probably never seen gay people there at all. Not saying it makes it right at all, but that place is really something. I'm from the south, but that part of Kentucky is something else. It's a whole different level of backwoods than anything I've seen before. And Morehead actually has a college there and is a decent sized town for the area.

I think it's a little surprising considering it's a college town and compared to some of the neighboring counties, which are undoubtedly much more conservative. I've met gay people who went to Morehead, and although many travel to Lexington to go out, there's still plenty of gay folk in the area. I think that this is just the one crazy lady stand-out. You knew there had to be at least one in the general area, it's slightly surprising it's here and not in say Martin, Elliot, Carter, etc.

 

[timetokill]

What does that guy say?

"Read the Kentucky constitution... (unintelligible) women, or whatever you guys are" ??

 

[dekline]

I like how they called the cop and all he can do is just stand there wasting time. Just fire these people already, they clearly aren't doing their job while simultaneously preventing others from doing their own job. Just a sad video.

And what was up with those people filming the people filming? Fuck off.

 

[ValkyrUser]

Woooow.

Anyways, hope she never has a job dealing with the general public again.

 

[Miles X]

I hope you know that the lgbt community feels the same way about that love the sinner bullshit. It's pretty strange you don't understand why someone would be angry about their entire being bring called a sin.

I don't think it's so much that, sin is associated with the bible. It's when he comes out with stuff about gays not being able to love and stuff that is just pure dumbassery.

 

[Stallion Dan]

I watched the video, seems all the clerks are under orders to not issue the license. Not sure that woman deserves the hate if she just doing what her superior told her, and the video ends when the superior seems to step up.

 

[Lebron]

I watched the video, seems all the clerks are under orders to not issue the license. Not sure that woman deserves the hate if she just doing what her superior told her, and the video ends when the superior seems to step up.

Eh, they could of issued them if they wanted. It's a government job, not like she can fire you. And even if she did, good luck with that massive lawsuit for wrongful termination and hostile work environment.

 

[timetokill]

Is it possible to love someone but be fearful that God will condemn them to hell?

If it is not your decision as to what is Good and what is Evil... can you love someone for who they are, but pray for God's forgiveness for them?

It seems possible to love somebody and say that, in this mortal civilization, that they should be able to have gay marriages... while ALSO being concerned for their eternal soul, and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed.

 

[metalslimer]

Is it possible to love someone but be fearful that God will condemn them to hell?

If it is not your decision as to what is Good and what is Evil... can you love someone for who they are, but pray for God's forgiveness for them?

It seems possible to love somebody and say that, in this mortal civilization, that they should be able to have gay marriages... while ALSO being concerned for their eternal soul, and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed.

I don't know. I wouldn't really want to follow such an awful supreme being. Also it would seem more like these people only follow him because they fear the repercussions rather than actually love him.

 

[slit]

Is it possible to love someone but be fearful that God will condemn them to hell?

If it is not your decision as to what is Good and what is Evil... can you love someone for who they are, but pray for God's forgiveness for them?

It seems possible to love somebody and say that, in this mortal civilization, that they should be able to have gay marriages... while ALSO being concerned for their eternal soul, and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed.

Yes but being fearful of it for this just makes you silly. It's when Christians HOPE for it, and make no mistake a lot do.

 

[Amir0x]

Is it possible to love someone but be fearful that God will condemn them to hell?

If it is not your decision as to what is Good and what is Evil... can you love someone for who they are, but pray for God's forgiveness for them?

It seems possible to love somebody and say that, in this mortal civilization, that they should be able to have gay marriages... while ALSO being concerned for their eternal soul, and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed.

Again, this is loaded language. It'd be one thing if you said "you know I love them and think they're good people and should be able to have gay sex and I think it's great they find someone to share that with. I don't think it's wrong at all. But I was raised a Christian and it's hard to break away from the fear that God might condemn them to hell, even though I disagree with that notion."

Instead... you said... "and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed."

Think of how hurtful that is to someone. Think of how psychologically damaging it would be to know you've been born a certain way, and yet it's "on the side of bad" to be that way. This is awful, heavy stuff. This is not love.

 

[TalonJH]

I live in Kentucky but in a larger city. I overheard my boss talking with another person about how some of the rural areas are having problems finding people at every office to issue the licences and how shes happy about people standing up for their beliefs. I've already had augment with her recently about her defending Donald Trump.

(Full disclosure: She is the boss of that office. I am directly under a corporate office.)

 

[Metaphoreus]

I mean, you understand why people are hateful towards your views right? Because they're hateful in themselves. Love and being able to love has nothing to do with religion or god either. Gay people can and do fall in love every day there is no "is it possible" about it.

I don't think it's so much that, sin is associated with the bible. It's when he comes out with stuff about gays not being able to love and stuff that is just pure dumbassery.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the present discussion. Nobody is questioning whether gay people (or atheists, I guess) can love. The question is whether loving a person requires endorsing, accepting, or agreeing with the person's worldview, beliefs, or sexual orientation. I argue that it is not. Ami, e.g., demands that it is.

 

[timetokill]

Again, this is loaded language. It'd be one thing if you said "you know I love them and think they're good people and should be able to have gay sex and I think it's great they find someone to share that with. I don't think it's wrong at all. But I was raised a Christian and it's hard to break away from the fear that God might condemn them to hell, even though I disagree with that notion."

Instead... you said... "and praying for them to come to the side of Good that has been prescribed."

Think of how hurtful that is to someone. Think of how psychologically damaging it would be to know you've been born a certain way, and yet it's "on the side of bad" to be that way. This is awful, heavy stuff. This is not love.

I'm agnostic, first off.

Moreover, is how a person is affected by someone's love retroactively deny that it is love to begin with?

It just seems to me that you can love someone while disapproving of their activities, or fearing for their future, even within the confines of a religion.

Also, I think part of Christianity is the knowledge that everyone is a sinner. Everyone is an exile from the Garden.

 

[timetokill]

I don't know. I wouldn't really want to follow such an awful supreme being. Also it would seem more like these people only follow him because they fear the repercussions rather than actually love him.

Maybe so. But if you believe that it is the Truth then it doesn't really matter if you follow him. God's in charge whether you like it or not. In a religious perspective, anyway.

Yes but being fearful of it for this just makes you silly. It's when Christians HOPE for it, and make no mistake a lot do.

Sure, but that hope would be a sin in itself.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm agnostic, first off.

Moreover, is how a person is affected by someone's love retroactively deny that it is love to begin with?

I didn't say you were Christian, atheist or agnostic. I just rephrased your hypothetical phrasing into a phrasing that was legitimately based on love (and a bit of fear in this case).

But what you said, it's not love. They can call it love, they can write down it is love, they can go on national television and say it is love. But it is not love, it's just thinly disguised hatred masquerading as something else. Yes, and of course how someone is affected by it matters in the equation. If you did not care that you were making someone feel awful by a hateful proclamation about one of the very essences of who they are, then once again it's not love.

It just seems to me that you can love someone while disapproving of their activities, or fearing for their future, even within the confines of a religion.

Also, I think part of Christianity is the knowledge that everyone is a sinner. Everyone is an exile from the Garden.

Yes, everyone is a sinner... reason 5431 that it's a nasty ideology. But what does sin mean? Sin is something you want to try as best as your human nature can allow to avoid. Sin is something that the creator of the entire universe says is wrong. The creator says these things can lead to literally eternal damnation.

Think about the implications. If you are a child molester and get caught and prosecuted, the judge won't order the state to torture you until the end of your natural years. Because that's barbaric behavior not even fit for other animals. And yet, here God is going to say that if you continue to sin without repentance he will submit you to the worst torture imaginable for all eternity. Not 10 years, not 30, not 80 years. But eternity.

Because in this case someone was born gay. Because God thinks that people should have to pay for the sins of their forefathers.

Can you explain where love enters this equation? At what point of how this grotesque nightmare plays out should I consider this "loving"?

 

[slit]

Sure, but that hope would be a sin in itself.

Great, tell them that, not me.

Good luck getting through to them when they're not even honest about it to themselves.

 

[Earthstrike]

You have fundamentally misunderstood the present discussion. Nobody is questioning whether gay people (or atheists, I guess) can love. The question is whether loving a person requires endorsing, accepting, or agreeing with the person's worldview, beliefs, or sexual orientation. I argue that it is not. Ami, e.g., demands that it is.

worldview, beliefs, or sexual orientation. It's a nice mixing of choices a person can make versus an immutable trait.

Imagine if having green eyes was considered a sin. If you have green eyes, you get to burn in hell for an infinite amount of time. But we love you!

 

[andycapps]

I think it's a little surprising considering it's a college town and compared to some of the neighboring counties, which are undoubtedly much more conservative. I've met gay people who went to Morehead, and although many travel to Lexington to go out, there's still plenty of gay folk in the area. I think that this is just the one crazy lady stand-out. You knew there had to be at least one in the general area, it's slightly surprising it's here and not in say Martin, Elliot, Carter, etc.

Well I'm sure there's some at Morehead State or whatever it is, but it just has to be really rare there. I mean, I feel weird when I go from there. People just stare, they can tell I'm not from there I guess. Nice people (except for this lady obviously) but there's nothing to do there. I'd go crazy.

 

[Metaphoreus]

worldview, beliefs, or sexual orientation. It's a nice mixing of choices a person can make versus an immutable trait.

Imagine if having green eyes was considered a sin. If you have green eyes, you get to burn in hell for an infinite amount of time. But we love you!

This gets into the weeds a bit, but as I've already said, people and characteristics are not sinful--only actions are. And every aspect of ourselves manifests in our minds as a belief about ourselves. But if you think there's a better word to describe what Ami, Stump, and Cyan believe must be endorsed, accepted, or agreed to as a precondition to loving a person, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[forrest]

Disgusting behavior and from my home state no less. For shame. I hope they fire her ass.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

This gets into the weeds a bit, but as I've already said, people and characteristics are not sinful--only actions are. And every aspect of ourselves manifests in our minds as a belief about ourselves. But if you think there's a better word to describe what Ami, Stump, and Cyan believe must be endorsed, accepted, or agreed to as a precondition to loving a person, I'd be happy to hear it.

Um actually all people are sinners. You don't even need to take a breath let alone commit an act in the traditional sense. After Adam and Eve and their transgressions all of us carry sin. This is made crystal clear in the bible on multiple occasions.

Just because you like to pick and chose who's actions are more worthy of god's scorn or a trip to hell doesn't make your opinion true.

Please read(with comprehension) the book you supposedly get your "facts" from.

 

[DarthWoo]

Why can't all those sinful left-handed people just stop using their left hands and live a pure life writing like crap with their right hands?

 

[ShironRedshift]

I don't know. I wouldn't really want to follow such an awful supreme being. Also it would seem more like these people only follow him because they fear the repercussions rather than actually love him.

That's what really gets me. Unlike sexuality, a person's religion actually is their choice. I mean, there are all different varieties and denominations of religions like Christianity. And many of them are pretty damn cool about subjects like homosexuality. So when people try to hide behind God and act as if it's not them who's personally hateful, but their God, and they just want to help them out so that they're not condemned by that God... I dunno, that just rings kinda hollow, since they chose to believe in that God to begin with.

No one forced them to, they could stop doing so at any time and switch to a more accepting denomination (or not even formally switching or any such gesture like that of course--just refuse to believe that God would condemn people to such a fate for just being themselves in a way that harms no one if that's genuinely a thought that makes them uncomfortable and not a fate they feel is actually appropriate) if that's an idea that bothers them and they genuinely do love homosexuals and don't actually believe they should be condemned for being who they are...

But when they don't and continue that path regardless, even if it's not quite fair (since I really don't like thinking this way, like whatsoever, and being cynical about people's intentions and beliefs even when it concerns stuff like this and hate when I even have to doubt people about whether they're really being genuine or not, and would prefer to just be able to take them at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt regarding them genuinely feeling these type of moral issues are genuinely outside of their control, even though that's not true, but...), I just can't help but feel that's kinda more revealing about them and how they really feel about the issue than anything else.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Um actually all people are sinners. You don't even need to take a breath let alone commit an act in the traditional sense. After Adam and Eve and their transgressions all of us carry sin. This is made crystal clear in the bible on multiple occasions.

Just because you like to pick and chose who's actions are more worthy of god's scorn or a trip to hell doesn't make your opinion true.

Please read(with comprehension) the book you supposedly get your "facts" from.

Read the rest of my posts in this thread, please. And, to quickly dispense with the incredibly off-topic doctrine of original sin (talk about getting into the weeds!), it should suffice to say that "original sin" does not refer to being born gay.

 

[Miles X]

Read the rest of my posts in this thread, please. And, to quickly dispense with the incredibly off-topic doctrine of original sin (talk about getting into the weeds!), it should suffice to say that "original sin" does not refer to being born gay.

What point are you even trying to make in this thread dude?

 

[PaulExcellent]

I don't get it, though.
WHY DO GAY PEOPLE GOTTA DO GAY SHIT
That's what crosses the line for me.

 

[Envelope]

What point are you even trying to make in this thread dude?

he's said several times already, if you cared to read.

 

[Miles X]

he's said several times already, if you cared to read.

Obviously I'm reading or I wouldn't respond. What has "hate the sin not the sinner" got to do with anything?

Why even bother coming here with that attitude? Nobody gives a s***.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What point are you even trying to make in this thread dude?

Briefly:

But... Christianity does teach us us to love homosexuals, not hate them.

EDIT: Dang. That feeling when you see a duplicated word but don't want to edit the post for fear you'll seem like you're revising your posts to avoid embarrassment, several quotes preserving the original text notwithstanding.

 

[Gradon]

people and characteristics are not sinful--only actions are.

"You can be gay, but don't be gay."

I don't get it.

 

[Miles X]

Briefly:

You're doing a really shit job then, christianity does not teach christians to love gays and everything you've said in the thread just reinforces that.

And damn, you talk about gays not being able to love. You're talking about christians supposedly loving a GROUP of people, 99.9999999% they have and will never meet. That isn't love.

It's like me saying I love all Canadians.

 

[Amir0x]

Everyone's reading Envelope. Metaphoreus is in the continual process of trying to redefine what love is, and everyone else is calling him out for it and explicitly condemning the hateful subtext of his commentary. Then we're going around in circles as he says "But love isn't the same thing as accepting someone for who they are!"

Basically, this entire page is one where a homophobe says really hurtful things about human beings, many of whom count themselves as members of GAF. It's really nasty stuff.

 

[Earthstrike]

This gets into the weeds a bit, but as I've already said, people and characteristics are not sinful--only actions are. And every aspect of ourselves manifests in our minds as a belief about ourselves. But if you think there's a better word to describe what Ami, Stump, and Cyan believe must be endorsed, accepted, or agreed to as a precondition to loving a person, I'd be happy to hear it.

The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense as applied to homosexuality doesn't jive well with me at all. Heterosexual individuals get to experience and know what it's like to love another person through physical and emotional intimacy and that intimacy is foundational to the human experience. When a gay person is told they can't do these things it is damaging and destructive to them.

Imagine it this way. Imagine a person who cannot hear, and imagine a religion advocating against the use of sign language. Imagine we trot out the "we love the deaf, just not the action of sign language!" We would be stripping these people of their dignity via a culturally imposed restriction of their individual liberty, the same way christianity has with gay people. It should be clear to see such behavior at the societal level is morally wrong. Unfortunately, people don't ever take the time to critically think about the beliefs they hold with their religion, or if their religious beliefs are even correct in the first place, so we end up retarding the rate of social progress.

 

[Miles X]

The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense as applied to homosexuality doesn't jive well with me at all. Heterosexual individuals get to experience and know what it's like to love another person through physical and emotional intimacy and that intimacy is foundational to the human experience. When a gay person is told they can't do these things it is damaging and destructive to them.

Imagine it this way. Imagine a person who cannot hear, and imagine a religion advocating against the use of sign language. Imagine we trot out the "we love the deaf, just not the action of sign language!" We would be stripping these people of their dignity via a culturally imposed restriction of their individual liberty, the same way christianity has with gay people. It should be clear to see such behavior at the societal level is morally wrong. Unfortunately, people don't ever take the time to critically think about the beliefs they hold with their religion, or if their religious beliefs are even correct in the first place, so we end up retarding the rate of social progress.

He knows, he just doesn't care. It doesn't line up with HIS views, thus gays should keep it in their pants permanantly.

 

[Amir0x]

The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense as applied to homosexuality doesn't jive well with me at all. Heterosexual individuals get to experience and know what it's like to love another person through physical and emotional intimacy and that intimacy is foundational to the human experience. When a gay person is told they can't do these things it is damaging and destructive to them.

Imagine it this way. Imagine a person who cannot hear, and imagine a religion advocating against the use of sign language. Imagine we trot out the "we love the deaf, just not the action of sign language!" We would be stripping these people of their dignity via a culturally imposed restriction of their individual liberty, the same way christianity has with gay people. It should be clear to see such behavior at the societal level is morally wrong. Unfortunately, people don't ever take the time to critically think about the beliefs they hold with their religion, or if their religious beliefs are even correct in the first place, so we end up retarding the rate of social progress.

Damn that is a really good way to put it. I'm going to keep that one for the mental playbook.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Read the rest of my posts in this thread, please. And, to quickly dispense with the incredibly off-topic doctrine of original sin (talk about getting into the weeds!), it should suffice to say that "original sin" does not refer to being born gay.

Already read them. If you don't want to deal with this you probably shouldn't muck up the discussion with it in the first place. Not to mention that I don't believe that you don't want to talk about it because you feel the need to keep discussing it. You've had ample opportunity to ignore every comment about it and yet here you keep coming into the weeds to clarify...

 

[Envelope]

I mean, you obviously don't have to agree that love doesn't necessitate endorsement, but that doesn't mean Meta hasn't clearly laid out his reasons for doing so, and his position hasn't really changed. to say he's in a continual process of redefining love is a misrepresentation of his argument. You can read as much or as little subtext into his comments as you want, but you're pretty much creating a strawman at this point, ami, and attacking him not for what he's saying, but for what you want him to mean.

 

[Amir0x]

I mean, you obviously don't have to agree that love doesn't necessitate endorsement, but that doesn't mean Meta hasn't clearly laid out his reasons for doing so, and his position hasn't really changed. to say he's in a continual process of redefining love is a misrepresentation of his argument. You can read as much or as little subtext into his comments as you want, but you're pretty much creating a strawman at this point, ami, and attacking him not for what he's saying, but for what you want him to mean.

It's nonsense. Sorry. A racist can say that he "loves black folk, but just wants them to stay with their own kind", and guess what? That racist neither loves that person nor is he anything but a sick racist.

Metaphoreus is actively trying to redefine love in hateful terms, because he is a homophobe. That he clings to Biblical ideology to do it does not give him a pass, nor anyone else who tries to push that garbage. As I said earlier, if you don't like that it's too bad. I'm not going to pussyfoot around the reality of hate. We've been doing that in this country for far too long.

That's the problem with this entire issue in the media too. They want to pretend there's two equal sides and they're both worthy of giving merit. But there is not. One side is based in hate, the other love. One side has facts on their side, the other disdain for one of the very essence of a group of people. Saying you don't accept that part of them is hate, period.

 

[Nephtis]

I am a Christian and I wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

Those people denying that couple their marriage are clearly going against the law and I hope they get crushed in that lawsuit.

So, for people that are specifically calling Christians "dumb" or that only Christians are the ones that are denying gay people of their right to happiness, you can kindly fuck right off.

There's plenty of Atheists, Muslim, Catholics, Jews that all oppose gay marriage. And those people will simply be on the wrong side of history.

 

[metalslimer]

You know I actually find it a lot more disgusting when someone actually believes being gay is not a choice and yet still thinks gay people will burn eternally in hell

I really just don't see how one could support this view in one's head.

 

[nrvalleytime]

I don't blame people for having such ire towards Christianity. It's had it coming for a long time.

There are a lot of people in this country whose lives and the lives of friends and family have been detrimented by Christianity. Whether this was being psychologically tortured with the fears of a literal hell or a coming apocalypse, or being told their sexual desires are evil, or just being made to feel like a piece of shit that needs saving.

It's never been about love, but fear.

That's a very broad statement. And no - it's not always been about fear. For every horrible act committed in the name of Christianity, there have been countless people helped by those who believe. It goes both ways.

 

[Thaedolus]

There's plenty of Atheists (...) that all oppose gay marriage. And those people will simply be on the wrong side of history.

Uhhhh....really? Seems like it would be a tiny, tiny, minority of atheists.

 

[Miles X]

Uhhhh....really? Seems like it would be a tiny, tiny, minority of atheists.

Nah they exist, part time homophobes. Deep inside I don't think they care but social and peer pressure amongst lower class usually breeds homophobia (I'm mainly talking UK here, might be different in the states ...) I can't imagine too many atheist chavs (all of them are atheist ..) are pro gay.