1. Religion & Spirituality
Send to a Friend via Email

Discuss in my forum

Christmas started out as a Christian holiday, but we can tell a lot about the true nature of a holiday by how it's represented in popular culture. The most common, popular, and recognized symbol for Christmas today isn't an infant Jesus or even a manger scene, but Santa Claus. It's Santa who graces all the ads and decorations, not Jesus. Santa Claus is not, however, a religious figure or symbol.

Read Article: Secular Santa Claus is Coming to Town: What's so Christian about Santa Claus?

Comments
November 20, 2007 at 6:18 pm
(1) Ron says:

For you pilots out there. The most Austin can do is delete.Here goes

Santa and the FAA
Santa Claus, like all pilots, gets regular visits from the Federal Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the pre-Christmas flight check. In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sled and bathe all the reindeer. Santa got his log book out and made sure all his paperwork was in order. He knew they would examine all his equipment and truly put Santa’s flying skills to the test. The examiner walked slowly around the sled. He checked the reindeer harnesses, the landing gear, and even Rudolph’s nose. He painstakingly reviewed Santa’s weight and balance calculations for sled’s enormous payload. Finally, they were ready for the check ride. Santa got in and fastened his seat belt and shoulder harness and checked the compass. Then the examiner hopped in carrying, to Santa’s surprise, a shotgun. “What’s that for?!?” Asked Santa incredulously. The examiner winked and said, “I’m not supposed to tell you this ahead of time,” as he leaned over to whisper in Santa’s ear, “but you’re gonna lose an engine on takeoff.”

November 20, 2007 at 10:15 pm
(2) Gotweirdness says:

One of the L.A. news stations has a Santa radar watch every year at Christmas. Clearly, its a humorous attempt which no one takes seriously although the conservative Christians would certainly do so.

November 21, 2007 at 8:24 am
(3) Moe says:

In answer to the question, there is nothing Christian about Santa. (oddly, if you put the middle “n” and the end of the word, you have “Satan”.)

But its all irrelvant; for those who don’t know, Santa is not mentioned in the New Testament.

November 21, 2007 at 1:11 pm
(4) Gotweirdness says:

There is one big difference between Santa Claus and the Christian God. Santa only punishes the bad kids by denying them presents (or coal) while the Christian God sends everyone to some hot and unpleasant place.

November 20, 2008 at 12:49 am
(5) ChuckA says:

[A little Scene: late Pre-teenage boy "playing with himself" whilst a Santa song is playing in the background]:
…”He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake…he knows when you’ve been bad or good…
[Boy; with sudden realization of the song's lyric...shouts]:
“WTF!…GET OUTA HERE…YOU FAT, BEARDED, SLEIGH RIDING, CHIMNEY ENTERING PERVERT!
SHEESH! Can’t a person have SOME privacy?…WOW…
You and that “Ever Present” God are BOTH the most totally extreme, weird-ass, voyeuristic jerk-offs!”
Ummm…and another illustrative Scene, perhaps? :shock:
OK…from the somewhat overlooked 1967 classic (and hilarious original) comedy with Peter Cook & Dudley Moore…
“Bedazzled”. A clever spoof of the old “Faustian” tale. In particular; in this YouTube clip…starting at about 5:00+, whilst “changing clothes in the Van”; a nice little pointed diatribe directed at the ultra-nosy deity concept…
“Bedazzled – Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifb-LcJxYQ4&feature=related

November 20, 2008 at 2:55 am
(6) Guy that thinks you suck. says:

Yeh, ur all a bunch of douches. I think maybe you should get over yourselves and just accept religion. I mean, honestly, what do you have to lose?

November 20, 2008 at 7:24 am
(7) Austin Cline says:

I think maybe you should get over yourselves and just accept religion. I mean, honestly, what do you have to lose?

Uh… just accept which religion?

November 20, 2008 at 11:21 am
(8) MikeC says:

Guy – Yeh, start out with an insult. That’s the fastest way to influence people.

Get over ourselves how? I’m no egotist, I simply have no need for an invisible man to watch over me. I’m fully capable of personal responsibility.

And as Austin asked, which religion? Shinto? Buddhism? Hinduism? Sikhism? Zoroastrianism? Islam? Judaism? Rastafarianism?

As for accepting religion? I’m reminded of a sociology class I once took. On the first day, the professor asked a random girl in the class if she believed in prostitution. She said she did not. The prof lifted one eyebrow and said, “Well you should believe in it, because it exists. Remember, I didn’t ask you if you approved of prostitution.”

In much the same way, we atheists do accept religion. We accept it as existing in our world. That doesn’t mean we endorse it though.

Now, as for what I honestly have to lose by endorsing/practicing religion:

My self-autonomy.
My sense of curiosity.
My use of reason.
My need to seek the truth.
My being grounded in reality.
My self-respect.

November 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm
(9) AnotherAtheistVet says:

I beg to differ. Wasn’t Santa Claus adapted/evolved from the xtian saint Nicholas, patron saint of prostitutes and pawnbrokers?

November 22, 2008 at 3:47 am
(10) Badger3k says:

Well, Santa Claus has been believed to be a transmogrification of old St Nick (even though there is a St Nicholas Day in the RC Church, when we left shoes outside our door to get presents), but I think Santa descends more from the Germanic myths (I personally like the Odin/Wotan link, but I’m biased). I think this is another case of a myth developing and being incorporated into Christianity like so many others. But then again, I haven’t looked into it as deeply as I’d have liked yet.

December 15, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(11) Shelby Craig says:

@MikeC You mentioned an invisible man. And many atheist say if God exist, he would show himself to me. But does God HAVE to do anything you ask?

You also said that you lose your need to seek truth. Let me ask you this…do you really seek to discover the truth – even if it costs you your reputation, and even your friends?

If you answer that, I can help lead you to the truth.

Also, if there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of “truth” itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?

December 15, 2009 at 5:27 pm
(12) Larian LeQuella says:

Last year, Daniel Florien did up this little picture and let folks share it. I think this is an appropriate time to ressurect it.

http://larianlequella.com/2008/12/santa-vs-god.shtml

:D

December 15, 2009 at 5:31 pm
(13) Larian LeQuella says:

@Shelby

by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians

Easy: Reality and evidence. Show me some!

And your characterizations are woefully erroneous. I think pretty much every atheist and rational person is just so sick and tired of explaining over and over again that we’ve just gotten to the point of dismissing the same argument out of hand. Just because you say something a million times it doesn’t make it right, you’re just wrong a million times…

December 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm
(14) John Heininger says:

The best definitions I have come across to define an atheist is one for whom no amount of evidence for God’s existence would ever be sufficient. And someone who actually believes he believes he has no belief.

None-the-less, I enjoy reading your postings. Merry Christmas, or should I Yuletide

December 15, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(15) Edmond says:

@Shelby

You ask, “But does God HAVE to do anything you ask?”

To that I would answer NO, and he probably WON’T, either. Has he EVER done ANYTHING that ANYONE has asked? Is there any prayer you’ve ever made that seemed to come true, that you’re sure wouldn’t have come true on its own, without you praying for it? Do you fairly balance the prayers that do come true against the ones that don’t? If you do, don’t they seem like they follow the law of averages as to what would and wouldn’t happen on their own without you praying for them? If you are a believer, you must believe that your god has a plan. Isn’t it silly for you to request for him to change that plan just for you?

You also said, “If you answer that, I can help lead you to the truth.”

Of course, your ability to help lead someone to the truth didn’t seem to be dependent on what their answer WAS. Apparently, you can help lead someone to the truth whether they answer your question Yes or No.

But I would submit to you that, if having you help lead someone to the “truth” involves the bible in anyway (other than dropping the thing and showing the truth of gravity), then you have no actual truth. You only have speculation. That’s all religion is.

And even if an atheist feels that there is “no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of “truth” itself is open to debate”, the standard by which I would condemn the beliefs of Christians (since you’re asking) would be my own personal moral code of right and wrong.

Basically, something is “wrong” or “immoral” if it is harmful to people or to society as a whole. It is “right” or “moral” if it causes no such harm.

Christians like to cite the bible and their god as the “source” of all morality, though they are not able to explain many of his baffling reasons for declaring something immoral.

For example, as a gay man, I frequently debate on other sites whether homosexuality is immoral or not. Christians like to say that it is immoral, simply because they believe the bible says so.

What they can’t answer, is WHY. WHY is it immoral? WHY did god decide to make it so? I’ve asked this so many times, over and over, and I never get an answer. I’m sure we can all agree WHY murder is immoral, and WHY lying and stealing are wrong. But can you give any clear, rational, reasonable explanation WHY your god would decide what two people do in bed together is wrong? Is it because the bible says we should be fruitful and multiply? Did god not realize that the planet would eventually be choking on our population and pollution? Is it because it’s not “natural”? Did god make a mistake by allowing more than 1500 species in nature (documented so far) to participate in homosexuality? Does it have something to do with AIDS? Do ALL homosexuals have AIDS? Do ONLY homosexuals have AIDS? Was homosexuality OK before the AIDS outbreak? If we cure it, will it be OK then?

I don’t expect you, or any other believer, to actually answer any of my questions there. I’ve given up expecting that.

These are just a few examples of how I use my own morals to accept or condemn any behaviors or beliefs that I encounter in the world. Again, by judging whether they’re harmful to people or not.

Christianity, now. Perfectly good, decent human beings, who also happen to be homosexuals, are fighting for their rights everyday in this country. They are fighting for the right to marry the person they love. They are also fighting for the right not to get fired from their job because of what goes on in their personal life. They are fighting for their right to not get kicked out of their apartments. In some countries, they are fighting for their right to LIVE.

Who are they fighting?

Who is trying to take their belief systems and enact them into laws that everyone must follow, whether they share the same beliefs or not?

Who has a book that encourages slavery, rape, murder of children, segregation of the races, misogyny?

Who do we constantly see fighting against the discovery of science? Who is trying to beat down the awakening (and often life saving) enlightenment of sexual education?

What group of people do we see time and time again fighting against progress, equality, and sound, rational thinking?

When Christians stop whining that THEY’RE the persecuted ones, and start realizing that THEY’VE been doing all the persecuting, then maybe atheists will stop condemning their beliefs.

December 15, 2009 at 6:13 pm
(16) Edmond says:

Oh, and also,

@John Heininger

You almost could be right that “an atheist is one for whom no amount of evidence for God’s existence would ever be sufficient.”

Because so far, “no amount of evidence” is all we’ve seen.

December 16, 2009 at 6:06 am
(17) JdeP says:

@John Heininger

“an atheist is one for whom no amount of evidence for God’s existence would ever be sufficient.”

A Christian is someone for whom no amount of evidence *against* God’s existence would ever be sufficient.

December 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm
(18) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

John Heininger (14). How can you believe that absence of belief in a god means an atheist actually believes he believes he has no belief? Do you believe in fairies, elves, etc.? If not, you also must actually believe you believe you have no belief.

December 16, 2010 at 1:59 pm
(19) Dean says:

Shelby, you’re right that there’s no reason God should reveal himself to us, unless that is, he wants us to believe in him.

June 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm
(20) hannah mc cann says:

i always loved santa clause but know since i read this i dont know who to believe the computer or my parents but any way lets cut to the chase last christmas in 2010 my mum was pregnaut so how could she afford an x-box 360 kinect an video camera 2 lg cookies a gocart a game of darts 2 train tracks a boxset of nailpoish and lipstick and also an electric scooter. there i said it so whos right and whos wrong please tell me the truth someone.

thanx from hannah mc cann

September 7, 2011 at 1:47 am
(21) TCool says:

@Edmond By your own statement homosexuality is immoral.

“Basically, something is “wrong” or “immoral” if it is harmful to people or to society as a whole. It is “right” or “moral” if it causes no such harm.”

Homosexuality is harmful to society as a whole. It doesn’t promote pro-creation. Two people of the same sex can’t create another human. the human race can die off from this behavior. Therefore it is immoral.

September 7, 2011 at 5:13 am
(22) Austin Cline says:

Homosexuality is harmful to society as a whole.

Then provide proof of that harm.

It doesn’t promote pro-creation.

So? Lots of things don’t.

Two people of the same sex can’t create another human.

So? Lots of couples can’t.

the human race can die off from this behavior.

Same is true of lots of other behaviors, if pursued exclusively and to the exclusion of all other things.

Therefore it is immoral.

Your syllogism fails because it depends upon numerous hidden premises which, if accepted, would lead to the condemnation of many other things as immoral – including debating things on the internet.

September 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm
(23) TCool says:

“Same is true of lots of other behaviors, if pursued exclusively and to the exclusion of all other things.”

Pro-Creation Is how human beings come into this world and homosexual behavior CAN’T bring a life into this world. U can die from anything. homosexual behavior PREVENTS humans from coming into the world. If everyone was gay the human race would cease to exist in about 150 years. heterosexual behavior is the reason you exist and can type these words on the computer and is the reason people will be here long as the earth exist. homosexuality prevents the human race from growing.

“So? Lots of things don’t.”

So They should be Gay?

“So? Lots of couples can’t.”

So That’s an excuse to be gay?

The specific purpose for sex is pro-creation. heterosexual couples have sex to pro-create and sometimes for recreation. wit homosexual couples it’s all about recreation and two people of the same sex makin themselves feel good and it NEVER brings life into this world whether it be by mistake or on purpose. homosexuality does no good for the human race as a whole. it’s a selfish behavior.

September 11, 2011 at 7:51 pm
(24) Austin Cline says:

Pro-Creation Is how human beings come into this world and homosexual behavior CAN’T bring a life into this world.

So? Lots of behaviors can’t bring a life into this world. Since you don’t condemn them all as immoral, your syllogism not only fails but it is revealed that you don’t actually believe your own argument.

homosexual behavior PREVENTS humans from coming into the world.

So? Lots of things can prevent humans from coming into the world. Since you don’t condemn them all as immoral, your syllogism not only fails but it is revealed that you don’t actually believe your own argument.

If everyone was gay the human race would cease to exist in about 150 years.

So? Lots of things, if pursued exclusively, would cause humans to cease to exist. Since you don’t condemn them all as immoral, your syllogism not only fails but it is revealed that you don’t actually believe your own argument.

homosexuality prevents the human race from growing.

Prove it. Provide evidence the human race is not growing and that the reason is homosexuality.

The specific purpose for sex is pro-creation.

Prove it.

heterosexual couples have sex to pro-create and sometimes for recreation.

Ah, so recreation is an acceptable reason for sex?

homosexuality does no good for the human race as a whole.

So? Lots of behaviors don’t do anything for humanity as a whole. Since you don’t condemn them all as immoral, your syllogism not only fails but it is revealed that you don’t actually believe your own argument.

it’s a selfish behavior.

So? Lots of behavior can be described as selfish. Since you don’t condemn them all as immoral, your syllogism not only fails but it is revealed that you don’t actually believe your own argument.

September 12, 2011 at 12:57 am
(25) TCool says:

The specific purpose for sex is pro-creation.

Prove it.

Cause it’s the ONLY NATURAL WAY to create a human life without science, FACT. How do you create a human being without heterosexual sex or science? IF it wasn’t for heterosexual sex you wouldn’t be here nor would the people who made you and so on. What other purpose would sex serve if not for pro-creation? Cause if sex was all about recreation the human race would have not made it pass the first generation.

September 12, 2011 at 5:06 am
(26) Austin Cline says:

Cause it’s the ONLY NATURAL WAY to create a human life without science

So? That doesn’t justify your conclusion. If you could construct a logical syllogism, you’d see that.

What other purpose would sex serve if not for pro-creation?

Bonding.

Cause if sex was all about recreation the human race would have not made it pass the first generation.

Why not?

I notice you fail to address the other challenges I made to your position – specifically, the myriad of ways in which you personally fail to uphold the principles you pretend to value.

September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm
(27) TCool says:

I noticed how you dissected my statement but skipped around

“wit homosexual couples, sex is ALL about recreation and two people of the same sex makin themselves feel good and it NEVER brings life into this world whether it be by mistake or on purpose.”

“Bonding”

Humans can bond through a handshake or conversation. Humans don’t need intercourse to bond ,but they do need it to pro-create.

You also didn’t attempt to answer my question ” How can two people of the same sex have sex create a human being without science?”

September 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm
(28) Austin Cline says:

Humans can bond through a handshake or conversation. Humans don’t need intercourse to bond ,but they do need it to pro-create.

That doesn’t mean that sex can’t be useful for bonding.

You also didn’t attempt to answer my question- How can two people of the same sex have sex create a human being without science?

I never claimed that they could. I’m challenging your assertion that this makes homosexuality immoral.

You can’t assert “homosexual activity can’t produce offspring” then conclude “it’s immoral” without a lot of intermediate steps.

I notice you still fail to address the other challenges I made to your position – specifically, the myriad of ways in which you personally fail to uphold the principles you pretend to value.

September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm
(29) TCool says:

Cause if sex was all about recreation the human race would have not made it pass the first generation.

Why not?

When you answer how can two people of the same sex have intercourse and create a human being through intercourse, THEN I will have your answer.

September 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm
(30) TCool says:

“You can’t assert “homosexual activity can’t produce offspring” then conclude “it’s immoral” without a lot of intermediate steps.”

because if everyone was homosexual the population would cease grow and humans would go extinct. that doesn’t benefit the human race.

I’m staying within the framework of Edmond’s statement in which it defined “immoral” as something that is harmful to society as a whole and in that statement it talked about whether homosexuality is immoral or not. humans beings having sex ONLY to pleasure themselves without the remote possibility of producing offspring is immoral. that in no way is beneficial to society as a whole. If an individual doesn’t want to be beneficial to society, that’s their choice and they can just continue to lead an immoral lifestyle. it’s their life and they can live it how they want. You may say a homosexual can be beneficial to society in some other way, they may have some kind of a talent. If no one’s around to see it (because homosexuals can’t produce offspring) or experience what they have to offer, then that talent can only benefit that individual, NOT a society.

September 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm
(31) Austin Cline says:

because if everyone was homosexual the population would cease grow and humans would go extinct. that doesn’t benefit the human race.

So? The same is true of many other activities if pursued exclusively. Since you don’t condemn all of them as immoral, you aren’t justified in condemning homosexuality.

I’m staying within the framework of Edmond’s statement in which it defined “immoral” as something that is harmful to society as a whole

No, you’re not, because you are adding the premise of pursuing the activity exclusively rather than dealing with it as it currently stands.

humans beings having sex ONLY to pleasure themselves without the remote possibility of producing offspring is immoral.

That statement applies to a lot more than homosexuality. No you’re condemning as immoral every sexual act that doesn’t lead to offspring.

that in no way is beneficial to society as a whole.

Ah, a new change. First you claimed that you were operating from the premise of “hat which is harmful to society as a whole.” Now you admit to changing it to “thw which doesn’t benefit society as a whole.” That’s two significant changes.

You aren’t honest.

You also fail to address the other challenges I made to your position – specifically, the myriad of ways in which you personally fail to uphold the principles you pretend to value.

September 12, 2011 at 8:21 pm
(32) TCool says:

I’ve been completely factual and honest. i’ve explained thoroughly how homosexuality is immoral and does harm to society as a whole.

“So? The same is true of many other activities if pursued exclusively. Since you don’t condemn all of them as immoral, you aren’t justified in condemning homosexuality.”

Lots of things do fit under the immoral label ,but we’re talking about homosexuality that’s why i didn’t mention any other immoral activities. So yeah i condemn them all. If all you do is masterbate and NEVER pro-create then that also fits under immoral.

“That statement applies to a lot more than homosexuality. No you’re condemning as immoral every sexual act that doesn’t lead to offspring.”

TRUE

I see how you misunderstood my use of the words “harmful and benefit” Perhaps i didn’t explain myself correctly. So we’ll just stick to “harmful to society”

September 12, 2011 at 8:33 pm
(33) Austin Cline says:

I’ve been completely factual and honest.

No, you haven’t. First you refused to apply your own principles consistently. Second you change your positions when challenged. Finally, you admitted to changing the framework you had just claimed to be following. Neither action is honest.

i’ve explained thoroughly how homosexuality is immoral and does harm to society as a whole.

No, you haven’t. You have described the harm that would occur if homosexuality were pursued to the exclusion of heterosexual activity. The same harm would occur if other actions were pursued exclusively, but you don’t condemn them as immoral.

Indeed, the same can be said of every act if pursued to the exclusion of all else. Ergo, by your “reasoning,” every thing is immoral – even “pro-creation” if pursued to the exclusion of everything else like work, farming, industry, etc. It would be very harmful to society if people spent all their time trying to produce offspring and no time doing anything else.

But obviously you don’t apply your reasoning and principles consistently. This was you first act of dishonesty.

If all you do is masterbate and NEVER pro-create then that also fits under immoral.

Why?

Oh, right, because society would cease to exist if everyone did that. But that doesn’t answer my question because it represents a shift in your claim.

Your claim above is that an act is immoral if I do it; when challenged your “proof” is dependent upon everyone doing it. So you only “prove” your claim by changing your claim. This is your second act of dishonesty.

I’m not asking why it’s “immoral” if everyone masturbates to the exclusion of “pro-creation” and I’m not asking why it’s “immoral” if everyone pursues homosexuality to the exclusion of “pro-creation.” I’m asking what’s “immoral” about the way they are generally pursued now. You can’t answer that with hypothetical about different situations that aren’t actually occurring. But I think you know that, thus your dishonest changing of your claims when challenged.

I see how you misunderstood my use of the words “harmful and benefit”

Because you are using them differently from the framework you falsely claimed to be following. This was your third act of dishonesty.

September 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm
(34) TCool says:

I didn’t do the first or the second and I clarified the third, completely honest and factual.

“Indeed, the same can be said of every act if pursued to the exclusion of all else. Ergo, by your “reasoning,” every thing is immoral – even “pro-creation” if pursued to the exclusion of everything else like work, farming, industry, etc. It would be very harmful to society if people spent all their time trying to produce offspring and no time doing anything else.”

^^^You’re reaching and have no point. Like I said before when you explain how two people of same sex can have intercourse and produce a human being ONLY THEN you will have a point. The FACT remains homosexuality is immoral and harmful to society. You can come up with a thousand different scenarios it doesn’t change the FACT that it’s immoral.

I found stumbled upon this page on a google search proving to someone that in the song “santa is coming to town” is suggesting santa claus has the power of God (he sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, He knows if you’ve been bad or good, and so on). I ended up finding an very interesting conversation.

September 12, 2011 at 11:50 pm
(35) TCool says:

(Part 2)

“Your claim above is that an act is immoral if I do it; when challenged your “proof” is dependent upon everyone doing it. So you only “prove” your claim by changing your claim.”

If EVERYONE can’t do it, it’s harmful to society as a whole. I know your going to say it’s a lot of things everyone can’t do, but when it deals with matters of reproduction and making sure the human race continues another generation that puts homosexuality in a far worse category. it literally is a threat to human existence. that’s what makes homosexuality immoral because it’s harmful to the human race as a whole. You’ve already said you can’t prove how two gay people can create a child though sex therefore, you really have no point. My point is homosexuality is immoral cause it’s a threat to human existence, it’s harmful to society as a whole.

September 13, 2011 at 5:25 am
(36) Austin Cline says:

I didn’t do the first or the second and I clarified the third, completely honest and factual.

I quoted you doing all three. You make it very obvious when you shift the claim you’re making and you refuse to respond when those specific instances are pointed out to you. That makes you a liar or a troll.

The FACT remains homosexuality is immoral and harmful to society.

The fact is that you only support this claim by changing the claim, which is dishonest.

If EVERYONE can’t do it, it’s harmful to society as a whole.

So your position is that in order for something to not be harmful, it must be something that everyone can do to the exclusion of everything else.

But of course, anything so pursued would cause harm, as I’ve already pointed out. So your position is that everything is immoral, even “pro-creation”.

Since you only single out homosexuality for this treatment, you’re a hypocrite and a bigot. No wonder you post anonymously.

I know your going to say it’s a lot of things everyone can’t do, but when it deals with matters of reproduction and making sure the human race continues another generation that puts homosexuality in a far worse category.

The same can be said about everything, if they do that instead of reproducing. I’ve already pointed this out, but of course you aren’t honest enough to address this directly. Or you’re trolling.

Either way, you’re continued failure to deal with this will mean that your posting privileges will be revoked. I won’t waste any more time with someone who keeps repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam while ignoring the obvious and basic rebuttals.

it literally is a threat to human existence.

You only make this claim when everyone does it. So, when not everyone does it, it’s not a threat and not immoral.

December 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm
(37) Robert Morane says:

TCool says: If everyone was gay the human race would cease to exist in about 150 years.

Well, if everyone was a woman, the human race would cease to exist in about 150 years.

I suppose that means being a woman is immoral then!

December 17, 2011 at 6:21 pm
(38) Robert Morane says:

TCool said: “Basically, something is “wrong” or “immoral” if it is harmful to people or to society as a whole. It is “right” or “moral” if it causes no such harm.”

Many people used to say that interracial marriages were immoral because they “dumbed down” Americans and so such marriages were harmful to society as a whole and therefore immoral.

Do you agree with that?

PS: Yes, I realise I’m responding to a necro comment.

December 17, 2011 at 7:07 pm
(39) Ron says:

@tcool.
1. If a gay man and a gay woman have relations, there very well could an offspring.
2.(it literally is a threat to human existence. ) It is my understanding that approx 10% of the human population is gay. Always has been, Is now, and always will be. When we observe the rapid growth of the human population, we see that gay is hardly a threat to human existence.

December 17, 2011 at 9:36 pm
(40) Edmond says:

Wow, I had no idea such a conversation had developed from all that.

TCool, you seem to be arguing that, since homosexuality doesn’t lead to offspring, that it also PREVENTS them. This is obviously false. I see offspring all around. People are breeding just fine. Our population just turned over to 7 billion, so nothing’s being prevented.

Sure, if EVERYONE were gay, then we might see a lot less offspring. But everyone is NOT gay. This is not the reality. Most estimates I see hover between 4 and 10 percent of the population. It’s unlikley that this has changed over our entire evolutionary history. There’s no cause to worry that everyone in the world will turn gay.

There’s also no reason to expect everyone to breed. It would be irresponsible for everyone in the world to breed just because they have the capacity. There is such a thing as restraint, and population control. If a heterosexual couple marries, and chooses never to have children, are they “immoral” also? Your definition says they are.

Society shows no signs of “harm” from gay people not breeding. Society is doing just fine, and homosexuality was not invented yesterday. If you could show that society was dying off, then maybe you could prove your point. But that’s not happening.

Homosexuality is nothing but another variance in humanity. Some people simply don’t have any sexual attraction toward their opposite sex. They aren’t “immoral” just for not having the sexual attraction that you want them to have, and they aren’t “immoral” for not acting in a way that doesn’t appeal to them. They have a right to pursue the life that suits them best.

They don’t have a DUTY to breed. Plenty of other people are taking up the “slack”. The argument could easily be made that TOO MANY people are doing so, and that society is suffering because of THAT. I think this demonstrates that gay people are far MORE moral than those straight people who breed with no sense of responsiblity or self control.

December 9, 2013 at 6:15 am
(41) Grandpa In The East says:

OK back on the subject of what is so Christian about Santa? Well, if you had any sense at all, you could figure out that Santa teaches “Faith.”

Now, if a child gets his brain wired for faith at a very early age (Presents for believing in Santa), and then learns there is no Santa, Jesus can step in and use the same wiring to maintain the faith.

Imagine the tricycle little Johnny got for Xmas. They are training wheels for Christ.

It’s as simple as that.

Grandpa

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.