That’s too obvious to remain interesting for long.

The fact that the abstinence-pushing United States has higher STD rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher abortion rates than any other 1st world country, all of which use comprehensive sex-education, is not a coincidence.

Humans can observe the effects of certain beliefs and determine their effect on humanity. However, the problem with that is that all religious beliefs are rooted in unfalsifiable claims about the “supernatural”. Science is rooted in the natural world, and the natural world only. Many religious people connect observable reality to the “supernatural”. For example, take a religious person who campaigns against equal rights for gays because they believe that tolerance of homosexuality will bring “the wrath of god” upon humanity. To them, they are protecting humanity; therefore their faith is good. They believe they are alleviating the “spiritual” suffering of humanity. They believe that humanity will suffer in the natural world via natural disaster, drought, famine, etc. if gays have equal rights. And as I have said a few times already, once you enter the cesspool of belief in unfalsifiable claims, there is no basis on which to tell these people that their faith causes suffering on gay people. To them, you are causing suffering to humanity by supporting gay rights. And since “god/gods” cannot be contacted to clarify their will, you are no more likely to be right than the anti-gay person.

“Likewise, someone who would be miserable without their private, personal, daily prayers and meditations would be damaged by the lifestyle of someone who doesn’t include that.”

The problem is not prayer/meditation in itself. There are many non-theistic people who meditate. The problem is irrational belief in a “higher power”. Even if that person were to keep their belief in a “higher power” to themselves, they are still legitimizing the irrational belief in a higher power, including those that believe the higher power wants them to fight against homosexuality. If a person can believe a god is satisfied with or wants a person to keep their faith private, then another person can believe that their god wants them to spread their faith and impose its rules upon others. Again, in the realm of religious faith, there is no basis on which one person of faith can tell another person of faith that imposing their beliefs on others is “wrong”. If you think religious people who impose their beliefs on others are “wrong”, get their god down here to tell them it is wrong. Until then, you have no basis to tell them their interpretation of god is incorrect.

“I say, as in ALL personal lifestyle choices, my freedom ends where yours begins.”

That would be a good principle, if only all religious people followed it. Of course, many religious people do follow that principle. But many do not. Religion is inherently hostile towards personal freedom. Many religious people even outright defy that principle, since they believe they are on a mission from “god” to spread their faith by any means necessary. But many more defy that principle passively. For example, take a little old lady who voted yes on proposition 8. She keeps her faith private; she does not hurt anyone directly, but she believes it is her right to follow “god’s will” to oppose homosexuality. How exactly can you argue that “god made all people equal and wants them to have equal rights”? There is no standard to determine who is right and who is wrong since both stances are rooted in the unprovable. Someone who disagrees with the little old lady from a secular stance can tell her that she cannot prove her claims, therefore they cannot be a valid argument. By espousing faith, one is unable to do this. They seek to argue irrationality with irrationality, which will never get anywhere.

“And as long as people aren’t hurt, there shouldn’t be a problem.”

Anyone who holds an irrational belief in god/gods is legitimizing the beliefs of those who do actively or passively hurt other people. If believing in things that cannot be proven is okay, then it is okay for anyone, and there is no foundation on which to judge the validity of such beliefs.

“Which is why civil equality for same sex couples should – and WILL eventually be – a non-issue.”

“Eventually”….it will take much longer than it should because “moderate” religious apologists continue to validate and legitimize the religious beliefs of those who oppose equality for LGBT people.

Religious apologists should be ready to tell the elderly gays, “Sorry we couldn’t secure your right to equal marriage before you die. Making sure we weren’t upsetting the adults with imaginary friends was more important than your rights.”

Nice sum up there. But ONE thing you got wrong is that you mentioned “lifestyle choice”. Homosexuality is not anymore of a choice than heterosexuality.

Which brings in all sorts of grey areas. Because not everything determined to be “good” is “good” for everybody. the “good” medicine I take would damage somebody without my ailments. Likewise, someone who would be miserable without their private, personal, daily prayers and meditations would be damaged by the lifestyle of someone who doesn’t include that.

Of course, your argument is that all religion is damaging to everybody. But I say, as in ALL personal lifestyle choices, my freedom ends where yours begins. And as long as people aren’t hurt, there shouldn’t be a problem. Which is why civil equality for same sex couples should – and WILL eventually be – a non-issue.

No, because the objectives of science are determined by people, human experience, empirical data, and other tangible sources. If the intent of medical science is to alleviate suffering, then scientists/people are able to make judgments on whether or not a scientific practice is working in favor of that objective. These conclusions are reached by observation of tangible realities and effects in the natural world. The evaluations are also open to scrutiny from any other scientist or any other person. In science, the authority on what is a good/bad use of science lies with humanity. There is no higher authority than humanity and empirical data that can be deferred to.

The objective of following a religious faith is to do the will and follow the rules of the religion/god/gods. When one’s faith is criticized, they claim their justification lies with a “higher power”, deferring to religious texts, god, or gods. Unlike in science, there is no empirical, tangible way to discern what does or does not meet the objective of following god(s)’ will. No one can know what god/gods is/are thinking, or what their will is for humans. Following the supposed will of a “higher being” is not falsifiable or testable in any way. Even religions with so-called holy books that are supposed to be the word of the god/gods are contradictory and (as we can see from the dozens of different sects within even one religion like christianity) are open to many, many different interpretations. Without clarification from the god in question, there is no way to know which interpretation is the correct one. One person of faith calling another person of faith irrational or extreme in their interpretation of religion is like the pot calling the kettle black. This is because both interpretations of faith are rooted in unfalsifiable and untestable claims about the will of a supernatural entity.

Science operates within the natural world, which allows it to be tested, questioned, falsified, and observed. Faith, which relies on the “supernatural”, is the antithesis of these things; it is a free-for-all of opinions, none of which can be proven or disproven. There are no parallels between science and faith.