Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213786 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If you want to redefine marriage between man and woman to two persons then the burden of proof is on you, not me.
This argument has always amazed me.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
lightbeamrider wrote:
Most people when the marry do not know if they are infertile or not but I would say infertile couples does not justify SSM. The hard science indicates compatible reproductive organs are there for a reason. People are physically hetero. Assuming you are female then you have reproductive organs. That means you are physically hetero.
That is the hard science. Proper reproduction is important for the continuation of the species. Sure anybody can reproduce and many have children out of wedlock or they divorce and thus deprive the child of their rights. Children have rights to responsible loving mothers and fathers. Two mommies does not equal one daddy.
We could legalize a type of SSM in which adoption for these couples would be out and they would not go for it. Yet in Massachusetts Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because they could not allow children to be adopted to same sex couples.
Massachusetts is for all practical purposes the blueprint for SSM in the United States.
If you do not mind your tax money being used for sex reassignment surgery for 64 year old man/woman [?] then by all means go ahead. If you do not mind teaching children SSM is as legitimate as OSM then go ahead. Me? One of the worst things we can do as a nation is to further corrupt children and deny them their God given rights.
And again, all completely irrelevant to the legal contract that we call marriage.

Do you think we are at risk of going extinct as a species? You keep bringing up continuation of the species. How children should be raised (even though your ideal is no longer the norm).

Yet, as stated, procreation is not a requirement or marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.

This is the legal quandary those wishing to deny marriage to same sex couples have.
The only argument they (you) have against SSM is that they can't reproduce.
Sorry, not a valid reason to deny equal protection under the law.
As long as other couples who also cannot reproduce are allowed marriage rights, you are creating a separate class which is not allowed in our country.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#213787 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA!!!
Sure you don't, you just keep track of my every post, how often, when, what threads, etc.
I'll bet you have an RR folder sitting there on your desktop......
I have a good memory, as I pointed out in the previous post. I don't need to keep a folder on you or keep up with what threads you post on etc... As far as post count and such, that's easy enough to see next to your avatar.

The type of information I retain applies not only to you, it applies to Hiding, Buck Crick, HL, and anyone on a thread I post to or along side. Although the people I have made friends with online, I obviously remember more about them.

It's just the way my mind works. It works the same in the physical world as well. I can go straight to a spring or particular area in the mountains for instance, that I haven't been to for over 20 years.

In that respect, you're not much different than a rock I noticed when I went hunting 30 years ago, or 10 years ago.

As amazing as it may seem to you, it's mundane information, but often useful at a later date.

So don't be surprised when I point out inconsistencies or observations about what you say, and then claim at a later date.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213788 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
One doesn't need a signature to make a vow, young lass.
Yet, you do need one to have a marriage

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213789 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Child, most couples don't have property when they get married.
Why would you 'require' procreation when marriages need protection NOT to procreate.
On the other hand, ss couples could never procreate if it was a requirement anyway. In fact, gay couples need protection just to have intercourse!
However, its not just that normally marriages procreate and ss couples NEVER mutually procreate, its that a union of 'Mars & Venus' is vastly distinct from the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
Ss couples are incapable of measuring up to marriage at any level of comparison, making ss marriage an oxymoron.
SMile.
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you don't understand the what the property being exchanged was.
<quoted text>
If procreation is not a requirement, how exactly are you measuring marriage?
I understand that you are trying to denigrate all marriages today by presenting an ancient, false impression that marriages at one time were all about 'property'.

Here is a start of how marriage is vastly distinct from ss couples;

Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.

Distinctions a ss couple can never match.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#213790 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I believe that God created AIDS. God doesn't transmit it, people do.
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Then how, did it ever get transmitted to people?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The sexually perverse and immoral, of course.
Too many dicks in too many buttholes ...
You said your deity created it.

So you think the Jesus! passed it on?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213791 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I did no such thing. My challenge has always been to equate the present violence of Islam to Christian behavior.
<quoted text>
Clearly it provoked you, because you responded, and then tried to divert and distort the issue. Just like you are now. See that denial, hate and bigotry again?
If you are speaking of the Inquisition, It was a corrupt Church hierarchy with depraved humanists as cohorts, who tortured and murdered CHRISTIANS. This was preceded by the depraved humanists in the Roman Empire who barbarically did the same.
But all of this is again a diversion from the challenge I presented. A challenge NOT ONE SINGLE ATHEIST on here has been able to answer.
Smile.
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep tellin' yourself that.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...
The best thing about your delusion is only you have to believe it.
And another atheist goes down as a hateful troll...

Snicker.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213792 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument has always amazed me.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
<quoted text>
And again, all completely irrelevant to the legal contract that we call marriage.
Do you think we are at risk of going extinct as a species? You keep bringing up continuation of the species. How children should be raised (even though your ideal is no longer the norm).
Yet, as stated, procreation is not a requirement or marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.
This is the legal quandary those wishing to deny marriage to same sex couples have.
The only argument they (you) have against SSM is that they can't reproduce.
Sorry, not a valid reason to deny equal protection under the law.
As long as other couples who also cannot reproduce are allowed marriage rights, you are creating a separate class which is not allowed in our country.
Bull shit. There is no equal protection problem with applying the restriction to all persons - as in no person can marry a member of the same gender.

Regardless of the history, if the the people decide through their representatives to define legal marriage as between a man and woman, they have the right.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213793 Feb 21, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False and false.
Not **all** male/female couples are fertile.
And female/female couples not only **are** fertile, but frequently have children. All it takes is a sperm donor (of which there are plenty and to spare).
Your lies are easy to refute.
So you are trying to equate ss couples to medically handicapped couples, old couples and couples who choose not to procreate for now?

Isn't that a really low standard when most marriages include children???

However, go for it.

Medically handicapped couples often can be helped, same with old couples, and couples who choose not to procreate most often change their minds.

Last I checked, ss couples NEVER mutually procreate! They even fail at the defect level for marriage!!!

SMirk.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213794 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Child, most couples don't have property when they get married.
Why would you 'require' procreation when marriages need protection NOT to procreate.
On the other hand, ss couples could never procreate if it was a requirement anyway. In fact, gay couples need protection just to have intercourse!
However, its not just that normally marriages procreate and ss couples NEVER mutually procreate, its that a union of 'Mars & Venus' is vastly distinct from the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
Ss couples are incapable of measuring up to marriage at any level of comparison, making ss marriage an oxymoron.
SMile.
<quoted text>
I understand that you are trying to denigrate all marriages today by presenting an ancient, false impression that marriages at one time were all about 'property'.
Here is a start of how marriage is vastly distinct from ss couples;
Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders,
a union so profound,
it is described as the union of Mars and Venus.
It reunites humanity to the roots of life,
while at the very same time
hosting the best and natural
birth place of future human life.
It is the blend of masculinity and femininity.
The wisdom of logic and intuition united.
Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced.
Protection and nurture combined as one.
A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.
Distinctions a ss couple can never match.
While very poetic, simply wrong on so many levels.

You again go back to it is the best way to raise children - irrelevant for marriage.
Then you add the "blending" - again irrelevant for marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract that creates a family unit where one does not already exist.

How are same sex couples unable to live up to the definition?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#213795 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument has always amazed me.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
You mean since 'Romeo and Juliet'?

How about 'Song of Solomon'???

What an idiotic gay argument...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213796 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo hoo.
If you had pursued an education, you would be able to afford coverage.
I'd make you a loan if you weren't such a sleazebag.
That's quite a different attitude than you display toward the Obama taxpayer subsidies in previous posts.

You said something about "biting the bullet" so the lower earners could be covered.

Now you say "Boo hoo".

You liberals can never get your principles straight.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213797 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I understand that you are trying to denigrate all marriages today by presenting an ancient, false impression that marriages at one time were all about 'property'.
I am in no way trying to denigrate marriage.
It serves a very useful function in our society.
I wish to see it expanded so that more people can benefit from this great institution.

But, yes, it was for most of our history all about property.

The idea of marrying for "love" (being allowed to marry for love) is a very recent development.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213798 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
While very poetic, simply wrong on so many levels.
You again go back to it is the best way to raise children - irrelevant for marriage.
Then you add the "blending" - again irrelevant for marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract that creates a family unit where one does not already exist.
How are same sex couples unable to live up to the definition?
That's not the definition. It might be the definition of something, and if you want it, have it. But it's not marriage.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213799 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You mean since 'Romeo and Juliet'?
You do realize Romeo and Juliet weren't able to marry, right?
Did you read the whole play?
Spoiler alert.....they die
KiMare wrote:
How about 'Song of Solomon'???
Ah...King Solomon.
How many wives did he have again?
And who was it that he "loved the most"?(the answer may surprise you)
KiMare wrote:
What an idiotic gay argument...
Awww...Did I hurt your feelings?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213800 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Bull shit. There is no equal protection problem with applying the restriction to all persons - as in no person can marry a member of the same gender.
So this would be why every case brought before a federal court concerning the issue has been ruled in favor of same sex marriage due to the equal protection clause of the US Constitution?
Buck Crick wrote:
Regardless of the history, if the the people decide through their representatives to define legal marriage as between a man and woman, they have the right.
Lucky for all of us that our laws prevent the will of the majority from suppressing a minority.

Isn't it great....

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213801 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the definition. It might be the definition of something, and if you want it, have it. But it's not marriage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...

Definition #1
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213802 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
This argument has always amazed me.
In my state SSM is illegal. If you want to impose it against the will of the majority then it will have to be imposed on the federal level or enough citizens within the state will have to be convinced. In that sense the burden is on those who wish to redefine marriage from man and woman to two persons.
Do you even realize how many times marriage has been "redefined"?
Your "traditional marriage" was between a man and multiple women or between a man and his "property". The idea a marriage for "love" is very recent (historically speaking).
Agree somewhat with the last statement. They have outlawed polygamy. Incest marriages are out. First cousins cannot marry in some states. Persons with STD's cannot marry. What that all means is states regulate marriages.
And again, all completely irrelevant to the legal contract that we call marriage.
Do you think we are at risk of going extinct as a species?
Not impossible.
You keep bringing up continuation of the species. How children should be raised (even though your ideal is no longer the norm).
Does that mean you do not believe children have rights to responsible loving relationships with biological parents?
Yet, as stated, procreation is not a requirement or marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation.
So? None of that justifies the imposition of SSM.
This is the legal quandary those wishing to deny marriage to same sex couples have.
The former [infertile couples] does not validate the other.[Same sex couples.] You can't reasonably say SSM is somehow validated because some OSM couples are infertile.
The only argument they (you) have against SSM is that they can't reproduce.
Not the only one but I would say SSM is anti science, anti evolution and anti Christian. It is a perversion of real marriage which is between man and woman.
Sorry, not a valid reason to deny equal protection under the law.
There is no equality between SSM and OSM and I already went over that.
As long as other couples who also cannot reproduce are allowed marriage rights, you are creating a separate class which is not allowed in our country.
What separate class? See above. Nice try. What I can say about your posts so far is you have not resorted to browbeating and name calling. Homophobe, bigot etc. So that speaks well of you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213803 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He called Obama a Chicago, Communist- raised, Communist-educated, Communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel.
Shame on him for having an opinion that you don't like.
Bad Ted! Bad.
He was communist-raised and educated.

It was well done, I might add.

Frank Marshall Davis, a hard-line communist, was introduced to the adolescent Barack by his grandfather and provided as a mentor. He mentored Barack throughout his formative years in the 70s.

Davis was on the FBI's "Security Index A". This meant in case of a national emergency, Barack's mentor was to be picked up on sight and arrested.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213804 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...
Definition #1
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities
That's a different definition than your last one.

Did you have a point?

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213805 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Not the only one but I would say SSM is anti science, anti evolution and anti Christian. It is a perversion of real marriage which is between man and woman.
And there it is...
You dislike the idea of SSM because of your religious beliefs.

I personally have absolutely no problem with you disliking SSM for religious reasons.
All people are allowed to hold on to their beliefs and act accordingly.
It's another great thing about our country.

Lucky for everyone else in this country, your religious beliefs are not a valid legal argument.

When we are speaking legalities, just and fair trump religion every day.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min John Galt 1,174,850
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 10 min Quantummist 3,264
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 22 min Phil Donahue 308,069
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Anonymous 28,762
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Thu HitMan 201,321
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Jan 27 Pinoyboyguy 733
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
More from around the web