Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2870 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You're wrong to hate gays and women, no matter the reason.
But your advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays is perfectly acceptable, huh Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2871 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Unwed motherhood isn't necessarily the best social policy; that's why most people oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.
Giving legal recognition to same sex marriages doesn't promote unwed motherhood, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Gay couple's kids? Care to explain that? Do you mean a gay father taking his child from the kid's mother?
You mean like a straight mother taking away her child from the child's father when divorcing?
Brian_G wrote:
Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised motherless or fatherless.
So is every child adopted by a single person. regardless of their sexual orientation. But the state doesn't prohibit that so it's not a valid reason to justify withholding legal recognition of same sex marriages.
Brian_G wrote:
Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.
Maintaining gender restrictions on exercising the right to marry is an unconstitutional infringement of a fundamental right.
Brian_G wrote:
Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female.
The issue is civil law, not "natural" law.
Brian_G wrote:
Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
People procreated before the existence of marriage and almost half the children born in the US today are born outside of wedlock. Procreation is simply not a requirement of marriage nor does allowing same sex couples to marry suddenly make opposite sex couples stop having children.

Constructing a rational and logical argument isn't rocket science, Brian. You should try it sometime.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2872 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage creates wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries.
If the government can't afford to treat all its citizens equally, then it should rescind the benefits for all, not unconstitutionally discriminate against certain minority classes that many bigots like you dislike.
Brian_G wrote:
It creates intrusive regulations around marriage including fines for Christian wedding vendors who refuse to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Those aren't the result of same sex marriage laws, Brian. Those are the result of anti-discrimination laws. Anti-dsicrimination laws which, by the way also protect Christians from being refused services because of their faith. Hypocrite.
Brian_G wrote:
This new spending, regulation and litigation causes higher taxes.
Then cut the benefits for all opposite sex people and you can lower taxes. Problem solved, Brian.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2873 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
But your advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays is perfectly acceptable, huh Brian?
Nature discriminate between same sex and opposite sex couples, not me. I bless your same sex union, I don't want to rewrite marriage law for everyone.

Is suing Christian wedding service vendors acceptable when they decline to attend a same sex 'wedding' ritual?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2874 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
...Then cut the benefits for all opposite sex people and you can lower taxes. Problem solved, Brian.
I oppose cutting benefits; this is where we differ. I support reforming benefits to ensure funding and T.F. supports making cuts as hard as possible on the voter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2875 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You're wrong to hate gays and women, no matter the reason.
But you can't help it. Your position is all about the restriction of freedoms to both gays and women, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex. Hence why you hate women and hate gays and have a pro-rape stance.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Unwed motherhood isn't necessarily the best social policy; that's why most people oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.
1 - You have already lied more than once about the majority being against gay marriage and were shown to be a liar.

2 - Unwed motherhood in YOUR OPINION may not be the best policy, however that hasn't made you try to invent laws that make single parents or divorce illegal.
Brian_G wrote:
Gay couple's kids? Care to explain that? Do you mean a gay father taking his child from the kid's mother?
No, gay couple's kids. Gays can have kids. They can adopt or the other parent could still be a part of the child's life, just as can happen if a mother and father got divorced.
Brian_G wrote:
Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised motherless or fatherless.
Biologically impossible. No matter how often you repeat fallacies they still aren't true.
Brian_G wrote:
Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.
Actually defining and redefining ANYTHING WE LIKE has been a right ever since we've had the ability to speak. As for marriage itself a RADICAL redefinition is not necessary, as it will be EXACTLY the same. Just remove the sexist/homophobic insistance for only men and women to marry and then it will finally be in line with the US Constitution which guarantees freedom for all. Something which you oppose.
Brian_G wrote:
Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female.
"Natural law" is, and always has been arbitrary. That's what ALL laws ARE.
Brian_G wrote:
Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
Since marriage is irrelevant for the continuance of civilization your argument is invalid. Just as it's always been.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2876 Oct 13, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
There is no radical redefinition of marriage. Marriage is for two people who love each other, whether they are the same sex or not. It is the commitment to the person that you love in the highest fashion and it is not gender specific whether you think so or not.
Before the 21st century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female. What's not radical about a novel male/male or female/female conception of marriage? Why is the disposable nature of husband or wife in marriage not extreme?

Which would you prefer, not to have a father but two mothers instead or not to have a mother but two fathers?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2877 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female.
Then it's your job to list every single human culture throughout history along with their laws on marriage and provide valid sources for each.
Brian_G wrote:
What's not radical about a novel male/male or female/female conception of marriage?
Because the Constitution is over 200 years old now.
Brian_G wrote:
Why is the disposable nature of husband or wife in marriage not extreme?
Because divorce rates have never been higher.
Brian_G wrote:
Which would you prefer, not to have a father but two mothers instead or not to have a mother but two fathers?
Our personal preferences are irrelevant when it comes to suppressing other people's legal freedoms. Nor does it matter how "radical" you deem something. The fact is the most radical thing ever happened over two centuries before you were born in the US, called the US Constitution. It advocated an end to theocratic BS and allowed for equality for all. Since you OPPOSE this you STILL have only two options:

Move to a theocracy.

Attempt a coup and install your own. Since your people have shut down the Government now might be your best chance. Good luck.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2878 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nature discriminate between same sex and opposite sex couples, not me.
"Nature" doesn't write the laws of this country, Brian. People do. And that includes you.
Brian_G wrote:
I bless your same sex union, I don't want to rewrite marriage law for everyone.
It's hardly a blessing when you advocate such a union by law be second class in nature. Your advocacy positions are incongruent with your stated sentiments of "blessing" and "not harming" same sex unions. Saying one thing and doing another makes you a hypocrite, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Is suing Christian wedding service vendors acceptable when they decline to attend a same sex 'wedding' ritual?
Such vendors weren't invited to "attend a same sex wedding", Brian. Why do you lie? They were asked to the provide goods and/or services they purport to be in business to offer the general public, of which gays are part. When one runs a business as a public accommodation, one is subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing such businesses. One's personal religious beliefs don't exempt one from compliance with the law or make one above the law.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2879 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female.
Actually, most laws did not explicitly state that. That was why there was such a rush in the 1990's and early 2000's to revise laws and amend state constitutions.
Brian_G wrote:
What's not radical about a novel male/male or female/female conception of marriage? Why is the disposable nature of husband or wife in marriage not extreme?
It's neither radical nor extreme because it has absolutely ZERO impact on the actual legal accomplishment of marriage, which is to grant kinship to previously unrelated parties.
Brian_G wrote:
Which would you prefer, not to have a father but two mothers instead or not to have a mother but two fathers?
Why not ask what orphans or children of single parents would prefer? Regardless, since the state doesn't prohibit single parent adoption nor is it illegal to be a single parent, the state obviously doesn't consider having two opposite sex parents a requirement for raising children. Further, an individual's right to make decisions regarding procreation and raising children is a constitutionally protected privacy right not subject to government mandate of the number or sex of adults involved in the upbringing.

You keep saying you want less government involvement in our lives, Brian, yet you constantly advocate government intrusion into the most private fundamental rights we possess as human beings. Proving you to be nothing a but a liar.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2880 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage creates wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries. It creates intrusive regulations around marriage including fines for Christian wedding vendors who refuse to participate in a same sex wedding ritual. This new spending, regulation and litigation causes higher taxes.
Oh really. Do you think then maybe we should get rid of the churches that don't pay taxes, but we have to pay for them? And if you really want to talk about wasteful government spending we can really start talkin bout that!!! The fact is, is that you don't like it so you don't think it should be allowed. Marriage is a civil union, not a religious one and that is a plain and simple fact. If someone chooses to be married by a preacher because of their belief that is their choice, but that does not make it a religious practice no matter how hard you try to make it that way.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2881 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nature discriminate between same sex and opposite sex couples, not me. I bless your same sex union, I don't want to rewrite marriage law for everyone.
Is suing Christian wedding service vendors acceptable when they decline to attend a same sex 'wedding' ritual?
Nature does not discriminate between same sex anything...just so you know. I think rightly if a business is discriminatory toward anyone then they shouldn't own a business.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2882 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female. What's not radical about a novel male/male or female/female conception of marriage? Why is the disposable nature of husband or wife in marriage not extreme?
Which would you prefer, not to have a father but two mothers instead or not to have a mother but two fathers?
To be quite honest the only thing a child needs is a loving home with parents or a parent who loves and nurtures them the way they should. There is no disposable nature of anything. Male/Female relationships will always exist... Male/male relationships will always exist... female/female relationships will always exist. The fact is that if two people decide that they want to commit the rest of their lives to their partners then they should be able to with condemnation or discrimination from any person.

I would prefer to have a loving parent, or loving parents. There is no argument that you could possibly give that would make you correct in your discriminating thought process.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2883 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Unwed motherhood isn't necessarily the best social policy; that's why most people oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.
Gay marriage will cause more unwed motherhood? WTF?
.
Brian_G wrote:
Gay couple's kids? Care to explain that? Do you mean a gay father taking his child from the kid's mother?
Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised motherless or fatherless.
Look, stupid, they didn't just invent the word "adoption" this week.
And kids are put up for adoption for all sorts of reasons. Gay men don't "take children away".
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.
Equal protection is one of the most basic civil and human rights there is.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female. Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
Gay marriage won't stop people from reproducing.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2884 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage creates wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries. It creates intrusive regulations around marriage including fines for Christian wedding vendors who refuse to participate in a same sex wedding ritual. This new spending, regulation and litigation causes higher taxes.
Your hatred for gay people is showing. A gay person puts in the same amount of work as a straight person, they marry their same sex partner, but when they get the same entitlements a straight couple does it's "wasteful".
At least I can have a tiny amount of respect for the "Die f@gs die!" type of homophobe, at least they are honest and upfront.
And no new "intrusive" regulations are being created.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2885 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nature discriminate between same sex and opposite sex couples, not me. I bless your same sex union, I don't want to rewrite marriage law for everyone.
Is suing Christian wedding service vendors acceptable when they decline to attend a same sex 'wedding' ritual?
Yes, it's acceptable.
They should obey the law.
Bigotry should not get special consideration because it's based on Bronze Age superstition.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2886 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all written marriage law defined marriage as male/female. What's not radical about a novel male/male or female/female conception of marriage? Why is the disposable nature of husband or wife in marriage not extreme?
Which would you prefer, not to have a father but two mothers instead or not to have a mother but two fathers?
If you were the father, I'd prefer not to have a father.
And Jesus had two dads.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2887 Oct 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I oppose cutting benefits; this is where we differ. I support reforming benefits to ensure funding and T.F. supports making cuts as hard as possible on the voter.
On the contrary, you were the one who stated additional benefit payments resulting from legal recognition of same sex marriages not only wasn't affordable but was also "wasteful". You're also the one advocating government entitlement spending be reduced so taxes could be cut. I merely offered a way to enable you to achieve your stated goals.

Why do you lie, Brian?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2888 Oct 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage creates wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries. It creates intrusive regulations around marriage including fines for Christian wedding vendors who refuse to participate in a same sex wedding ritual. This new spending, regulation and litigation causes higher taxes.
The topic atheism forum is no place for creationist mental illness talking points.

If you want to affect politics, try proving your god in the real world, instead of your imagination. Then your ignorant beliefs will matter in the real world.

By which time you will have been thrown out of court for presenting a burning bush as evidence.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2889 Oct 14, 2013
So, you can't name even one person fined or imprisoned for same sex marriage; there is no ban. There are bans on free speech that isn't PC (leftist), Christians who refuse to service same sex weddings have been prosecuted and fined.

All the intolerance and hatred comes from the left.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min dirtclod 169,065
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 141,875
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 1 hr Chimney1 200
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 6,224
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 hr MikeF 19,806
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Mon Chimney1 15
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web