Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Conservapedia

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)

Comments
3,221 - 3,240 of 3,862 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3351 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Race and sex are two entirely different things, they have nothing in common.
On the contrary, race and sexual orientation are both human characteristics that have been the basis for unjust discrimination against countless people throughout history.
Brian_G wrote:
Racial differences are unimportant and cosmetic but sex differences are so important they mean the survival of the human race and so pervasive they affect language, culture, art and law.
Sex and sexual orientation are also two different characteristics, Brian. Since homosexuality has existed throughout recorded history, its existence hasn't threatened the survival of humans given the exponential growth of the world population over the past several hundred years. Not to mention race and sexual orientation also affect language, culture, art and law.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3352 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not real history, you kept suing us so we codified the male/female nature of marriage. Marriage has always been male/female and there is no copy of any same sex marriage law older then the 21st century.
Lie.
Brian_G wrote:
My political oppoents aren't hateful liars, they just don't know history.
On the contrary, we know history far better than you and lack both your bigotry and pathological lying.
Brian_G wrote:
I blame public school education, not bigotry.
You didn't learn to be a bigot in public schools, Brian. Nor do I think you can blame your general ignorance and stupidity on your education, whether public or private. Based on our behavior here in Topix, you're simply uneducable.
Brian_G wrote:
I understand the bubble, of the 30 initiatives to define marriage as one man and one woman by popular vote has won 28 times and lost twice. And still they claim, the majority support same sex marriage. They aren't liars, just uninformed.
we're neither liars nor uninformed, Brian. Most of those popular votes are from 10-20 years ago. Attitudes have shifted significantly since then on the issue of same sex marriage. A majority nationwide now favors it. Sentiment at a state level is more mixed, which explains why many states still have bans but even in those states, the tide is changing. The demographic tsunami won't be long in washing you and your ilk out to sea permanently

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3353 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've written nothing about anyone turning gay and that has nothing to do with sex differences are so important they mean the survival of the human race. Racial differences are unimportant and have nothing to do with sex differences.
Enough people thought racial differences were important enough that we had slavery, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws for the better part of ¾ of US history. And human procreation neither requires nor is dependent upon marriage so your argument about the survival of humans has no relevance to the discussion of marriage either.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3354 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Rose isn't lying, she just doesn't know the 13th Amended was voted by Congress and ratified by the states. She's confused about popular vote; referendum isn't the only form of democracy. She doesn't know, same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Nie states and the District of Columbia legally recognized same sex marriage as a result of legislative or popular votes, Brian. Why do you ignore that fact?
Brian_G wrote:
Of course, heterosexuals will be allows to have same sex marriage if the law changes; there is no orientation test for marriage. And the way government sees husbands and wives, as disposable in marriage will change marriage law and custom for everyone.
Since opposite sex couples can still marry even when same sex marriages are legally recognized, absolutely NOTHING changes for those interested in opposite sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage law would increase entitlements paid by all taxpayers
You haven't minded gays subsidizing YOUR benefits for the the entire history of the US, though, have you Brian? Gays are taxpayers too and are entitled to the same legal benefits and privileges as straight people. Deal with it.
Brian_G wrote:
and may change divorce, custody and adoption law too.
There aren't any differences in those laws in states where same sex marriage is legally recognized.
Brian_G wrote:
Tell that to Barronelle Stutzman, the suit, summons, trial and fine cost her and her husband a bundle.
Breaking the law has consequences, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
If you don't want to be sued for refusing to support a religious ceremony, keep marriage one man and one woman.
So that means you're OK with requiring businesses to provide goods and services to secular, civil same sex wedding ceremonies. It's only religious same sex wedding ceremonies that are a problem Got it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3355 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Kudos, one of Rose's best arguments!
Same sex marriage is fin de siècle folly.
We're still waiting for you to provide even one good argument.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3356 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^They are so foolish to confound the evil of slavery for keeping marriage one man and one woman. They aren't bad people, just very uninformed.
Unfortunately, you're both stupid and bigoted.
Brian_G wrote:
My position is pro freedom, I'm pro gay rights, to associate as you please.
Really? How is advocating for discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays even remotely "pro freedom", much less "pro gay rights"?
Brian_G wrote:
I'm against rewriting marriage law for everyone to satiate political desire.

So you want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws. Got it.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm for the freedom of Christian's not to attend or attend same sex weddings as they choose.
Everyone, not just Christians, are free to accept or decline a wedding invitation as they see fit, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex religious weddings are legal in every state, I'm pro freedom of religion.
The fundamental right of marriage is for civil marriage, not religious marriage; to deny the former to gays is to be pro-discrimination.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to radically redefine marriage and the family.
If there's nothing wrong with homosexuals, why do you advocate for discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3357 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my arguments about issues, not people. This is where we differ; ad hominem arguments are illogical.
Creationism is no excuse to gate gays getting married, Brian.

First prove your god, then share your halfwit opinions about a society you do not infuence.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3358 Nov 1, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
And same sex marriage will not cause the human race to not survive...like we've all said before.
I didn't claim "same sex marriage will [] cause the human race to not survive", I claimed sex differences are so important they mean the survival of the human race and racial differences are unimportant.

Do you get it now?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3359 Nov 1, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
And as we've said before Brian, it's a persons right to marry who they want. You are either for human rights or you aren't. You are either for gay rights or you aren't, and on both of those counts, you are not for either one.
^^^This standard, "a persons right to marry who they want" would allow forced marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and bestial marriage. Don't they have "a persons right to marry who they want"?

Same sex marriage is wrong because of its justifications and consequences.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3360 Nov 1, 2013
Just Think wrote:
Poor Brian and his sad little lie that Christians are somehow going to be forced to attend gay marriages. Dude, you're bizarre.
What do you think of these stories?

Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
December 25, 2012|By Erin Cox, The Baltimore Sun

OCTOBER 10, 2013
Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence
by Stephen Beale

After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.

Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.

In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.“The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently.“I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.

Discover Annapolis Tours No Longer Offering Wedding Services Because Owner Opposes Gay Marriage
Posted: 12/26/2012 12:50 pm EST

"We used to do weddings until recently. But we're a Christian-owned business, and we are not able to lend support to gay marriages. And as a public accommodation, we cannot discriminate between gay or straight couples, so we had to stop doing all wedding transportation."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-25/n...

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persec...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/disc...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3361 Nov 1, 2013
Just Think wrote:
Spouting your hatred for homosexuals year after year isn't making an argument…its just garden variety homophobia.
I've never written a word of hatred or used any slur against homosexuals. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

I'm discussing the political issue of same sex marriage; rewriting marriage law for everybody. Most same sex marriage supporters don't use logic, they just label their opponents 'homophobes' and hope that's good enough to win.

30 states have laws protecting one man and one woman marriage. Those laws were approved by the citizens in referendum.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3362 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never written a word of hatred or used any slur against homosexuals. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
I'm discussing the political issue of same sex marriage; rewriting marriage law for everybody. Most same sex marriage supporters don't use logic, they just label their opponents 'homophobes' and hope that's good enough to win.
30 states have laws protecting one man and one woman marriage. Those laws were approved by the citizens in referendum.
Creationism is no excuse for sharing your halfwitted opinions about society, Brian.

Nobody buys your arguments because you haven't proven the god your cult invented to justify its prejudices.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#3363 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't claim "same sex marriage will [] cause the human race to not survive", I claimed sex differences are so important they mean the survival of the human race and racial differences are unimportant.
Do you get it now?
Not really, because it's not relevant to the topic.

What does that have to do with legal marriage? Gay folks marrying will have no effect on heterosexuals procreating, and the survival of the human species.

Heterosexuals seem to have no problem procreating both outside and inside of marriage.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#3364 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This standard, "a persons right to marry who they want" would allow forced marriage, polygamy, incest marriage and bestial marriage. Don't they have "a persons right to marry who they want"?
Same sex marriage is wrong because of its justifications and consequences.
So, you believe that heterosexuals are so pathetic that if gay folks can marry ONE unrelated adult, that many of them will demand to marry relatives, animals and multiples?

I don't think straight folks are that weird and weak-minded, but I suppose you do.

It's sad, really. But you can't justify harming gay couples because straight couples demand such things. It's not our fault, it's yours.

And if you want to do these things, fight for the right in court. But first you need to prove that there is no harm in any of them.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#3365 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.....
30 states have laws protecting one man and one woman marriage. Those laws were approved by the citizens in referendum.
And since each of those laws is unconstitutional, they will be removed, either by the courts, legislators, or by vote.

But they will all fall.

Because there is no rational state interest in harming families.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3366 Nov 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
And since each of those laws is unconstitutional, they will be removed, either by the courts, legislators, or by vote.
And since Brian is willfully ignorant, they will never understand that.

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3367 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What do you think of these stories?
Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
December 25, 2012|By Erin Cox, The Baltimore Sun
OCTOBER 10, 2013
Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence
by Stephen Beale
After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.
Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.
In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.“The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently.“I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.
Discover Annapolis Tours No Longer Offering Wedding Services Because Owner Opposes Gay Marriage
Posted: 12/26/2012 12:50 pm EST
"We used to do weddings until recently. But we're a Christian-owned business, and we are not able to lend support to gay marriages. And as a public accommodation, we cannot discriminate between gay or straight couples, so we had to stop doing all wedding transportation."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-25/n...
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persec...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/disc...
Those are businesses, Brian, not people.

You stated that Christians would be forced to attend gay weddings.

You lied. This is not shocking.

As for the businesses - businesses must follow the law. Businesses are not allowed to break any of the discrimination laws in their state regardless of their religious beliefs.

I mean, we all know that you have no real arguments to support your homophobia, but you're starting to look a wee bit pathetic.

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3368 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never written a word of hatred or used any slur against homosexuals. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
I'm discussing the political issue of same sex marriage; rewriting marriage law for everybody. Most same sex marriage supporters don't use logic, they just label their opponents 'homophobes' and hope that's good enough to win.
30 states have laws protecting one man and one woman marriage. Those laws were approved by the citizens in referendum.
You want homosexuals treated as second class citizens.

You're a homophobe.

Deal with it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3369 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never written a word of hatred or used any slur against homosexuals. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
Advocating discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights is hardly an act of love, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm discussing the political issue of same sex marriage; rewriting marriage law for everybody. Most same sex marriage supporters don't use logic, they just label their opponents 'homophobes' and hope that's good enough to win.
You're one to talk, Brian. Your arguments generally lack logic and rational thought; most of the time they're based on lies and uninformed personal opinion.
Brian_G wrote:
30 states have laws protecting one man and one woman marriage. Those laws were approved by the citizens in referendum.
Fundamental rights like marriage were never intendedly the Founders to be put to popular vote.A position SCOTUS confirmed in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3370 Nov 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I discuss issues, I don't defame opponents. Note the emotional nature of many same sex marriage supporter's arguments. Let's try to rise above the hate, eh?
.
The US Supreme Court heard the same sex marriage argument; they didn't claim one man and one woman marriage is "a gross violation of the Constitution"; I don't blame T.D., he lives in a left wing bubble.
Folks around the water cooler know better.
In your view, but I'm not relying purely on the court. I'm pointing out what is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
Prove it, provide a cite or link and a quote.
Every post you argue against gay marriage. You don't support equal rights if you're denying them a right others have. If you don't believe in equal rights then it doesn't matter if you support a limited number of rights.
Brian_G wrote:
She served those customers before and would again, she just refused to support a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Vegan to attend a bris or invite a Muslim to a pork processing plant? Have a little tolerance, for the love of God.
I may partially agree in principle that perhaps she should have the right to discriminate. The old adage "I disagree with you but will fight to defend your right to say it". In which case private store owners would have the right not to serve blacks. Certainly an iffy can of worms however.
Brian_G wrote:
Untrue. She didn't refuse to sell to a black or to a homosexual; she refused to attend and support a same sex wedding ritual.
So uh, she DID refuse to sell to a homosexual.
Brian_G wrote:
The rules change for all when the parties change; same sex marriage means either a husband or wife may be disposable in marriage and that government see no difference between a husband and a wife or a mother and a father.
No rules change as no-one is being thrown out. It's still a partnership between two people and the only thing that would make the other disposable would be divorce. As a fine hypocrite you're not arguing against divorce though it still applies to your silly arguments.
Brian_G wrote:
same sex marriage is against the laws of nature; sex differences are natural and relevant to family and marriage.
No, magic poofing is against nature. Since gays ARE married obviously it's NOT against nature.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage never existed in written law before the 21st century. Equal rights doesn't mean the special right to redefine marriage law for everyone, else polygamy would have been accepted instead of criminalized by Congress in the 19th century.
Culture changes. Deal.
Brian_G wrote:
Let's vote; that's fair.
Fine. I vote to remove all your rights. If I win that's fair?
Brian_G wrote:
You first; bully. There are radicals on the secular extremist left, don't let them do it to you first.
Equal rights hasn't been radical in Western society for centuries.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm using civil debate, The Dude is using defamation; see the quote above as proof.


Defamation applies only to false statements. I've made none.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 11 min One way or another 172,517
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 25 min Infinite Force 204
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min TurkanaBoy 115,230
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 48 min TurkanaBoy 136,259
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 11 hr TurkanaBoy 315
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••