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 (Page 162)

Showing posts 3,221 - 3,240 of3,864
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3349
Oct 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my arguments about issues, not people. This is where we differ; ad hominem arguments are illogical.
Spouting your hatred for homosexuals year after year isn't making an argument…its just garden variety homophobia.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3350
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No:
"The Proclamation []did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Pro...
"... on the first day of January ... all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." President Abraham Lincoln, preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_ori...
I never claimed the Emancipation Proclamation "outlawed slavery" or made them citizens, Brian.. I merely stated it ended slavery. And in either this thread or another in a post to you I specifically noted it was ended only in states in rebellion against the US government. It wasn't ended throughout the US until the adoption of the thirteenth amendment.

Regardless, it was ended for the vast majority of slaves by executive order of the President Lincoln, not by vote as you erroneously claimed.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3351
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3352
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3353
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3354
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3358
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3359
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3360
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3361
Nov 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,221 - 3,240 of3,864
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••