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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1202 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What???? First, why would it be a problem if everyone was bisexual? Second, why do you think that *laws* are required to be the same as personal preferences?

Hi Polymath. Long time no see.

As usual you raise some good questions.

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#1203 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's every "reason to discriminate based on sexual preference"; else we'd all be bisexual.
Freudian slip?
Anyway, you are incorrect. My country does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. We have same sex marriage and nobody became bisexual.
Brian_G wrote:
There's no reason to rewrite marriage law based on sexual preference.
I am a homosexual male. I want my partner to inherit my property if I die before him. I want my partner to be allowed to visit me at the hospital if I become ill. I want my relation with my partner to be legaly recognized. I want to be legaly protect from people like you, who would like to take all those rights away from me. Is that reason enough?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1204 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution; if the genders weren't the different; there would be no heterosexuals or homosexuals, we would all be bisexual.
Yes, genders are different. That is no reason to make them different in the eyes of the law. The simple fact that *I* prefer brunettes to blondes doesn't mean that there should be a law preferring brunettes over blondes.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because man and woman aren't equal; we differ.
Which is no reason to have a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The *goal* of marriage is to make a family unit, preferably based on love. That can be done just as effectively between same sex couples as between opposite sex couples. But just like you should not determine whether I marry a brunette or a blonde, you should not determine whether I marry a man or a woman. Personal preference is a different thing than what the law should dictate. In fact, the law should allow for variances where overall happiness is increased.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#1205 Aug 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, genders are different. That is no reason to make them different in the eyes of the law. The simple fact that *I* prefer brunettes to blondes doesn't mean that there should be a law preferring brunettes over blondes.
ah-ha! But there is a law declaring black hair to be the best!

woohoo!
Which is no reason to have a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The *goal* of marriage is to make a family unit, preferably based on love. That can be done just as effectively between same sex couples as between opposite sex couples. But just like you should not determine whether I marry a brunette or a blonde, you should not determine whether I marry a man or a woman. Personal preference is a different thing than what the law should dictate. In fact, the law should allow for variances where overall happiness is increased.
Totally - well said.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1206 Aug 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First, from a LOGIC standpoint, the position that nobody is born gay fails on its face.
- If no one was born gay, then everyone was born straight.
- Therefore, at some point in time, there were NO gay people, just all straight people.
- At that point, someone who was "straight" _decided_ that it would be good to have gay sex and convinced someone else who was also "straight" to join him.
What straight person decides to start having gay if they aren't gay and no one else is gay and no one has even heard of gay?
FAIL.
Second, numerous studies have shown an epigenetic link to homosexuality as a result of the mother's exposure to testosterone from the fetus.
This explains why the more male children a woman has the more likely later children are to be gay _EVEN IN_ cases where the child is given up for adoption and raised in a single child home with no knowledge of older siblings.
Your position fails on both reason and actual science.
No surprise there.
There is no gay gene. Give up, loser.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1207 Aug 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, genders are different. That is no reason to make them different in the eyes of the law. The simple fact that *I* prefer brunettes to blondes doesn't mean that there should be a law preferring brunettes over blondes.
<quoted text>
Which is no reason to have a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The *goal* of marriage is to make a family unit, preferably based on love. That can be done just as effectively between same sex couples as between opposite sex couples. But just like you should not determine whether I marry a brunette or a blonde, you should not determine whether I marry a man or a woman. Personal preference is a different thing than what the law should dictate. In fact, the law should allow for variances where overall happiness is increased.
A "couple" is not a "family".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1208 Aug 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A "couple" is not a "family".
Not automatically, but when they *want* to be a family, then they are. Marriage is a way of making that decision public. In particular, a couple need not have children to become a family.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1209 Aug 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gay gene. Give up, loser.
? You should learn to read before you hit reply.

Where, in ANY of my writing, have I _EVER_ suggested there was a "gay gene"?

Friggin 50 posts about how there is _NOT_ a gay gene and you still don't get it.

_EPIGENETIC_. Male homosexuality is a condition from birth based but not one brought about by the DNA of the individual.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1210 Aug 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A "couple" is not a "family".
Depends on how you define family.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1211 Aug 3, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
...I am a homosexual male. I want my partner to inherit my property if I die before him. I want my partner to be allowed to visit me at the hospital if I become ill. I want my relation with my partner to be legaly recognized. I want to be legaly protect from people like you, who would like to take all those rights away from me. Is that reason enough?
If you want your partner to inherit your property, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a will.

If you want your partner to be allowed to visit you at the hospital, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a living will.

If you want your relationship with your partner to be legally recognized, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a civil union which is a legally recognized document.

I've never advocated taking any rights from homosexuals; you have the same right to marry under the law as everyone else.

Same sex marriage is based on irrationality; emotion rather than reason.

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#1212 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your partner to inherit your property, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a will.
A man married to a woman does not need a will. Why do you want to force my relation to need additional conditions just to have the same rights?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your partner to be allowed to visit you at the hospital, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a living will.
Again, a man married to a woman does not need a will. Why do you want to force my relation to need additional conditions just to have the same rights?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your relationship with your partner to be legally recognized, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a civil union which is a legally recognized document.
A civil union is not the same as marriage. Why should I not deserve equal recognition?
Brian_G wrote:
I've never advocated taking any rights from homosexuals;
Yes, you do. Just in this post you defend I should to take extra legal precautions so I get the same rights.
Brian_G wrote:
you have the same right to marry under the law as everyone else.
In my country I do. We have same sex marriage. But in other parts of the world I don't.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is based on irrationality; emotion rather than reason.
How does a marriage between a man and a woman differ?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1213 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your partner to inherit your property, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a will.
Of course, this is not equal to being married, in which case the property passes to the spouse, who is kin, without estate taxation.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your partner to be allowed to visit you at the hospital, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a living will.
One could do this, but it would be inherent, not a separate action, were the couple married. By addressing this piece-a-meal, as you have elected to do, you are merely highlighting the extremes to which a same sex couple has to go to achieve a facsimile of equal protection, and the fact that even if they take those steps they still do not actually get equal protection.

Thanks Brian, you are illustrating just how stupid your assertions really are.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want your relationship with your partner to be legally recognized, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a civil union which is a legally recognized document.
A civil union similarly does not offer equal rights and protections provided by marriage. Civil unions lack spousal privilege exemption from testifying against one's spouse in a court of law.

Keep it coming Brian, you're really making yourself look bad.
Brian_G wrote:
I've never advocated taking any rights from homosexuals; you have the same right to marry under the law as everyone else.
Brian, you advocate for homosexuals to be treated as second class citizens each and every time you argue that they should not have equal protection of the law to marry.

What is more, you seem to lack the ability to articulate why they should not be allowed to marry.

It appears that you are little more than a bigoted, homophobic, hateful, irrational, troll.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is based on irrationality; emotion rather than reason.
Actually, your arguments against marriage equality for homosexuals, absent any compelling state interest to exclude them is irrational.

Feel free to offer that elusive compelling state interest to deny equality that would render your point valid. I don't think you can.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1214 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you want your partner to inherit your property, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a will.
Except that if I die, my wife gets my property without having to pay an estate tax. But if I willed it to someone to whom I was no married, they could lose up to 50% of the property to taxes.
If you want your partner to be allowed to visit you at the hospital, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a living will.
That's not what a living will is. Hospital visitation rights are set by the institution and are limited to "family". A living will can give someone power of attorney, but it can not render them "family".
If you want your relationship with your partner to be legally recognized, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a civil union which is a legally recognized document.
Except that there are literally THOUSANDS of rights which are not conveyed by a civil union which are de facto conveyed by marriage.

Equality, by definition, means they shouldn't have to fill out three different legal documents to acquire the same level of treatment available to someone who fills out only one.
I've never advocated taking any rights from homosexuals; you have the same right to marry under the law as everyone else.
That does not change by making same sex marriage legal.

Allowing same sex marriage grants everyone equality.

Why are you against freedom?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1215 Aug 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you want your partner to inherit your property, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a will.
If you want your partner to be allowed to visit you at the hospital, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a living will.
If you want your relationship with your partner to be legally recognized, you don't need same sex marriage - you need a civil union which is a legally recognized document.
I've never advocated taking any rights from homosexuals; you have the same right to marry under the law as everyone else.
Same sex marriage is based on irrationality; emotion rather than reason.
If you want to share your opinions, you need to prove the god you're here to lie about first, there a good ignorant creationist troll.

After all, your personal hallucinations form the basis for your hatred and immorality.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1216 Aug 3, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to share your opinions, you need to prove the god you're here to lie about first, there a good ignorant creationist troll.
After all, your personal hallucinations form the basis for your hatred and immorality.
Wrong Skippy.

His dislike of homosexuals is not due to his Christianity. It's due to his being a closeted homosexual.

He even said that if gay marriage were legalized "everyone would become bisexual".

No heterosexual man would think that he would be suddenly interested in gay sex if it were legally permitted.

That thinking can only be found among closet cases.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1217 Aug 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Skippy.
His dislike of homosexuals is not due to his Christianity. It's due to his being a closeted homosexual.
He even said that if gay marriage were legalized "everyone would become bisexual".
No heterosexual man would think that he would be suddenly interested in gay sex if it were legally permitted.
That thinking can only be found among closet cases.
Shaddap you ridiculous piece of sh*t.

If you believe god is possible or even real, you need to demonstrate this or respectfully shut the f*ck up.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1220 Aug 3, 2013
I would not even bother replying, Nuggin, there is nothing you can possibly type to make yourself look good on this page or any for that matter.

Just go back, absorb the shame and learn from it.
There's a good troll.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1221 Aug 3, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Shaddap you ridiculous piece of sh*t.
Still mad that I proved we went to the moon after all. Sorry, Skip but your conspiracy theories are just garbage.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1222 Aug 3, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
uneducated neanderthal, look up frogs that change their sexuality depending upon their environment.
Wow you're dumb.

First of all, how do you judge which Neanderthals were educated vs uneducated? Were there educated Cro-Mags running around at the same time?

Second, frogs don't change their "sexuality" you nitwit. Frogs don't become gay. They switch their _GENDER_.

Third, frogs are AMPHIBIANS. Humans are mammals. We're talking about MALE _HUMAN_ sexuality and its cause.

Drawing an analogy to frogs is like your claims that Egypt isn't a real place or that we never went to the moon. It just makes you sound like more of an idiot than normal.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1223 Aug 3, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When we want an arrogant unscientific arsehat
Skippy, when you're around we have more asshat than we can possibly use.

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) 1 min DanFromSmithville 195,528
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min MIDutch 29,534
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 15 min DanFromSmithville 150,615
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 min Uncle Sam 11,613
Science News (Sep '13) 13 hr scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) 16 hr asar 12
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 23 hr ChristineM 14,570
More from around the web