Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 Full story: Conservapedia 3,862

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)

Full Story

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1697 Aug 16, 2013
replaytime wrote:
And to explain my last post a little further. If it takes a vote of the people to let someone do what they want, then in reality they don't have the freedom to do what they want. They are allowed it by the people that let them do that by that vote, which again as I stated it is not up to me to tell people what to do to be happy, that is their choice. To each his own. Good night all and have a great one.
You don't need to explain anything - you're a mentally ill air.

All your opinions can be safely discarded until you've proven the god you're here to lie to us about.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1698 Aug 16, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientati...
Your link agrees with what we have said so far: people are **born** gay, they cannot be **raised** to become gay.

If your bigoted claim were **true**?

NO STRAIGHT PARENT COULD RAISE A GAY KID--EVER.

Is this the case?

Nope...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1699 Aug 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
And hormone cues.
<quoted text>
They started with muscle cells.
<quoted text>
Yeah, totally. Especially if you exercised it and kept its hormone system intact.
Yes-- you **would** need that, wouldn't you?

Farmers have been experimenting with hormone control for thousands of years--by making steers out of bulls, they create a meat-animal that tastes better than a bull would, by removing the testosterone-producing glands.

So clearly, robo-cow would require only female hormone glands.

And I suppose the pituitary gland, which is in the brain, would need to be left intact too.

Hmmmm... robo cow isn't as simple as all **that**...

...

:D

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1700 Aug 16, 2013
replaytime wrote:
And to explain my last post a little further. If it takes a vote of the people to let someone do what they want, then in reality they don't have the freedom to do what they want. They are allowed it by the people that let them do that by that vote, which again as I stated it is not up to me to tell people what to do to be happy, that is their choice. To each his own. Good night all and have a great one.
Of course, your assertion is not correct.
"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."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1701 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, your assertion is not correct.
"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."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
Indeed.

The right to worship (or not) as one pleases is also not subject to vote--at least, according to the constitution.

Alas, in reality? Not so much...
Thinking

UK

#1702 Aug 16, 2013
Don't blame you! I do love driving to that track though. Unless my wife is in the car. Then we listen to something else!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... weirdness for sure... I did not watch the whole thing, either.
:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1703 Aug 16, 2013
DNF wrote:
Like you did in 39 States, right?
No, they sued our state so we had to support the universal precedent of marriage as one man and one woman with law. If they hadn't have sued, we'd never need to write law that says marriage is male/female. It was always precedent; there's no copy of any law older than the 21st century, that defines marriage as same sex.

People have always rejected segregation when it comes to marriage. Same sex marriage is just another name for gender segregation marriage, separatism and disunity.

.
DNF wrote:
I can't see how you can object to others doing what you are doing.
I have no objection to what others are doing; that's DNF's game, not mine. I object to rewriting marriage law for everyone, so a father could marry his only son to avoid estate tax. I'm glad Edith Windsor got a lower tax rate for the fortune she received from Thea Spyer's estate. I don't object to lower taxes for same sex couples, just redefining marriage and family for everyone; that's my only gripe.

That and administration that refuses to enforce or defend laws they select. Then, they commit malfeasance in office. Barack Obama ran on marriage as one man and one woman because marriage is sacred. Then, he changed his mind. It's like the secular extremist's model of faith.

.
DNF wrote:
If what they do is wrong then so is what you did.
Some of those 39 states won the right to the obvious male/female marriage paradigm by popular referendum. None of the 13 states and D.C. held referendum before rewriting marriage law; the best you can say, their democratic referendum upheld the legislative process. California's voters passed referendum making marriage one man and one woman twice. An activist and improper court finding followed.

In Egypt, the Army overturns elections and in America it's the courts. I kind of respect the Egyptians; they know where they stand without being sued.

Keep marriage one man and one woman because you don't want to be sued next.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1704 Aug 16, 2013
Lawyers and atheists and homosexuals...

That's what same sex marriage is all about.

Make the lawyers pay when they lose. Loser pays. The idea isn't fun or good to sue your neighbor. Ask Ms. Barronelle Stutzman, please have mercy on this poor woman and fight somebody your own size.

Sane sex marriage is like suing a stupid Christian businesswoman because she chose to act on faith. She's not charged with a crime. Shame on the left.
Thinking

UK

#1705 Aug 16, 2013
Sane you are not.
Brian_G wrote:
Sane sex marriage is like suing a stupid Christian businesswoman because she chose to act on faith. She's not charged with a crime. Shame on the left.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1706 Aug 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Lawyers and atheists and homosexuals...
That's what same sex marriage is all about.
Make the lawyers pay when they lose. Loser pays. The idea isn't fun or good to sue your neighbor. Ask Ms. Barronelle Stutzman, please have mercy on this poor woman and fight somebody your own size.
Sane sex marriage is like suing a stupid Christian businesswoman because she chose to act on faith. She's not charged with a crime. Shame on the left.
I'm not sure I disagree with you.

If she chooses to be a hateful, bigoted homophobe (like you) because her 'All-loving God' ALSO hates homos, I think it should be her right to choose not to take their business.

It would be (IMHO) a very bad business decision on her part to do so.

The gay community has **LOTS** of money, and excellent communication skills, so she'll likely lose out on a crap-load of money from not only the gay community, but also gay-friendly straight people.

But a lawsuit?

Overkill.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#1707 Aug 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Really. There is no "hmmm".
" http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-pa... ;
Studies have already proven that raising kids in front of gay parents do not make them gay.
Any more than raising a **gay** kid in front of **straight** parents turns them ... straight.
Duuuuuhhhhh....
I did not write the article in the link I provided. But even scientists say it has something to do with environmental factors. "scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

Or is the one time you are going to say science can be wrong?

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#1708 Aug 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu are trying to claim that gay parents make gay kids. But thats as stupid as saying a boys only school will make gay kids - which is simply not true.
As usual creationists, first make a conclusion and THEN try to make reality fit their ignorant made up opinions..
I did not write the article in the link I provided. But even scientists say it has something to do with environmental factors. "scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

Or is the onetime you are going to say science can be wrong?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1709 Aug 16, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not write the article in the link I provided. But even scientists say it has something to do with environmental factors. "scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."
Or is the one time you are going to say science can be wrong?
I don't know if you ever claimed it, but others seem to think that you have expanded "environmental factors" to the home that they are brought up in. It seems that there is not any real support for that part of your claim, that is if you made it.

Environmental in this case seems to refer to the environment of the uterus. Once you are out of the oven it seems accepted that you are done.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1710 Aug 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Sane sex marriage is like suing a stupid Christian businesswoman because she chose to act on faith. She's not charged with a crime. Shame on the left.
Brian, you are dumber than a rock.
She violated the law.
She IS being charged with violating the law.
She is also being sued civilly.
And ultimately she will lose because she violated the laws of Washington state.

Grow a brain.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#1711 Aug 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if you ever claimed it, but others seem to think that you have expanded "environmental factors" to the home that they are brought up in. It seems that there is not any real support for that part of your claim, that is if you made it.
Environmental in this case seems to refer to the environment of the uterus. Once you are out of the oven it seems accepted that you are done.
I just posted the article with the link. Again they can do as they choose or were born to be, it is not up to me. I have several friends that are homosexual. They have asked me if it bothers me and I laugh and say its your life so do what makes you happy but I prefer not to see it. They just laugh back and understand.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1712 Aug 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I'm not sure I disagree with you.
That's remarkable.

.
Kong_ wrote:
If she chooses to be a hateful, bigoted homophobe (like you) because her 'All-loving God' ALSO hates homos, I think it should be her right to choose not to take their business.
That's incorrect, these were longtime customers, she knew about their sexual orientation from the business they did with her shop. She chose not to add her artistry to their wedding; does she have no freedom at all?

The issue is harm, she offered referrals. The issue is freedom.

.
Kong_ wrote:
It would be (IMHO) a very bad business decision on her part to do so.
Or a very courageous moral decision to stand for right and wrong.

.
Kong_ wrote:
The gay community has **LOTS** of money, and excellent communication skills, so she'll likely lose out on a crap-load of money from not only the gay community, but also gay-friendly straight people. But a lawsuit? Overkill.
If it was just a suit, yes that would be overkill. But the Washington State Attorney General got into the act and sued her too.

If you don't keep marriage one man and one woman they could sue you next.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1713 Aug 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
That's incorrect, these were longtime customers, she knew about their sexual orientation from the business they did with her shop. She chose not to add her artistry to their wedding; does she have no freedom at all?
The issue is harm, she offered referrals. The issue is freedom.
No, the issue is discrimination. She refused service based upon the sexual orientation of the client, and said as much to the client. in doing so, she violated Washington State law which prevents discrimination due to a number of criteria, including sexual orientation.

Providing a service for a gay couple in no way impacts this woman's free speech, free exercise of religion, or any other right.

It's a business, not a mouthpiece for ones personal political or religious views.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1714 Aug 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's remarkable.
If I agreed with you on the basis of your reasoning, I'd be very frightened. As-is, I have different rationale for my political philosophy apart from bigotry and a desire to assert my bigotry towards others.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's incorrect, these were longtime customers, she knew about their sexual orientation from the business they did with her shop. She chose not to add her artistry to their wedding; does she have no freedom at all?
The issue is harm, she offered referrals. The issue is freedom.
I'm approaching this from a rational Libertarian position:(Per Wiki): "emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

What she did was (IMHO) reprehensible both on a personal and business level. She has every right (again IMHO), to deny service to whomever she pleases. Even "THOSE PEOPLE". But she may have to accept the consequenses of her "moral right" to affect the bottom line of her business. Her customers and potential customers will have to decide for themselves whether or not to deny giving their business to her. She made a dumbass move, business-wise. Her competitors will mop up.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Or a very courageous moral decision to stand for right and wrong.
Yes, perhaps Westboro Baptist Church can send her some business to make up for the inevitable boycott she'll get from this move. Remember the Chick-fil-a fiasco? Bet the CEO doesnt make THAT squawk about gay people again real soon. And Chick-fil-a can probably withstand a boycott much easier than a flower shop.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If it was just a suit, yes that would be overkill. But the Washington State Attorney General got into the act and sued her too.
Even though PHILOSOPHICALLY I do not agree with this law, it *IS* the law, and she may have to suffer the consequenses of that, too. I'd be surprised if she's in business this time next year
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you don't keep marriage one man and one woman they could sue you next.
Wow.

That's just an ignorant statement. VERY ignorant.

Whether or not same-sex marriage is found to be legal, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone else for any reason. Sexual identity has no bearing whatsoever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1715 Aug 16, 2013
There's no evidence of discrimination against homosexuals, only an admitted moral belief regarding marriage. If she loses her free speech, yours may be next.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1716 Aug 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's no evidence of discrimination against homosexuals, only an admitted moral belief regarding marriage. If she loses her free speech, yours may be next.
You are the one stopping free speech by claiming you believe in god and that evolution is false.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min SobieskiSavedEurope 134,420
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,631
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 15 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 23 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web