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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2850 Oct 12, 2013
lides wrote:
Of course, in each case that is for the individual to decide, not for the state to mandate.
The state mandates marriage law; individuals are free to associate as they please. I'm in favor of the freedom American gays have; no state punishes same sex marriage or same sex cohabitation.

.
lides wrote:
You are not a conservative, you are fascist, you wish to substitute your judgment and force others to comply with it.
I favor democracy, California's citizens voted twice to define marriage as one man and one woman and twice courts forced those citizens with contrary judgement. Down with activist courts rewriting marriage law against the will of the people.

I oppose government that isn't interested in the consent of the governed. I love freedom; keep marriage as is. One man and one woman marriage is the middle of the road, moderate position while rewriting marriage laws to define two men or two women as 'married' is the radical, extremist position.

.
lides wrote:
That is neither conservative, nor does it respect individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom in general. In short, you are an extremist of the worst variety.
Just as Russian anti-speech laws against homosexuals is extremist, radically redefining a fundamental social institution without the consent of the governed, is extremist and fascist.

I favor our freedom to live with who we please, not the 'equal right' of ersatz gender equality and the destruction of the American family by the left.

.
lides wrote:
First of all, child rearing and legal marriage are not intrinsically linked.
^^^This is where we differ, I believe marriage makes a socially acceptable bed for marriage sexual intercourse and a stable home for the children of that union. Here we differ, lides doesn't care about the value of a social model that encourages people to raise their children; he cares more about gender equality and radical social change.

.
lides wrote:
Secondly, you have been utterly incapable of providing proof that same sex parents produce any worse outcomes than any other parents.
I have no interest in 'pro[ving] that same sex couples produce worse' anything! I respect gays and want them to be the best parents they can without forcing new marriage laws on everyone. Many gays make wonderful parents; many gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. What same sex couples can't do, is reproduce without heterosexual union so I hope we'll respect reality when we debate the issue of same sex marriage.

.
lides wrote:
You make many claims, but you offer no substantiation.
Human biology substantiates the need for heterosexual union for posterity. I oppose laws that don't respect the people's will or natural law; that's why I defend traditional marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2851 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This proves Bobby hasn't read my previous posts we're I've condemned Putin's free speech restrictions directed against homosexuals. Gays in Russia face discrimination and homophobia while in America, they are free to ignore the dangers to Russian gays while the left pursues a radical policy of social change. He's just so wrong, it isn't funny.
Let's work together to save lives instead of working against each other on the issue of redefining marriage. That way, we'll have a better world. Gays in America are free to speak, write and cohabit while gays in the Muslim countries, Jamaica and Russia face laws that jeopardize happiness, freedom and life. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
Creationism is a stupid reason to hate gays and women.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2852 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The state mandates marriage law; individuals are free to associate as they please. I'm in favor of the freedom American gays have; no state punishes same sex marriage or same sex cohabitation.
.
<quoted text>I favor democracy, California's citizens voted twice to define marriage as one man and one woman and twice courts forced those citizens with contrary judgement. Down with activist courts rewriting marriage law against the will of the people.
I oppose government that isn't interested in the consent of the governed. I love freedom; keep marriage as is. One man and one woman marriage is the middle of the road, moderate position while rewriting marriage laws to define two men or two women as 'married' is the radical, extremist position.
.
<quoted text>Just as Russian anti-speech laws against homosexuals is extremist, radically redefining a fundamental social institution without the consent of the governed, is extremist and fascist.
I favor our freedom to live with who we please, not the 'equal right' of ersatz gender equality and the destruction of the American family by the left.
.
<quoted text>^^^This is where we differ, I believe marriage makes a socially acceptable bed for marriage sexual intercourse and a stable home for the children of that union. Here we differ, lides doesn't care about the value of a social model that encourages people to raise their children; he cares more about gender equality and radical social change.
.
<quoted text>I have no interest in 'pro[ving] that same sex couples produce worse' anything! I respect gays and want them to be the best parents they can without forcing new marriage laws on everyone. Many gays make wonderful parents; many gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. What same sex couples can't do, is reproduce without heterosexual union so I hope we'll respect reality when we debate the issue of same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>Human biology substantiates the need for heterosexual union for posterity. I oppose laws that don't respect the people's will or natural law; that's why I defend traditional marriage.
Religious cowards with no evidence for god have the most fundamentalist opinions.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#2853 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>..... Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
Please provide proof that gay folks legally marrying will cause their deaths.
How does that work, exactly, and why doesn't the same apply to straight folks, who marry in large numbers?
All of the studies ans statistics seem to prove you wrong.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#2854 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>......I favor democracy, California's citizens voted twice to define marriage as one man and one woman and twice courts forced those citizens with contrary judgement......
In our country, if we choose to vote to violate another citizen's basic civil and human rights, for no logical reason or valid state interest, then such laws are overturned.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Do you really hate the system our founding fathers created THAT much? If so, why stay here?

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#2855 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>....
.
<quoted text>Human biology substantiates the need for heterosexual union for posterity. I oppose laws that don't respect the people's will or natural law; that's why I defend traditional marriage.
What a silly thing to say. Marriage is in no way required for procreation, and people procreate outside of it all the time.

It does provide stability and protection for raising children, and of course that applies equally for gay couples and their kids.

Now, we already know that a majority can't vote to strip away basic civil and human rights from other folks, for no reason or state interest, even if it is "their will", so that bit makes little sense.

And what does "natural law" have to do with the human invention of legal marriage?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2856 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The state mandates marriage law; individuals are free to associate as they please. I'm in favor of the freedom American gays have; no state punishes same sex marriage or same sex cohabitation.<BS Truncated>
Brian, you are lying. 30 states still have gay marriage bans. While not specifically punishment, it is absolutley the obstructions of constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law.

Why do you defend unconstitutional laws?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2857 Oct 12, 2013
Brian tries to sound smart, but at the end of the day, he's another mentally ill creationist with no evidence for any of his hateful beliefs about gays or women.

He's also ignorant about climate change as his badge should be I love CO instead of CO2.

That's what happens to most faith based mentally ill people - they lose it completely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2858 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This proves Bobby hasn't read my previous posts we're I've condemned Putin's free speech restrictions directed against homosexuals. Gays in Russia face discrimination and homophobia while in America, they are free to ignore the dangers to Russian gays while the left pursues a radical policy of social change. He's just so wrong, it isn't funny.
Let's work together to save lives instead of working against each other on the issue of redefining marriage. That way, we'll have a better world. Gays in America are free to speak, write and cohabit while gays in the Muslim countries, Jamaica and Russia face laws that jeopardize happiness, freedom and life. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
Yes I agree your logic does not follow. But then you're only interested in the freedom for your bigotry to go unchecked because you hate America and the Constitution upon which it was founded.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2859 Oct 12, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Brian tries to sound smart, but at the end of the day, he's another mentally ill creationist with no evidence for any of his hateful beliefs about gays or women.
He's also ignorant about climate change as his badge should be I love CO instead of CO2.
That's what happens to most faith based mentally ill people - they lose it completely.
Of course if fundies are to be considered mentally ill then you and Bri should go and see the same psychiatrist.

:-p

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#2860 Oct 12, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Brian tries to sound smart, but at the end of the day, he's another mentally ill creationist with no evidence for any of his hateful beliefs about gays or women.
So now that you have Gave Brian a diagnosis and an excuse,,, What is yours? You are an @sss to everyone, just sayn.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2861 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This proves Bobby hasn't read my previous posts we're I've condemned Putin's free speech restrictions directed against homosexuals. Gays in Russia face discrimination and homophobia while in America, they are free to ignore the dangers to Russian gays while the left pursues a radical policy of social change. He's just so wrong, it isn't funny.
Let's work together to save lives instead of working against each other on the issue of redefining marriage. That way, we'll have a better world. Gays in America are free to speak, write and cohabit while gays in the Muslim countries, Jamaica and Russia face laws that jeopardize happiness, freedom and life. Reason 3 for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
You homophobes love to make ominous sounding non statements. "Radical policy of social change." Oh, STFU, after they stop showing pairs of gay men in tuxes getting married on the news because it's no longer news, how would you even know if gay couples are getting married or not? "Radical policy of social change" my blackside.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2862 Oct 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The state mandates marriage law; individuals are free to associate as they please. I'm in favor of the freedom American gays have; no state punishes same sex marriage or same sex cohabitation.
.
<quoted text>I favor democracy, California's citizens voted twice to define marriage as one man and one woman and twice courts forced those citizens with contrary judgement. Down with activist courts rewriting marriage law against the will of the people.
I oppose government that isn't interested in the consent of the governed. I love freedom; keep marriage as is. One man and one woman marriage is the middle of the road, moderate position while rewriting marriage laws to define two men or two women as 'married' is the radical, extremist position.
Well, stupid, nobody who doesn't want to enter into a gay marriage will be forced to. Freedom.
Doesn't matter if a position is "middle of the road" or not, idiot.
Your parents didn't keep marriage one man one woman. Should they have been forced to remain married?

.
Brian_G wrote:
<
<quoted text>Human biology substantiates the need for heterosexual union for posterity. I oppose laws that don't respect the people's will or natural law; that's why I defend traditional marriage.
You parents didn't. They hated you so much, they divorced!
And idiot, people can reproduce just fine without marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2863 Oct 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Creationism is a stupid reason to hate gays and women.
You're wrong to hate gays and women, no matter the reason.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2864 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
What a silly thing to say. Marriage is in no way required for procreation, and people procreate outside of it all the time.
Unwed motherhood isn't necessarily the best social policy; that's why most people oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.

.
Quest wrote:
It does provide stability and protection for raising children, and of course that applies equally for gay couples and their kids.
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.

.
Quest wrote:
Now, we already know that a majority can't vote to strip away basic civil and human rights from other folks, for no reason or state interest, even if it is "their will", so that bit makes little sense.
Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.

.
Quest wrote:
And what does "natural law" have to do with the human invention of legal marriage?
Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female. Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2865 Oct 13, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, you are lying. 30 states still have gay marriage bans. While not specifically punishment, it is absolutley the obstructions of constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law. Why do you defend unconstitutional laws?
Polygamy is banned, not same sex marriage. Name one person imprisoned or fined for same sex marriage, anywhere in the USA.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2866 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.

.

Quest wrote, "It does provide stability and protection for raising children, and of course that applies equally for gay couples and their kids."

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.

.

Quest wrote, "Now, we already know that a majority can't vote to strip away basic civil and human rights from other folks, for no reason or state interest, even if it is "their will", so that bit makes little sense."

Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.

.

Quest wrote, "And what does "natural law" have to do with the human invention of legal marriage? "

Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female. Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
They however are not remain parentless...you are really starting to get on my nerves.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2867 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.

.

Quest wrote, "It does provide stability and protection for raising children, and of course that applies equally for gay couples and their kids."

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.

.

Quest wrote, "Now, we already know that a majority can't vote to strip away basic civil and human rights from other folks, for no reason or state interest, even if it is "their will", so that bit makes little sense."

Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.

.

Quest wrote, "And what does "natural law" have to do with the human invention of legal marriage? "

Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female. Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
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.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2868 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.

.

Quest wrote, "It does provide stability and protection for raising children, and of course that applies equally for gay couples and their kids."

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.

.

Quest wrote, "Now, we already know that a majority can't vote to strip away basic civil and human rights from other folks, for no reason or state interest, even if it is "their will", so that bit makes little sense."

Radically redefining marriage is in no way a basic civil or human right.

.

Quest wrote, "And what does "natural law" have to do with the human invention of legal marriage? "

Natural law defines human reproduction as male/female. Since civilizations need citizens, marriage is male/female, for posterity.
Your last statement is ridiculous in the fact that you are taking every emotion from marriage and making it the biblical fashion of sex simply for reproduction. Get over yourself and society needing to survive...I seriously don't understand what you are getting at...so you think that if gay marriage were to become legal an common place everywhere in America or the world for that matter, the entire world would become gay and everyone would stop having children???? What's your freakin problem with it???? Plain and simple.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2869 Oct 13, 2013
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.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 min Religionthebiglie 51,286
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 4 min NorCal Native 5,174
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Reverend Alan 6,094
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 9 min Fa-Foxy 48
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 16 min Rainbow Kid 41
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 32 min Slick Willie 2,727
Creep of the Week: Pat Robertson 32 min KarmaIsABeeyotch 15
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 44 min KiMerde 3,029
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 11 hr NorCal Native 21
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 16 hr Poopdeck Pappy 68,588
More from around the web