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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#949 Jul 27, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Google Chrome lets me backspace and my words are still there. Sometimes, if it's a large or important post, I'll also copy the entire thing, just to make sure.
Copying to Word was my backup until I switched to Google Chrome. It was shortly after switching from Explorer that I realized how unstable it is compared to Chrome. Since then I haven't seen a similar problem except once when a post I was proofing posted while I was making changes. That could have been operator error since I had entered the captcha numbers in prior to proofing.

Anyway it has been much better since switching. Plus it doesn't lock up like IE did.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#950 Jul 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Posts that cut it close to the character limit often don't appear for a while, then look like they are re-instated later. Can be quite worrying though if you've spent a while typing up a response.
Even more frustrating in work as we have shite computers with shite internet connection.
I have experienced that too. It may be an instability in IE, but I don't know for certain except to say I haven't seen it yet with Chrome.

My computer needs upgraded, but I now have a much better internet connection. Still the chain is only as strong as the weakest link or some new thing will come along because someone "fixed" something.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#951 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Divorce, it maintains consent after marriage.
.
<quoted text>One at a time.
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?

As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#952 Jul 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
We can certainly assume an upper limit of say 70 billion, to allow for multiple remarriages.
<quoted text>
I'm sayin.

:-)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#953 Jul 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Copying to Word was my backup until I switched to Google Chrome. It was shortly after switching from Explorer that I realized how unstable it is compared to Chrome. Since then I haven't seen a similar problem except once when a post I was proofing posted while I was making changes. That could have been operator error since I had entered the captcha numbers in prior to proofing.
Anyway it has been much better since switching. Plus it doesn't lock up like IE did.
IE is yuk. It's useless and poopy.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#954 Jul 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But you **can** use advanced search in Google, and put in the as the domain, the top-level forum you wish to search.
It works pretty well.
That's true.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#955 Jul 28, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
...This is a fundamental question to which I would like to have your answer. How does it affect you?....
Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#956 Jul 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you? As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
Are you for real?

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#957 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Are you for real?
Are you?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#958 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.

Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.

And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#959 Jul 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.
Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.
And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.
Homo

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#960 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage laws affect everyone...
OK. Lets think about that.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage laws affect (...) not just me.
You are dodging the question. I asked HOW does same sex marriage affect you. So, how does it affect you?
Brian_G wrote:
In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market.
The fundamental issue about adoption is not the parents right to adopt, but the child's right to have a familly. If any adoption service is shown not to be acting in the child's best interest, it should be given the chance to change or be put out of business. A child, unlike an adult, is not capable of consent. A child can't choose for him/herself which adoption service will serve his/her best interests. That is why we have law, to give us the best protection possible. The law must put in first place the rights of the individual before the rights of any organization.
Brian_G wrote:
In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings.
Should a business be allowed to deny services for blacks? Should a business be allowed to deny services to down sindrome individuals? Should a business be allowed to deny services to divorced people?
These are not rethorical questions. I would really like to have your reply.
Brian_G wrote:
It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries
Really? Let's stop for a moment and think this trough. Heterosexuals pay taxes so that their dependent benefefiaries have the benefits. You seem to be fine with that. Same sex couples pay taxes too but they are denied the benefits. So, what you are really proposing is that same sex couples keep paying taxes for the exclusive benefit of heterosexuals. Do you get the problem yet?
Brian_G wrote:
new intrusive government regulations
Bullshit, pardon my french. Show me one single valid example.
Brian_G wrote:
and higher taxes for everyone.
Bulshit x 2.
Show me one single state or country (I live in one of those countries, by the way) where same sex marriage led to increased taxes.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#961 Jul 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo
Homo-ette.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#962 Jul 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?
As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
Whoa! Brian G and the rest of the fundamentalists want everyone to be heterosexual, but not TOO heterosexual.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#963 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.
Yes, the Civil War was wasteful government spending as well and the abolishing of slavery forced many businesses to seek new models and some even collapsed. We should probably vote to reinstate it and this time not make it so exclusive. Economic speculation is always a good reason to exclude people that scare us out of the rights they are being withheld. Right. Gotcha.

This is always where your argument leads. You are afraid the little gods living in your wallet are going to be offended. It is always your last stop on the "I want the world to be like me" train ride.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#964 Jul 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
IE is yuk. It's useless and poopy.
I have used similar words to describe it, yes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#965 Jul 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.
We can discuss entitlement reform if you like, then let's compromise on civil unions; everybody's happy.

.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.
The issue isn't emotion, like and dislike; the issue is the greater good. Same sex marriage forces government to see husband and wife as if unisex, affecting all of society. Same sex marriage laws affect divorce, property and child custody laws; it's a fundamental change to the sex integration and affirmative action male/female marriage provides society.

Same sex marriage law affected , Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in Richland, Washington when she was sued by the State's AG. Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 Schedule B donors list to their political enemies, the HRC.

How does same sex marriage not affect everyone?

.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.
Changing the nomenclature doesn't create wealth. You can call something a 'marriage' but that doesn't make it so.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#966 Jul 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?
As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
You realize that just saying this causes thousands of divorce lawyers to salivate uncontrollably.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#967 Jul 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.
Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.
And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.
That pretty much sums up his position in my opinion. BG always lands on money and his fear that somehow he is footing the bill for the entire world. Fundamentalists have switched from the worship of God to that of the Bible and money. These issues trample all over his religious beliefs. Against a contradictory anthology of allegories and may cost him money.

Gay couples may even strengthen the institution of marriage. Look at the commitment expressed just to be allowed to exercise their own rights under fire from the opposition to do so.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#968 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We can discuss entitlement reform if you like, then let's compromise on civil unions; everybody's happy.
If everyone is having civil unions, hetero's, homo's and bis, ok, no worries. It's silly, immoral and immature to classify one sexuality's civil union as marriage and not another's.
The issue isn't emotion, like and dislike; the issue is the greater good.
Yeah, I don't believe you.
Same sex marriage forces government to see husband and wife as if unisex, affecting all of society. Same sex marriage laws affect divorce, property and child custody laws; it's a fundamental change to the sex integration and affirmative action male/female marriage provides society.
No worries, allowing same sex marriage would boost the economy.
Same sex marriage law affected , Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in Richland, Washington when she was sued by the State's AG. Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 Schedule B donors list to their political enemies, the HRC.
How does same sex marriage not affect everyone?
No idea, not familiar with the case or why it's relevant. Lots of heteros get divorced, sue each other, have dependents, whatever. Marriage itself still increases the economy.
Changing the nomenclature doesn't create wealth. You can call something a 'marriage' but that doesn't make it so.
This is why, for you, it's an emotional thing. You, against all reason, believe that marriage is relegated to only opposite sex couples. You're mistaken.

I'm an anthropologist - my discipline is all about human culture. The definition of marriage, in anthropology, is inclusive. Cross culturally, as a human universal, marriage is defined by one or more of these six cateogries:

1. Establishes (Est.) the legal father of a woman’s children and the legal mother of a man’s
2. Give either or both spouses (GEOBS) a monopoly on the sexuality of the other
3. GEOBS rights to the labor of the other
4. GEOBS rights over the other’s property
5. Est. a joint fund of property – a partnership – for the benefit of the children
6. Est. a socially significant “relationship of affinity” between spouses and their relatives

Worldwide, cultures allow for the marriage of same sex couples in all kinds of different situations - some b/c genders are defined differently (males can be 'manly women,' females can be 'womanly men' in addition to the usual man/women), some as surrogates for the opposite sex husband/wife, some just as is - men-men, women-women.

So you can only be getting your definition of marriage from a culturally bound, probably specific religious view. Sorry, but that's not a human universal. Marriage isn't defined by your particular religion or your particular culture; marriage is a universal among human cultures.

If you believe your culture to be an enlightened one, then you have to move beyond societal prejudice. If you cannot do that, you're simply spouting yet another culturally bound discriminatory ideal, aimed at producing a "normal" majority though shared, imagined ideas of legitimacy based on marginalizing and restricting the lives the few.

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
News Straight or gay? Your boss wants to know 10 min Roscoe 7
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 11 min Lucy 383
News Anti-gay parents compare LGBT student group at ... 16 min Roscoe 27
News Man Accused Of Firing Paintballs At Stockton Ga... 22 min Roscoe 50
News Britain, EU plunged into uncertainty by exit vote 25 min Roscoe 5
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 29 min Frankie Rizzo 12,974
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 48 min Siam 36,033
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 49 min Respect71 37,251
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 2 hr Nopal 593
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 2 hr OK Barry 899
More from around the web