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.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2295 Aug 31, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The judgicons hurt you? My, how sensitive you are, Little Red Bobbing Hood.
I'll try not to be so vicious in future, lol.
"Glass houses", hypocrite.
Little Red Bobbing Hood priceless.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2296 Aug 31, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The judgicons hurt you? My, how sensitive you are, Little Red Bobbing Hood.
I'll try not to be so vicious in future, lol.
"Glass houses", hypocrite.
Not at all-- but they prove you **are** stalking me.

Sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2297 Aug 31, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is born wanting to suck dk. Nobody. Not even you, GobbledeeBob.
xD
Gays are **born** gay-- even if you don't like that.

Of course, it is looking like nobody on **earth** is born foolish enough to want ...

.... the likes of YOU.

That could easily explain your miserable attitude.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2298 Aug 31, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not yours, Bob.
You just happen to be on a thread I was interested in. Loser.
Yet you feel compelled to **respond** to me, and to mark all my posts with your "stalker's markings".

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2299 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really know what you profess to know?
Has natural selection of societies selected gays as a target?
Why is the opprobrium so widespread? Is it needed?
What has happened to gay loving societies?
Why were there ten female finalists in the last American Idol, five of which incidentally had testicles?
Do we really know?
LOL!(re: American Idol)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2300 Aug 31, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not! They have "gay preferred" crammed into their craniums from day 1.
Your Genuine Christian Bigotry¬ô is showing.

Still.

No **wonder** everyone here thinks you are just a troll-wannabe.

With some work?

Maybe even YOU can RISE to the exalted status of "troll"....

... but you'll need much improvement, first.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2301 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Man refuses gay wedding photography,
Man misses contract.
Man happy, society happy.
Going to enforce your disapproval if he refuses?
Fascist.
You said you were libertarian. Clearly not true.
He benefits from publicly-funded systems, such as electricity, roads, police and fire protection.

That's the nature of a public business.

If he doesn't like that? He's free to become a private club, and provide all those services all on his own.

Some ideas of libertarian are good. Others? Are simply selfishness writ large-- evil, in other words.

Just as some ideas in socialism are good and useful, whereas others are oppressively evil.

No one system has all the answers.

A **rationalist** can pick and choose from among the variety if choices--

--- some from capitalism
--- some from libertarianism
--- some from socialism
--- some from rationalism

Who got to say we **had** to pick from only ONE?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2302 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
He can dress like that because we live in a free society. My suggestion is don't look at his crack hole. Keep your eyes up instead of looking down at his crack hole. Unless he is like 9 foot tall and you are 4 foot tall you have to look down at it to see it. Even though I think it is a stupid way to dress, I cannot tell them how to dress. What if someone said that red is the color of the devil and I don't want anyone wearing it, should we enforce that too?
Nano is just desperate for the attention-- so she stairs until the poor sod has to leave in disgust from her unwanted attentions.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2303 Aug 31, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Little Red Bobbing Hood priceless.
Your True Believer¬ô hate is showing.

Again.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2304 Sep 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
I thought they were business owners, who have a business license. If they can't abide by the rules under which they obtained the license, shouldn't they find another job? If they want to break the law and discriminate against minorities, they really should find something else to do.
This proves the point, same sex marriage is like licensing more and more businesses, government intervention in private trade, the death of the free market.

Same sex marriage is like suing Christian business owners for acting on their faith. There is no harm or hate; only belief marriage is male/female.

If you love capitalism and believe in conservatism; keep marriage one man and one woman.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2305 Sep 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He benefits from publicly-funded systems, such as electricity, roads, police and fire protection.
That's the nature of a public business.
If he doesn't like that? He's free to become a private club, and provide all those services all on his own.
Some ideas of libertarian are good. Others? Are simply selfishness writ large-- evil, in other words.
Just as some ideas in socialism are good and useful, whereas others are oppressively evil.
No one system has all the answers.
A **rationalist** can pick and choose from among the variety if choices--
--- some from capitalism
--- some from libertarianism
--- some from socialism
--- some from rationalism
Who got to say we **had** to pick from only ONE?
The notion that we all benefit from public goods, roads etc, can be infinitely expanded to justify any imposition on the individual.

I don't think there is an easy, formulaic answer to this either.

So I just look at this situation. Some dude who takes photos for a living does not want to photograph a gay wedding. Maybe they make him queezy, maybe he is a bigot, maybe he was molested at the age of 12. Who knows? Who cares? If he wont do the job, he wont get the money.

Now the thought police come along and demand that he bow down to their demands. That is going too far.

What is the measuring rod?

Well, they have gone from demanding their own rights be respected, which is fair enough, to demanding that others are under compulsion, which is not. Business in a free society is a voluntary exchange of goods and services for money. Not a compulsion to serve, but a choice.

There might be needful exceptions when a whole society closes ranks and refuses to treat a group fairly, such as in the deep South in 1960. However this is not the same thing, not even close.

If anyone tells me they cannot find a willing, probably even another gay, photographer, for their wedding, its utter BS. Its grandstanding, its attention seeking. Its the thought police making an example of someone to enforce a point, and its unnecessary. Gays ARE being accepted into the mainstream and there is no need for this.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2306 Sep 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Brian what is it that really bothers you about homosexuals and same sex marriage?
I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman. The issue is same sex marriage; it bothers me because gender integrated marriage is a universal cultural model.

.
replaytime wrote:
Don't give me because the Bible says so or you think it is wrong or you don't believe in it.
The Bible describes marriage as male/female. My parents marriage was male/female; everybody's was. Man's law should recognize nature's law; that's why the state punishes criminals.

.
replaytime wrote:
1. This may came as a big shock but not all believe in the Bible. Not all believe in God. So in their eyes they are breaking nothing and not committing a sin as you call it.
For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage male/female. That's their right.

.
replaytime wrote:
2. Not all see it as wrong. What is wrong for someone may be right for someone else. People should live for what makes them happy, not what makes others happy.
If marriage law is written on the principle, "People should live for what makes them happy", every sexual predilection should be enshrined in marriage law. Also, why should Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons be unhappy, banned from polygamy?

.
replaytime wrote:
3. What you believe is not what they believe. People have the right to believe differently.
Then, why sue a florist, baker or photographer for honestly turning down a same sex wedding business proposal? Can't you accept Christians who believe marriage is one man and one woman without compelling their participation in a same sex wedding ceremony?

The issue isn't freedom, same sex cohabitation, religious same sex wedding ceremonies and requesting your social milieu threat a couple as if married is legal in every state. Polygamy is illegal throughout the USA by federal law; that's a ban.

.
replaytime wrote:
So without using the 3 mentioned above as an excuse,,, Do tell us what your problem is with same sex marriage and homosexuals.
There's no gender equality right in the Constitution, because men and women differ. Marriage is one reflection of human nature, law is another. Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves, it harms individuals, causes economic hardship yet enriches trial lawyers.

If you like lawyers, you'll love same sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2307 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman. The issue is same sex marriage; it bothers me because gender integrated marriage is a universal cultural model.
.
<quoted text>The Bible describes marriage as male/female. My parents marriage was male/female; everybody's was. Man's law should recognize nature's law; that's why the state punishes criminals.
.
<quoted text>For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage male/female. That's their right.
.
<quoted text>If marriage law is written on the principle, "People should live for what makes them happy", every sexual predilection should be enshrined in marriage law. Also, why should Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons be unhappy, banned from polygamy?
.
<quoted text>Then, why sue a florist, baker or photographer for honestly turning down a same sex wedding business proposal? Can't you accept Christians who believe marriage is one man and one woman without compelling their participation in a same sex wedding ceremony?
The issue isn't freedom, same sex cohabitation, religious same sex wedding ceremonies and requesting your social milieu threat a couple as if married is legal in every state. Polygamy is illegal throughout the USA by federal law; that's a ban.
.
<quoted text>There's no gender equality right in the Constitution, because men and women differ. Marriage is one reflection of human nature, law is another. Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves, it harms individuals, causes economic hardship yet enriches trial lawyers.
If you like lawyers, you'll love same sex marriage.
Your opinions, like that of all creationists are to be regarded as worthless until you can prove your god and disprove evolution.

Since that will never happen, the best course of action is to f*ck off.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2308 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves, it harms individuals, causes economic hardship yet enriches trial lawyers.
Really? By that reasoning all marriage creates more problems than it solves. Should we simply ban marriage then?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2309 Sep 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Your opinions, like that of all creationists are to be regarded as worthless until you can prove your god and disprove evolution.
Since I neither believe in creation, wish to prove the existence of any faith based entity or ideal nor question evolution; does that make my opinions valuable? Why are these things connected, other than idiosyncratic conspiracy?

Our Christian neighbors are being sued because they refuse to serve at a same sex wedding.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Since that will never happen, the best course of action is to f*ck off.
^^^Good evidence of same sex marriage supporter's nature.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2310 Sep 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Really? By that reasoning all marriage creates more problems than it solves. Should we simply ban marriage then?
No, since male/female marriage gives the benefit of procreation, it supersedes same sex marriage. A cost benefit shows marriage is so important, even sterile male/female partners may marry out of respect for privacy.

Same sex marriage couples sued photographers, bakers and florists for refusing to participate in their weddings. That's the difference from interracial couples; they didn't sue.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2311 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, since male/female marriage gives the benefit of procreation, it supersedes same sex marriage. A cost benefit shows marriage is so important, even sterile male/female partners may marry out of respect for privacy.
Same sex marriage couples sued photographers, bakers and florists for refusing to participate in their weddings. That's the difference from interracial couples; they didn't sue.
You are conflating two different issues here.

One is the right of gays to marry. I have not seen you present one decent argument against it. I simply do not understand your paranoia about it so I suspect its just personal distaste dressed in rationalisations.

The other is compulsion in what should be a volutary exchange and there I agree with you.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2312 Sep 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all-- but they prove you **are** stalking me.
Sad.
I respond to Chimney and Dogen far more often than I ever have to you and they are both man enough not to try that stalking accusation. Wimp.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2313 Sep 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
He can dress like that because we live in a free society. My suggestion is don't look at his crack hole. Keep your eyes up instead of looking down at his crack hole. Unless he is like 9 foot tall and you are 4 foot tall you have to look down at it to see it. Even though I think it is a stupid way to dress, I cannot tell them how to dress. What if someone said that red is the color of the devil and I don't want anyone wearing it, should we enforce that too?
A "free society" isn't supposed to include indecent exposure. There's a huge difference between not preferring the color red in your attire and showing your genitals in public. There are children who share this "free society" with us adults and they should not have to wear blinders to keep from seeing some creep's a-hole or penis while they are standing in line at a check out.

Anyone exposing themselves like that should be arrested. It's abusive to the rest of us.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2314 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This proves the point, same sex marriage is like licensing more and more businesses, government intervention in private trade, the death of the free market.
Same sex marriage is like suing Christian business owners for acting on their faith. There is no harm or hate; only belief marriage is male/female.
If you love capitalism and believe in conservatism; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Give it up, Brian, we know you're gay.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A riddle for fun.... 4 hr Guest 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr candlesmell 94,457
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism 6 hr Guest 16
Stephen Hawking, now a believer 7 hr Guest 21
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 6,004
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 9 hr blacklagoon 3 155
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... Sat Eagle 12 - 12