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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2418 Sep 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
This is like the Justice of the Peace in Pennsylvania who issued same sex wedding licenses when the state's law defines marriage as one man and one woman.
Same sex marriage is like suing Christians who refuse to participate in a same sex wedding.
Brian, you are an idiot.

How does allowing same sex marriage in anyway impact upon traditional marriages whether existing or yet to be performed. Give us the chance to think you aren't a complete imbecile.

The Philly judge is wrong, and is acting out of accordance with the law. That said, they are acting from a point of moral superiority, and are doing what is correct under the US Constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage.
You are an idiot. Actually, you are less than an idiot.

Loving weakens, not strengthens your case, by reiterating that a restriction that serves no compelling governmental interest is unconstitutional.

Congratulations for reiterating that you are an imbecile.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2419 Sep 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue. Do you know why mixed race couples never sued wedding service providers but same sex couples do?
You might want to check your history before you make claims like that. For a long time it was illegal for mixed race couples to marry in many states. They had to sue to get recognized. Even after it was legal, many services refused to serve them. Again, they had to sue. Seems like SSm is following the same path as inter-racial marriage did about 40-60 years ago.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2420 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
God gave people freewill. So I don't see your point.:-)
No, I know you don't. You won't even though I've just explained it all for you (again) on the other thread.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2421 Sep 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage.
No it ain't.

I'll see your male/female marriage only and raise you one US Constitution.

There is no way you win until you replace the Founding Document.

Which IS what the IDC movement is all about after all.(shrug)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2422 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheers!(Dude raises glass)
Cheers back at you!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2423 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Mixed race marriage leads to closures and increased unemployment!!!!!!!!!!
Black marriage leads to closures and increased unemployment!!!!!!!!!!
>:-(
Back in the 50's? Shortly after WW2's ugly conclusion?

Some folk said the same about the Japanese...

... it's all just racism/bigotry.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2424 Sep 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Religion has nothing to do with not wanting some guy's a-hole or dk showing in a public place, but you don't have a child to consider who doesn't deserve some stranger displaying his genitals in a belligerent manner. Kids have a much closer view than most adults which adds to the magnitude of offensive.
You have gotten too used to making excuses for pervs, Bob.
Stalking post duly noted.

As is your hate speech.

And your final note of projective hate-speech is especially ironic.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2425 Sep 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a prude.
...and you cannot seriously blame clothing on the Abrahamic religions.
No-- you would have to make **much** improvement, to RISE to the lofty status of just being "prude".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2426 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
God gave people freewill. So I don't see your point.:-)
That's impossible.

If your god is omniscient? Then free will cannot co-exist with such a being.

Omniscient means "all knowing". Meaning there cannot possibly be free will, if every single action is already **known**.

That fixes those actions into concrete-- cannot change.

A mere mortal could **not** go against what an all-knowing god already knows.

So free will cannot co-exist with an all-knowing god.

However, if a god is **not** all-knowing? Why call it god?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2427 Sep 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to check your history before you make claims like that. For a long time it was illegal for mixed race couples to marry in many states. They had to sue to get recognized. Even after it was legal, many services refused to serve them. Again, they had to sue. Seems like SSm is following the same path as inter-racial marriage did about 40-60 years ago.
Indeed it is... the same people are on either side of the issue too.

The majority of those folk **against** same-sex marriage?

Are the deeply religious, who claim their magic "holy" book tells them to be.

Just as they did against the blacks, back then.

No different.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2428 Sep 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
You might want to check your history before you make claims like that. For a long time it was illegal for mixed race couples to marry in many states. They had to sue to get recognized. Even after it was legal, many services refused to serve them. Again, they had to sue. Seems like SSm is following the same path as inter-racial marriage did about 40-60 years ago.
The difference is mixed race couples sued the state and same sex couples sue Christian wedding service providers like bakers, florists and photographers.

If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2429 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
No it ain't. I'll see your male/female marriage only and raise you one US Constitution. There is no way you win until you replace the Founding Document. Which IS what the IDC movement is all about after all.(shrug)
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed in America. Gender equality exists in Canada, Mexico and The Netherlands, but not in the USA.

If you love the differences between men and women, keep marriage male/female.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2430 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed in America. Gender equality exists in Canada, Mexico and The Netherlands, but not in the USA.
If you love the differences between men and women, keep marriage male/female.
More hyperbole. Legalising gay marriage is not going to eradicate the differences between men and women. Its just gong to eradicate the difference in STATUS between heterosexuals and gays. Totally different.

And the more I have thought about it, the more it looks to me like if a person represents themselves as offering a service to the public, then they have to serve any member of the public that meets the relevant conditions for provision of the service.

Do you really want a Muslim taxi driver being able to refuse to carry you from the airport with your bottle of duty free bourbon? How about if you are a woman and he thinks your dress is too short? Do you want a hair salon to be allowed to refuse chinese customers? Or chinese restaurant refusing whites?

Taking photos or baking a cake bought by someone who has not violated YOUR principles should not be a problem. Nobody is asking the muslim taxi driver to take a drink, and nobody is asking the photographer to kiss the "bride". A wedding cake is the same product no matter who buys it, and the money is the same colour.

So after some thought, I reckon the gays have a right to sue. Though to be honest, it would be better all round if they just find someone willing to provide the service, if that is a viable option.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2431 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The difference is mixed race couples sued the state and same sex couples sue Christian wedding service providers like bakers, florists and photographers.
If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you don't want to be sued, follow the law.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2432 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution. The ERA failed in America. Gender equality exists in Canada, Mexico and The Netherlands, but not in the USA.
If you love the differences between men and women, keep marriage male/female.
Liar. The 14th Amendment says all PERSONS should get equal protection. Both men and women are persons. The ERA would have been redundant.
Your last statement is a non sequitur
You love Co2, but you hate gay people.
And still, not one rational argument against gay marriage!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2433 Sep 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
More hyperbole. Legalising gay marriage is not going to eradicate the differences between men and women. Its just gong to eradicate the difference in STATUS between heterosexuals and gays. Totally different. And the more I have thought about it, the more it looks to me like if a person represents themselves as offering a service to the public, then they have to serve any member of the public that meets the relevant conditions for provision of the service.
Do you really want a Muslim taxi driver being able to refuse to carry you from the airport with your bottle of duty free bourbon? How about if you are a woman and he thinks your dress is too short? Do you want a hair salon to be allowed to refuse chinese customers? Or chinese restaurant refusing whites? Taking photos or baking a cake bought by someone who has not violated YOUR principles should not be a problem. Nobody is asking the muslim taxi driver to take a drink, and nobody is asking the photographer to kiss the "bride". A wedding cake is the same product no matter who buys it, and the money is the same colour. So after some thought, I reckon the gays have a right to sue. Though to be honest, it would be better all round if they just find someone willing to provide the service, if that is a viable option.
Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor; see the post above for possible examples.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2434 Sep 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Liar. The 14th Amendment says all PERSONS should get equal protection. Both men and women are persons. The ERA would have been redundant. Your last statement is a non sequitur You love Co2, but you hate gay people. And still, not one rational argument against gay marriage!
Then, the second section of the 14th explicitly recognizes male and female as different and unequal; just as it recognizes citizen and noncitizen and adult and minor as unequal. Read the whole Amendment, not just the first part.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2435 Sep 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
If you don't want to be sued, follow the law.
If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage male/female.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2436 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
There's no specific dwarf equality right in the Constitution either, but they still have equal rights too.

Thanks again for admitting that you are against equal rights.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2437 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor; see the post above for possible examples.
People have the right to sue others if they break the law. You wish to deny people that right. Again you are against people having rights.

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 49 min ChristineM 13,226
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 55 min Brian_G 31,163
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 255,265
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 2 hr Thinking 4
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 3 hr Arrogant Creatures 17
There are no such things as gods or fairies 7 hr Eagle 12 31
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 9 hr Patrick 4,347
More from around the web