Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Conservapedia

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)

Comments (Page 117)

Showing posts 2,321 - 2,340 of3,865
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2416
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in God, right? If you're right about that you're wrong about free will.
So uh, make up your mind will ya?
God gave people freewill. So I don't see your point.:-)

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2417
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

lides wrote:
Whoops. Once again, Brian suffers from diarrhea of the mouth without first checking the facts.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/11/r...
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.

.
lides wrote:
And don't forget Loving v Virginia.
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2419
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2424
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2425
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2426
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2427
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2432
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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!

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,321 - 2,340 of3,865
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••