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

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2438 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.
They also sue business that violated the law.

Grow up, dingbat.
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.
Do you enjoy being proven to be an imbecile?

Does the 14th Amendment require states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, yes or no?

If the former, then your assertion is complete and total bull**** spoken by an idiotic troll for the ages. Brian, you are a moron.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2439 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Is section 2 still active, imbecile?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2440 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.
Same sex couples **also** sued the state-- multiple times.

... and **won**.

This is one of many reasons why same sex marriage is now **legal** in several states.

... and why that will continue to grow until all 50 states are forced to comply.

Here's a hanky-- for you to blubber in, when that fine day rolls around.

Happy Blubbering!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2441 Sep 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I cannot fault a single paragraph you wrote-- brilliant.

I even agree with your final one-- it'd be better if people could just get along---

--- I would much prefer that we didn't need **any** forced "civility" in the form of equality laws.

***sigh***

But until we manage to figure out how to raise kids who did **not** inherit their parents prejudices?

Those laws will have to stay... ugg.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2442 Sep 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want to be sued, follow the law.
Too much to ask, I would think-- his sort thinks the law is something to find a **loophole** for...!!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2443 Sep 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
LOL!

I love it-- "You love Co2, but you hate gay people."

Brilliant satire: "we loves us a fish sandwich, but what we really hate are the rings of Saturn"

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2444 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor; see the post above for possible examples.
To combat **bigotry**?

It was **ALWAYS** neighbor suing neighbor...!

That is because **bigotry** crosses **all** party lines...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2445 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The second section only differentiates between men and women with regards to voting, Brian, since most women weren't allowed to vote when the 14th amendment was ratified. That changed with the passage of the 19th amendment prohibiting denial of voting based on sex. So your claimed constitutional recognition of men and women being different and unequal is not only overstated (and hence a lie), it's also now moot.
Brian_G wrote:
Read the whole Amendment, not just the first part.
Read the whole constitution. For a change.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2446 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage male/female.
If you don't want to be sued Brian, stop breaking the law.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2447 Sep 6, 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.

Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage.
No, Loving v. Virginia is the SCOTUS ruling striking down anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional and reiterating that fundamental rights can't be infringed absent a compelling government interest to do so.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2448 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.
Actually, same sex couples have sued multiple states because of the infringement of their fundamental right to marry.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2449 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.
SCOTUS has ruled sex a quasi-suspect class subject to intermediate scrutiny under constitutional equal protection law. So citizens do have a right to not be subject to discrimination based on sex.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2450 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor; see the post above for possible examples.
Heterosexuals sue their neighbors too.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2451 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means closed shops and unemployment:
Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes
GRESHAM, Ore. A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors.
On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone.
Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read "Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham."
http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-that-d...
Your own link states the bakery did not permanently close but rather was going to become "an in home bakery".

Why do you lie, Brian?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2452 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what happened, they had sold to the couple before. The issue isn't orientation, far less race; the issue is compelling Christians to support same sex weddings.
I'm against it. Same sex marriage leads to business closures and increased unemployment.
The law doesn't care about the thousands of times you may have complied with it. It only cares about the time you broke the law.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2453 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Brian, not all of the Amendment is applicable to the current conversation.

Section two, is no longer active, as it has been superseded by the 19th Amendment.

Do you set out to make yourself look stupid? If so, you are doing a wonderful job.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2454 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, we mustn't "ban all marriages where children are not possible"; that's Bob's fascistic idea, not mine. I merely observed male/female marriage gives society a benefit same sex marriage can't provide
Neither the existence nor the ability to exercise fundamental rights like marriage are predicated on whether they provide benefits to the state or society. There are plenty of examples alone of free speech that did NOT benefit the state. The state is forbidden from infringing a fundamental right absent a compelling government interest to do so.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Same sex marriage is like suing your christian neighbors if they decline to serve your wedding as florists, photographers or bakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you don't want to be sued,then don't break the law. Problem solved.

Why do you lie, Brian?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2455 Sep 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want to be sued,then don't break the law. Problem solved.
Why do you lie, Brian?
It's his modus operandi.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2456 Sep 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Why do you lie, Brian?
He must.

He is a Person Of Faith...

... which, by definition, is the belief in things for which there is no evidence ...

... or to put it bluntly as Kate Smurthwaite did?

An idiot.

:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2457 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor; see the post above for possible examples.
Stupid Brian, people sue people for all kinds of things. Should we eliminate everything so people won't sue?

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Aura Mytha 14,829
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 18 min NoahLovesU 2,858
why? 35 min Uncle Sam 83
Really, God? 1 hr Thinking 2
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 7 hr thetruth 302
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 11 hr Lumajuice 23,499
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) Sat geezerjock 1,263
More from around the web