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.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2917 Oct 15, 2013
Remus wrote:
<quoted text>If these "straight" men are sticking their d!cks in other men's asses then yes they are mentally ill!

Nothing wrong with a man f*cking a woman in her ass. Women were made to take a d!ck three ways.
You must really be gay if you've stayed away from a girls got spot to learn that about an a**hole... Although you are spouting a lack of intelligence extremely well, So it could be all the anal sex that's caused a mental illness for yourself ;-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2918 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You can't deny the fact that same sex marriage would increase government spending, we dispute whether it's wasteful.
I wouldn't find upholding the Constitution wasteful.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2919 Oct 15, 2013
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2920 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
You hold a discriminatory viewpoint that does nothing, but hold back our societies happiness and freedom for no good reason other than you are arrogant enough to believe that your happiness and freedom is more important than someone else's. it's disgusting and ridiculous.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2921 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
Sorry, stupid, the 14th Amendment says all PERSONS should get equal protection under the law. Despite the fact you consider women inferior, we are still PERSONS.
Lots of stuff predates the Constitution, dummy. So what?
Learn what "ex post facto" is about, you worthless pile of crap. It doesn't mean laws can't be changed, it means you can't be charged, oh never mind idiot, it's too complex for you.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2923 Oct 15, 2013
Norton wrote:
Why do queers do each other up the butt?
THAT'S SO SICK!!!
Most men into anal sex are straight, stupid.
And unlike you, most people wipe after defecating.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2925 Oct 15, 2013
Norton wrote:
Why do queers do each other up the butt?

THAT'S SO SICK!!!
Lol...Awww. Your confused dear...there's all kinds of anal porn out there not just the male on male. Are you sure you aren't queer yourself? Is that why you only know of the male on make action? Lmao

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2926 Oct 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.
There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality".
The constitution explicitly requires equal protection of the laws for all citizens. And SCOTUS has ruled sex a quasi-suspect class for equal protection law. So discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited unless there's an important government interest served by it.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
There are historical examples of same sex marriage as well, Brian, so that isn't a valid reason to exclude gays from exercising their fundamental right of marriage. Nor does the prohibition against ex post facto laws apply to fundamental rights.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2927 Oct 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
You hold a discriminatory viewpoint that does nothing, but hold back our societies happiness and freedom for no good reason other than you are arrogant enough to believe that your happiness and freedom is more important than someone else's. it's disgusting and ridiculous.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals. Keeping marriage one man and one woman is about tolerating everyone and not writing special laws to celebrate homosexuality.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2928 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
Can you please show us the section where the constitution explicitly shows that men and women must be treated unequally under the law?

I missed that part.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2929 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals. Keeping marriage one man and one woman is about tolerating everyone and not writing special laws to celebrate homosexuality.
As I said...if they have a business that is open to the public then they have no right to be discriminatory based on something that does not affect their life directly.
Ocean56

AOL

#2930 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals.
If a business refuses to supply their product to a customer because that customer is gay, their refusal is DISCRIMINATION. That applies to so-called "Christian" businesses as well.

If "Christians" want to operate a business, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2932 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals. Keeping marriage one man and one woman is about tolerating everyone and not writing special laws to celebrate homosexuality.
Forcing Christian vendors to serve homosexuals is like forcing racists in 60s america to accept Rosa Parks.

Its a great idea.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2933 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality
Then why do you advocate discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights?
Brian_G wrote:
but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals.
People who are in business to provide goods and services to the general public as a public accommodation are subject to applicable laws and regulations by the state, including anti-discrimination laws. And gays are part of the general public.
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is about tolerating everyone and not writing special laws to celebrate homosexuality.
So you show "tolerance" by infringing on the fundamental right of gays to marry, Brian? And advocating Christians should be be allowed to discriminate against anyone they choose goes beyond "special" laws or privileges; you want them to be ABOVE the law altogether.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2934 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
Brian, don't be an idiot. The constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and the portion of the US Constitution you refer to has been superseded by the 19th Amendment.

Do you mean to present yourself as being intentionally ignorant?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#2936 Oct 16, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexual acts are a lie so why do you lie? Gays can NEVER produce a child and yet you lie and expect to be provided with one.
It is you infringing upon children's rights to be endowed with a female mother during the child's most indelible years of their lives. So why do you lie?
Why do those identifying as homosexual feel the need to project their sexual depravity upon others? So why do you lie?
Because most people like myself are here to put an end to those attempting to share their sexual depravity with young children and it is you that is using this joo run govt to bully your depravity into the indelible minds of young children without consideration of the parents. So it is you that is the bully.
So why do you lie?
Massachusetts was 'bullied' into ssm.
So why do you bully?
Wow...you're awfully bitter over there on the wrong side of history...
Crolath

Redding, CA

#2938 Oct 16, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it that two men unable to conceive a child being on the wrong side of history? In the last 100 years this nation has become a destructive society on virtually all living things so I guess it's no surprise that a govt would 'bully' sexual depravity upon society, force them to pay for it, and force it upon young boys and girls. How Jewish of you.
You're on the wrong side of history because bigotry is a shameful state of mind, and the human race is finally maturing enough to realize it. In another generation, people will look back on bigots like you the same way we look back on slave owners: with embarrassment and disgust that our ancestors could have behaved so horribly.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2941 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, but that's no reason to force Christian wedding vendors to support and attend same sex wedding rituals. Keeping marriage one man and one woman is about tolerating everyone and not writing special laws to celebrate homosexuality.
Well, stupid, not everybody should be tolerated. And the violation of people's rights to equal protection should not be tolerated.
You homophobes can't have it both ways. You call current marriage laws "equal" because anybody can marry someone of the opposite sex. But never explain why laws would be "special" if everybody could marry someone of the same sex.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2942 Oct 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
If a business refuses to supply their product to a customer because that customer is gay, their refusal is DISCRIMINATION. That applies to so-called "Christian" businesses as well.
If "Christians" want to operate a business, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Marriage requires consent. Those Christians didn't consent to attend a same sex wedding ritual. What happened to their freedom? Why not just find another florist, photographer or baker who actually wants to support same sex marriage?

Same sex marriage is bad because it violates our religious freedoms.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2943 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage requires consent. Those Christians didn't consent to attend a same sex wedding ritual. What happened to their freedom? Why not just find another florist, photographer or baker who actually wants to support same sex marriage?
Same sex marriage is bad because it violates our religious freedoms.
So, nobody is forcing the Christians to marry, stupid. Their "freedom" to discriminate ended when they set up a business that services the public. If they don't want to sprinkle holy water on same sex couples, or go to a gay wedding as private people, fine. Personally, if I were to marry, and some Christians didn't want to accept $1K to make a cake with a white and black couple on top, I would take my money someplace else, and remind them of what I did often. But, I should not be obligated to do that.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min renee 35,051
Religion is the cause of war and most suffering... 7 min Reason Personified 156
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 24 min woodtick57 20,092
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr superwilly 3,710
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr ChristineM 14,939
There are no such things as gods or fairies 9 hr Amused 102
Majority of Scots now have no religion 9 hr Amused 163
More from around the web