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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2944 Oct 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Then why do you advocate discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights?
^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law. Same sex couples are barren, there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
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.
Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?

.
Terra Firma wrote:
And gays are part of the general public.
Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
So you show "tolerance" by infringing on the fundamental right of gays to marry, Brian?
There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
And advocating Christians should be be allowed to discriminate against anyone they choose
T.F. defames those Christians, they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?

.
Terra Firma wrote:
goes beyond "special" laws or privileges; you want them to be ABOVE the law altogether.
Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation. I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse. I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
Why do you lie, Brian?
Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before. The issue isn't discrimination; the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.

Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2945 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage requires consent. Those Christians didn't consent to attend a same sex wedding ritual.
The consent of the people getting married has nothing to with people invited to attend the wedding., Brian. And businesses aren't even invitees; they're vendors hired to provide goods and services.
Brian_G wrote:
What happened to their freedom?
When obtaining a business license, one agrees to abide by the laws and regulations applicable to any retail establishment. Besides, running a business isn't an act or worship and therefore not subject to freedom of religion claims.
Brian_G wrote:
Why not just find another florist, photographer or baker who actually wants to support same sex marriage?
For the same reason it wasn't acceptable for businesses to tell blacks that. Discrimination is discrimination.There were many Christians who supported slavery and segregation, Brian. Is it acceptable for them to be able to tell blacks to go find someone else to provide provide goods and services?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it violates our religious freedoms.
Way to lie and violate a commandment of God in the name of "religious freedom", Brian!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2946 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law.
Like everybody had the right to vote under the "you can vote if you are a white male who owns property" law?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples are barren,
Well, stupid, you don't have to be able to spawn in order to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.
Even if true, stupid, it doesn't matter. It's now the 21st Century.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?
Whatever idiot, nobody is forcing anybody to pork anybody.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.
The only people who are against one man and one woman marriage are people like your parents who divorced.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.
Stupid, you have no idea what "ex post facto" means! I dig stuff out of the cat box that could grasp that simple concept, but you can't. "Ex post facto" has to do with attempting to punish someone for an act that was legal at the time, but later became illegal. It doesn't mean laws can't be changed.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>T.F. defames those Christians, they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?
ex post facto
<quoted text>Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation.
I want to be free to sterilize idiots like so you can't breed. But, we have laws.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse. I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.
.
<quoted text>Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before. The issue isn't discrimination; the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.
Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.
Hope those Christians go out of business.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2947 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.
Same sex marriage does not violate your religious freedom. You are so full of it. So if I married another woman, then you wouldn't be able to pray anymore, you wouldn't be able to attend church. This is the biggest JOKE I've seen from you yet! They run a public business they should serve the public.

I can only assume by your attitude that you think that if a person is racist and they run a business then they shouldn't have to serve anything to the customer because of their color (Whatever may be the hated one of course). Would I be correct?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2948 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law. Same sex couples are barren, there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.
.
<quoted text>Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?
.
<quoted text>Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.
.
<quoted text>There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.
.
<quoted text>T.F. defames those Christians, they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?
.
<quoted text>Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation. I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse. I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.
.
<quoted text>Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before. The issue isn't discrimination; the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.
Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.
It is not your right to choose someones life partner. Plain and simple.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2949 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law. Same sex couples are barren, there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.
.
<quoted text>Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?
.
<quoted text>Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.
.
<quoted text>There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.
.
<quoted text>T.F. defames those Christians, they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?
.
<quoted text>Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation. I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse. I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.
.
<quoted text>Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before. The issue isn't discrimination; the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.
Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.
Oh and by the way... I'm am a woman, and I am not able to have kids... so are you saying that I don't have the right to be married because I am not able to reproduce??? A**hole.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2950 Oct 16, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law.
The gender serves no compelling government interest and therefore is unconstitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples are barren
The ability to procreate is a requirement of marriage in ANY state. Sterile opposite sex couples are prohibited from marrying, are they Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.
Untrue. The world is larger than the US, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual.
Indeed; if they're invited as a wedding guest. However, businesses aren't invited guests, Brian; they're vendors who provide goods and services to the general public, of which gays are part.
Brian_G wrote:
Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?
Non-sequitar. Discrimination applies to people, not food.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.
Vastly more straight people support same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone.
If a law is found unconstitutional, it's struck down and becomes void and unenforceable. Marriage laws, or more specifically restrictions on exercising the fundamental right of marriage, aren't exempt from judicial review.
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else.
And blacks and whites always married under the same anti-miscegenation laws too, Brian. Equal application of the law isn't the same as equal protection of the law. That's why anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.
You've obviously been misreading the constitution again, Brian. And obviously don't have a clue what it means. All that's prohibited is retroactively changes the legality or consequences of actions committed, or relationships that existed, before the law was enacted. Changing marriage laws to allow same sex couples to marry applies prospectively, not retroactively and such a change has no effect on the marital status of those married before the change.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2951 Oct 16, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
T.F. defames those Christians
On the contrary, Brian, you're merely lying again.
Brian_G wrote:
they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?
Those Christians weren't invited to observe a wedding ritual (whether or not it was religious); they were asked to provide goods and services by a member of the general public the business purports to serve as a public accommodation. Running a business isn't an act of worship and therefore isn't subject to a religious freedom claim.
Brian_G wrote:
Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation. I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse.
If that's what you want, then you should counsel them to go out of business if they don't wish to comply with the laws and regulations applicable to all businesses.
Brian_G wrote:
I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.
No, what you love is their bigotry and their hypocrisy for not obeying the Christian new testament commandment to obey civil authorities and civil law.
Brian_G wrote:
Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before.
Historical compliance with anti-dsicrimination laws doesn't earn a business a "credit" that can be used to break the law without consequence at a future date.
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't discrimination
Actually, it IS the issue.
Brian_G wrote:
the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.[/QUOTE
No one was forced to "attend" a same sex wedding. They were asked to provide the goods and services that purport to be in business to offer the general public as a public accommodation.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.
You have nothing to fear if you obey the law, Brian.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2952 Oct 17, 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.
Creationist based opinions don't count without proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2953 Oct 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, I advocate everyone has the fundamental right to marry under one man and one woman marriage law. Same sex couples are barren, there's no copy of any same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.
.
<quoted text>Citizens have the freedom to turn down an invitation to a same sex wedding ritual. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork in the name of anti-discrimination?
.
<quoted text>Many gays defend one man and one woman marriage.
.
<quoted text>There is no 'fundamental right' to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Same sex marriage would be ex post facto law, unconstitutional.
.
<quoted text>T.F. defames those Christians, they declined to attend a religious wedding ritual; where's there freedom of religious practice?
.
<quoted text>Nonsense; I want them free to decline a same sex wedding gig without threat of litigation. I'm not saying they should agree, then on the day back out with an excuse. I love these Christian's integrity, they refused those customers to other vendors.
.
<quoted text>Look it up, those vendors had served homosexuals before. The issue isn't discrimination; the issue is the religious freedom to not be forced to attend a same sex wedding.
Your freedom is at stake; you could be sued next.
Your cult tells you to hate gays and women. This is why you are opposed to allowing humans the right to marry.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2954 Oct 17, 2013
Brian, refusing to serve people based on their sexuality is not "religious freedom" its called "religious prejudice".

You're obviously a creationist politician because your lies are transparent and you can't debate for sh*t, repeating your ignorant opinions for all to see and laugh at.
Ocean56

AOL

#2955 Oct 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Oh NONSENSE, Brian. Your so-called "arguments" are nothing more than deflection from the fact that this "Christian" vendor is practicing DISCRIMINATION against a gay customer by refusing to supply that customer with the product requested.

Here's a better idea; why can't that "Christian" vendor just STOP discriminating against a gay customer and give him or her the product the customer asked for? Discrimination is bad because it violates a customer's freedoms to do business where he/she chooses.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2956 Oct 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I agree, the Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.
You're lying again.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no Constitutional right to "marriage equality". Male/female marriage predates our Constitution and ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution.
And again. If you were correct then slavery would still be legal since slavery pre-dates the Constitution.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2957 Oct 17, 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.
No it doesn't. It violates your desire for your religion to be the most important. As does the Constitution.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2958 Oct 17, 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.
Brian, simply put, the vendors right to free exercise of religion was not violated. Free exercise does not afford you the ability to project your religious beliefs onto others, or to deny services to someone because they have differing religious moral views.

Why do you defend people who break the law?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2959 Oct 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, simply put, the vendors right to free exercise of religion was not violated. Free exercise does not afford you the ability to project your religious beliefs onto others, or to deny services to someone because they have differing religious moral views.
Why do you defend people who break the law?
Because he's a snivelling lying creationist.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2960 Oct 18, 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.
They gave up their right to discriminate when they started taking money and advertising their floral, photography and baking businesses to the public.

If I walk up to you and say, "Hey Brian_G, will you bake me some scones for my lesbian marriage?" and you say no, I'd say, "OK, no problem".

If I walk into a bakery that serves the public and say, "I'd like 300 scones for my wedding" and the business owner says, "Great, as long as you're not gay or black or a dwarf or asian or an amputee." then you're out of business and you're just Brian again.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2961 Oct 18, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Creationist based opinions don't count without proof of god.
What does creationism have to do with consent of the governed and religious freedom to not attend and serve a same sex wedding ritual?

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Forcing Christian vendors to serve homosexuals is like forcing racists in 60s america to accept Rosa Parks. Its a great idea.
They never refused to serve homosexuals; they refused to serve a religious same sex wedding ceremony. Why don't they have the right to attend or refuse to attend a religious ceremony? I don't get it, how is compelling Christians to attend a same sex wedding ritual not freedom.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Your cult tells you to hate gays and women.
I'm not a radical secularist; my religious tells us to love, not hate.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
This is why you are opposed to allowing humans the right to marry.
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. I accept the right of religious same sex marriage; why not accept the right to not attend that ritual? Why compel religious attendance?

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Brian, refusing to serve people based on their sexuality is not "religious freedom" its called "religious prejudice".
Those Christians wouldn't attend an underage marriage, is that proof of ageism? They would refuse to attend a polygamous marriage ceremony; are they Islamaphobic? Could we dismiss their refusal to attend a compelled marriage as a First Amendment freedom?

The issue is religious freedom, not sexuality.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
You're obviously a creationist politician because your lies are transparent and you can't debate for sh*t, repeating your ignorant opinions for all to see and laugh at.
The only poster discussing creationism is -Skeptic-, see post above as proof. I'm not debating creationism or a specific religion; I'm arguing for freedom, liberty and the right to worship as you please.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2962 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What does creationism have to do with consent of the governed and religious freedom to not attend and serve a same sex wedding ritual?
.
You just answered your own question, by using the word "religious" in your sentence you illogical buffoon. And in this case its not freedom but prejudiced.

You're refusing to serve homosexuals BECAUSE of your disproven Creationist beliefs. That is not a good enough excuse for discriminating against gays. Everything else you say is your rationalisation to that effect.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>They never refused to serve homosexuals;
Yes they did and you know it.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
they refused to serve a religious same sex wedding ceremony. Why don't they have the right to attend or refuse to attend a religious ceremony? I don't get it, how is compelling Christians to attend a same sex wedding ritual not freedom.
They are vendors and are a business, its not within their right to discriminate against their customers, especially based on sexual preference. Their job is to sell to people that love one another and nothing else. Anyother excuse is just simple, creationist prejudiced hate.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>I'm not a radical secularist; my religious tells us to love, not hate.
.
Nobody here is radical for rejecting your unproven god and you know it. It doesn't matter what your religion teaches - its followers are hateful produced liars that hide behind a story to perpetuate hate against other human beings for no good reasons.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. I accept the right of religious same sex marriage; why not accept the right to not attend that ritual? Why compel religious attendance?
Why is this business discriminating against a homosexual married couple, that is the reason root of this religious stupidity exhibited by you and your disproven creationist cult.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Those Christians wouldn't attend an underage marriage, is that proof of ageism? They would refuse to attend a polygamous marriage ceremony; are they Islamaphobic? Could we dismiss their refusal to attend a compelled marriage as a First Amendment freedom?
The issue is religious freedom, not sexuality.
Foolish arguments - underage marriage is illegal, polygamous marriage is also, but homosexual marriage isn't any of those things, so you make a deliberate attempt to falsely equate the two.

You do this because you know that you are prejudiced.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.
<quoted text>The only poster discussing creationism is -Skeptic-, see post above as proof. I'm not debating creationism or a specific religion; I'm arguing for freedom, liberty and the right to worship as you please.
No, its you who is discussing creationism and its stupid uneducated opinions on not serving homosexuals who get married.

Make no mistake its religious reasons for your hateful prejudice and nothing else.

You're probably a failed politician paid to repeat Palin talking points and never stopped after 2005 and your cult got exposed for its lies.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#2963 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What does creationism have to do with consent of the governed and religious freedom to not attend and serve a same sex wedding ritual?
I think Skeptic was just pointing out what an idiot you are, incapable of forming rational opinions or making reasonable arguments.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They never refused to serve homosexuals; they refused to serve a religious same sex wedding ceremony. Why don't they have the right to attend or refuse to attend a religious ceremony? I don't get it, how is compelling Christians to attend a same sex wedding ritual not freedom.
Look, stupid, they aren't being asked to "attend", they were being asked to provide a commercial service.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not a radical secularist; my religious tells us to love, not hate.
.
<quoted text>Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else.
That's like saying blacks and whites all got to sit in the bus under the same "blacks sit it the back" laws.
Brian_G wrote:
I accept the right of religious same sex marriage; why not accept the right to not attend that ritual? Why compel religious attendance?
Again, stupid, religious attendance isn't the issue. Nobody is dragging fundies out of church and forcing them to go to gay weddings. Providing a commercial service is the issue.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those Christians wouldn't attend an underage marriage, is that proof of ageism? They would refuse to attend a polygamous marriage ceremony; are they Islamaphobic?
Could we dismiss their refusal to attend a compelled marriage as a First Amendment freedom?
The issue is religious freedom, not sexuality.
Actually, religion isn't the issue. Providing a commercial service is the issue. Nobody is being forced to attend a wedding ceremony. Baking a wedding cake or setting up the flowers doesn't require attendance.
Again, if some fundies refused to bake my wedding cake because they were against interracial marriage, I'd just take my $1K someplace else, figuring that would be punishment enough.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only poster discussing creationism is -Skeptic-, see post above as proof. I'm not debating creationism or a specific religion; I'm arguing for freedom, liberty and the right to worship as you please.
People are free to worship as they please.
Get over yourself.
Why are you against equal 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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min replaytime 66,924
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 28,533
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr replaytime 3,466
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 14 hr Superwilly 19
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 18 hr superwilly 457
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web