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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3004 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Their businesses predate same sex marriage; they never consented to attend a same sex wedding ceremony.
Their business doesn't predate anti-discrimination laws, which is what you're really whining about, Brian. And businesses aren't invited to "attend" same sex wedding ceremonies' they're engaged to provide the goods and services they purport to be in business to offer the general public as public accommodations.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
They are discriminating against an event, such as a Jewish photographer turning down a KKK rally gig.
Did the "event" ask the business to provide goods and services? No. Gay people did. Therefore it is discrimination n the basis of sexual orientation to refuse to provide goods and services when you indicate the sexual orientation of the wedding participants is the reason you're refusing to serve them as customers.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Those Christians have a right to celebrate marriage as one man and one woman, not same sex marriage.
They do only if it is their marriage ceremony or if they've received an actual invitation requesting their presence to attend and celebrate a same sex wedding. Being asked to provide goods or services to an event is neither and therefore not an infringement of their religious freedom.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
That's not what happened here; these Christians were selected and prosecuted without a jury of their peers.
A trial by jury is only constitutionally guaranteed in matters of criminal prosecution, Brian, not for civil or administrative law proceedings.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
There's too much government regulation in the markets. Freedom and tolerance is better than PC codes, fines, litigation and court ordered same sex marriage law.
Gee, where's the tolerance of these Christian business owners then to simply provide goods and services to paying customers? If you think it's ok to refuse service to gays, then you're implicitly stating it's ok to refuse service to blacks, Jews, women, Chinese, military veterans, the handicapped or whatever other characteristic you're prejudiced against. That's simply not tolerated in our society, Brian. So take your Christian dominionist claptrap and shove it. You aren't above the law and never will be.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3005 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They can't win what they want in legislatures or at the polls so they sue and use courts to overturn legitimate elections. In Egypt they use the Army, in the USA the left uses the courts.
Are you referring to the methods blacks use in the 1950's and early 1960's, Brian, during their civil rights movement?
Brian_G wrote:
There are methods for dealing with corrupt courts. The issue is justice, not revenge.
You've offered no proof of corruption of the judiciary branch other than your lies, Brian. Your word is simply insufficient to prove anything, especially when you're a known and well documented pathological liar.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3006 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They are winning in the courts because it's politically correct to yield to the pressure of gay activists and advocates. There is no other reason.
You're simply wrong and stupid. And a waste of the planet's oxygen to boot.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3007 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If true, perhaps you can name a state that voted for same sex marriage by referendum? Plenty have had referendums defining marriage as one man and one woman; can you name one that rewrote marriage laws to allow same sex marriage by referendum?
Maryland and Maine. It's still wrong for any state to put civil rights to popular vote, regardless of the outcome. But you asked. Apparently, you're only able to keep track of votes that support your prejudice against gays, huh Brian?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3008 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain the 5/4 VOTE to strike down part 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act then?
You don't know the difference between SCOTUS exercising their constitutionally appointed duty of judicial review and a popular referendum? Really? It's wonder you haven't managed to drown yourself when taking a piss if you're that stupid.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3009 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As long as one man and one woman marriage is protected; that's always been the primary form of marriage.
Irrelevant. Institutional discrimination against gays has existed the entire time alongside the gender restriction on marriage. Limiting marriage to opposite sex couples because you've always discriminated against same sex couple sis circular reasoning, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Our Constitution has no right to change preexisting marriage law or common practice, that would be ex post facto prohibited by the Constitution.
On the contrary, the judiciary has the constitutional responsibility to strike down laws or restrictions on fundamental rights that are unconstitutional. And quit butchering the law with your ignorant and erroneous assertion regarding ex post facto laws, which you've gotten wrong again, despite being corrected several times already.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3010 Oct 21, 2013
Same sex marriage means suing Christians who decline an invitation to a same sex wedding ceremony.

If you value your freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#3011 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means suing Christians who decline an invitation to a same sex wedding ceremony.
If you value your freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
That is a great idea. Now that you have brought it up, I am going to sue people for declining my invitations.

You know you can sue anybody for anything. It isn't exclusive to a particular situation. You are being misleading. A form of lie. How can you believe you have any values at all?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3012 Oct 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Again, you idiot, attendance isn't the issue. Providing a commercial service is...
I didn't write attendance, I wrote Christians have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding ceremonies. They were sued because they didn't serve a religious ritual. What kind of religious freedom is that?

Don't you believe individuals have the right not to attend a religious ritual, even if that Christian owns a business? Where's tolerance when you sue your neighbors?

They sued Texas; same sex marriage costs you money to defend these frivolous lawsuits.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3013 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means suing Christians who decline an invitation to a same sex wedding ceremony.
No one has been sued for declining an invitation to a same sex wedding ceremony.

Why do you lie, Brian?

However, some people have been sued in their capacity as business owners for refusing to provide goods and services to a protected class of people and thereby breaking anti-discrmination laws. Perhaps that's what you meant but were simply too dishonest to word it correctly. Hmmm, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
If you value your freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you value intellectual honesty, ignore the ravings of this proven pathological liar who called himself Brian_G.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3014 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write attendance, I wrote Christians have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding ceremonies. They were sued because they didn't serve a religious ritual. What kind of religious freedom is that?
So now you're saying these Christians would willing provide goods and services to same sex weddings that didn't occur in a religious setting? That simply changes the form of discrimination from sexual orientation to religion, Brian.

You can't even keep track of your own lies, Brian. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about anymore.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't you believe individuals have the right not to attend a religious ritual, even if that Christian owns a business?
Running a business isn't an act of worship, Brian. The business owners aren't there to participate in any religious ritual; they're simply providing goods or services to an event. And except for a photographer, most of them don't even have to be physically present during the actual wedding ceremony anyway. Flowers are put in place before hand. Cakes are in the reception venue, not the ceremony venue. You're getting yourself all tangled up in your lies, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Where's tolerance when you sue your neighbors?
Why should people tolerate others breaking the law? If someone murdered your spouse, would you simply turn the other cheek as an act of tolerance?
Brian_G wrote:
They sued Texas; same sex marriage costs you money to defend these frivolous lawsuits.
The Texas National Guard violated a direct order from the Secretary of Defense to provide administrative support to their own Guard members to sign up for FEDERAL benefits that the state doesn't even have any financial responsibility for. Even though the Federal government pays virtually all the costs of maintaining the National Guard in Texas and every other state.

And since these lawsuits have prevailed in courts of law and administrative hearings thus far, it means they're not frivolous, Brian. The only thing that's frivolous is your incessant and uninformed whining on the topic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3015 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They can't win what they want in legislatures or at the polls so they sue and use courts to overturn legitimate elections. In Egypt they use the Army, in the USA the left uses the courts.
Um, that's pretty ironic considering Bush got a second term via dodgy vote count and during Obama's second run your party did everything they could to deny black people from voting.
Brian_G wrote:
There are methods for dealing with corrupt courts.
How are courts corrupt by upholding the Constitution? Ah yes, by having the Constitution in the first place. Yes, there's a way to deal with that - theocratic coup. Good luck.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3016 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As long as one man and one woman marriage is protected; that's always been the primary form of marriage. Our Constitution has no right to change preexisting marriage law or common practice, that would be ex post facto prohibited by the Constitution.
Yeah, BRING BACK SLAVERY DAMMIT!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3017 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means suing Christians who decline an invitation to a same sex wedding ceremony.
No, it doesn't you dummy. Nobody, not even Christians, has to even RSVP if they get an invitation to anything.
Brian_G wrote:
If you value your freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
STFU, moron.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3018 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write attendance, I wrote Christians have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding ceremonies.
Attend, attendance...
People have skid marks on their underwear smarter than you.
Brian_G wrote:
They were sued because they didn't serve a religious ritual. What kind of religious freedom is that?
Don't you believe individuals have the right not to attend a religious ritual, even if that Christian owns a business? Where's tolerance when you sue your neighbors?
They sued Texas; same sex marriage costs you money to defend these frivolous lawsuits.
Again stupid, they are not being asked to attend the wedding. They are being asked to provide a commercial service. And people should not be allowed to break the law just because their bigotry is based on Bronze Age superstition.
It takes two to tango, and all the states and companies have to do to avoid being sued is provide equal protection, and follow civil rights laws.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3019 Oct 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write attendance, I wrote Christians have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding ceremonies. They were sued because they didn't serve a religious ritual. What kind of religious freedom is that?
Don't you believe individuals have the right not to attend a religious ritual, even if that Christian owns a business? Where's tolerance when you sue your neighbors?
They sued Texas; same sex marriage costs you money to defend these frivolous lawsuits.
And if some Christians refused to provide services for my wedding because it would be interracial (the ONLY argument made against interracial marriage in Loving v VA was that god was against it.), I'd be more than happy to take those thousands of dollars some other place. I'd probably figure that was punishment enough. But I might sue them just to rub it in.:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3020 Oct 22, 2013
Being sued for failing to serve and attend a same sex wedding ceremony isn't about failure to RSVP. The issue is religious freedom, the right to refuse to participate in a religious ceremony is as important as the right to worship as you please.

Same sex marriage is the death of freedom in the name of ersatz gender equality.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3021 Oct 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Yeah, BRING BACK SLAVERY DAMMIT!
Most same sex marriage supporter argue from emotion instead of rationality. See T.D.'s post above for proof.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

#3022 Oct 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most same sex marriage supporter argue from emotion instead of rationality. See T.D.'s post above for proof.
I suspect you mistake exasperation with you for emotion about the topic.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#3023 Oct 22, 2013
Gays have a disconnection in their brain, it's a mental problem

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min DebraE 12,779
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr dollarsbill 247,493
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 8 hr Agents of Corruption 47,818
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... 10 hr QUITTNER Sep 1 2015 12
Proof of God for the Atheist 14 hr Thinking 128
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 14 hr True Christian wi... 10
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 15 hr True Christian wi... 23
More from around the web