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 07

Location hidden

#3104 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no copy of any pre21st century law that licensed same sex marriage. All marriage was male/female by custom as well as law.
Same sex marriage is taboo.
Creationism is no excuse for having a loud mouth. Just be honest and admit you are scared that you are gay - that is why many hateful religious people hate on them - its because they are gay themselves and can't avoid the topic coming into their heads.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3105 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are many conservative gays, the left and gays aren't the same. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else and that causes no destruction. Same sex marriage destroys and makes both husbands and wives disposable in marriage.
Same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage where marriage was sex integrated and diverse.
Same sex marriage is threatening to mentally ill creationists like yourself, because you are hateful people who want to deny your fellow human beings the right to marry.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3106 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are many conservative gays, the left and gays aren't the same. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else and that causes no destruction. Same sex marriage destroys and makes both husbands and wives disposable in marriage.
Same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage where marriage was sex integrated and diverse.
yes there are many conservative gays, and very, very few of them are against SSM. there are also many, many conservatives like me that support SSM. a true conservative would have to, by definition.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3107 Oct 25, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not have to have a union between two people of the opposite sex to have a child.... Have you ever heard of a sperm bank??? I'm so very curious to hear what you think happens with all of that sperm lol
Or very close friends and a sterilized turkey baster?

I've known of "back to the earth" folk who have used that home-brewed method with success.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3108 Oct 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes there are many conservative gays, and very, very few of them are against SSM. there are also many, many conservatives like me that support SSM. a true conservative would have to, by definition.
Indeed. Government really should not be in the marriage business at all, I think.

But if it **does** decide to regulate marriage? It **must** do so that is religiously neutral-- by Constitutional Degree.

And marriage equality is what it's all about: same sex, different sex-- all must be treated the same in the eyes of the law.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3109 Oct 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Government really should not be in the marriage business at all, I think.
But if it **does** decide to regulate marriage? It **must** do so that is religiously neutral-- by Constitutional Degree.
And marriage equality is what it's all about: same sex, different sex-- all must be treated the same in the eyes of the law.
who else but the gov't would regulate a legal, binding contract?

marriage has been the purview of the State since it's inception.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3110 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.[QUOTE]
And yet you continue to advocate for discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays, both of which cause demonstrable harm to them. Do you always advocate harming people you have nothing against, Brian?

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Same sex marriage harms gays most
How exactly do you figure that? And how does this so called harm compare to actual documented harm your advocacy positions currently cause gays?

Be specific and detailed, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
distracting us with this new radical redefinition of marriage while gays are being persecuted and slaughtered in Russia and the Muslim world.
Most functional adults are quite capable of multi-tasking, Brian. Unlike you they can address both civil rights issues at home while advocating policy changes abroad. Sorry, but the fact you are dysfunctional relative to most humans doesn't mean we all to dumb down our abilities to your one-thing-at-a-time level simply to make you feel better about yourself.

Besides, it's better to lead others by example and eliminating discrimination against gays in the US sets a better example for Russia than merely claiming "we don't harm gays as much as you do".
LCNLin

United States

#3111 Oct 25, 2013
"Scratch an atheist and
out pops an agnostic "
-A A Bamford

A controversial Oxford University professor billed by many as the world's "most famous atheist"

now says he is not 100 percent sure

that God doesn't exist -- but just barely.

In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams,

Richard Dawkins

surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator.

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."

Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and other best-sellers, is a leader of the "New Atheist" movement that aggressively challenges belief in God and criticizes harm done in the name of religion.

"What I can't understand is why you can't see (that life started from nothing and) is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God," Dawkins told Williams, according to The Daily Telegraph account.

The archbishop, who heads both the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion, replied that he "entirely agreed" with the "beauty" part of Dawkins' statement -- but said "I'm not talking about God as an extra who you can shoehorn onto that."

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3112 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Before the 21st century, all marriage laws defined marriage as male/female. Same sex marriage has never been found in written law before this century.
Another of your blatant lies, Brian. Your ignorance of history does negate the existence of gay marriages and laws in other times and cultures.
Brian_G wrote:
The left wants to destroy gender, family and every institution not controlled by government.
Lie, lie and lie. That's the lingua franca of bigots.
Brian_G wrote:
That's why same sex marriage is the death of freedom.
So you advocate discrimination and repression in the name of freedom? One wonders how your head doesn't explode from the cognitive dissonance of your irrational ideas.
Brian_G wrote:
If you don't think they want to control you, explain why they let Christians be sued for their religious convictions.
Quite simple. The examples you cite are of people being sued for breaking the law, not for their religious convictions. And if these Christians you cite actually followed the commands of the Christian new testaments which they supposedly consider the word of God, they'd obey civil authorities and civil laws rather than breaking them and wouldn't be sued for breaking the law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3113 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no copy of any pre21st century law that licensed same sex marriage. All marriage was male/female by custom as well as law.
Same sex marriage is taboo.
You're simply a f_ing liar, Brian. While not comparable to scholarly research, wiki is sufficient to prove you wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3114 Oct 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who else but the gov't would regulate a legal, binding contract?
marriage has been the purview of the State since it's inception.
I always saw it as two different things: the binding contract is the state-issued license. And in most states, all you need to do, to be recognized by the state as married, is to both sign that license and that's it-- you're married.

The ceremony is just that: a symbolic ritual, used to add significance to what is otherwise a simple civil contract.

In fact? In the past, several "activist court clerks" who's duty it was to issue marriage licenses, took it upon themselves to begin issuing licenses to same-sec couples-- said clerks having observed that **nothing** the the applicable laws stipulated the gender of either party.

This, of course, raised a fury among the bigoted--erm--True Believers™ who then had their bullies-in-law (ReThug congress) begin crafting hate-laws to prohibit this practice.

... meh.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3115 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are many conservative gays, the left and gays aren't the same.
Very good, Brian. At least you recognize being gay is a human characteristic that cuts across all human demographics.
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else
In the US, true, but only because gays were also always subject to discrimination that prevented them from exercising all their fundamental rights. However, this isn't true across time and cultures.
Brian_G wrote:
and that causes no destruction.

Being subjected to discrimination and infringement of their fundamental rights causes harm to gays. Doing so is immoral just to make bigots like you feel better about themselves.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage destroys
Destroys what? Your bigotry? Then that's a positive.
Brian_G wrote:
and makes both husbands and wives disposable in marriage.

Husbands and wives still exist in same sex marriages, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage where marriage was sex integrated and diverse.
Voluntary segregation isn't unconstitutional, Brian. That's why no one cares when two white people or two black people or two Jews or two Christians freely choose to exercise their fundamental rights and marry each other. The same applies to two men or two women.

However, mandatory integration (opposite sex couples) and mandatory segregation (no interracial marriages are both unconstitutional because neither is recognized by the courts as a compelling government interest that's necessary to allow an infringement of a fundamental right.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#3116 Oct 25, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
"Scratch an atheist and
out pops an agnostic "
-A A Bamford
A controversial Oxford University professor billed by many as the world's "most famous atheist"
now says he is not 100 percent sure
that God doesn't exist -- but just barely.
In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams,
Richard Dawkins
surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator.
But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.
Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."
Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and other best-sellers, is a leader of the "New Atheist" movement that aggressively challenges belief in God and criticizes harm done in the name of religion.
"What I can't understand is why you can't see (that life started from nothing and) is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God," Dawkins told Williams, according to The Daily Telegraph account.
The archbishop, who heads both the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion, replied that he "entirely agreed" with the "beauty" part of Dawkins' statement -- but said "I'm not talking about God as an extra who you can shoehorn onto that."
"...added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.
Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."
So RD's position is unchanged - to no sensible person's surprise or amusement.

RD didn't suggest that there was any evidence for a Creator, much less an interventionist one, and far less still an Abrahmic one.

LCN seems a bit obsessed with RD and constantly tries to imply that RD's acceptance of the description 'agnostic' means RD thinks a 'Creator' worth some serious consideration, but RD is quite consistent - if one cares to understand RD's views.

Religion = superstition
Get over it

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3117 Oct 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I always saw it as two different things: the binding contract is the state-issued license. And in most states, all you need to do, to be recognized by the state as married, is to both sign that license and that's it-- you're married.
The ceremony is just that: a symbolic ritual, used to add significance to what is otherwise a simple civil contract.
In fact? In the past, several "activist court clerks" who's duty it was to issue marriage licenses, took it upon themselves to begin issuing licenses to same-sec couples-- said clerks having observed that **nothing** the the applicable laws stipulated the gender of either party.
This, of course, raised a fury among the bigoted--erm--True Believers™ who then had their bullies-in-law (ReThug congress) begin crafting hate-laws to prohibit this practice.
... meh.
yes, do not confuse marriage with many religion's rite of matrimony or whatever they call it. they may even call it marriage, as is their right, but it is not the same as legal marriage.

a religious rite has the same legal weight as a couple of people dancing around a fire with sticks and chanting ...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3118 Oct 25, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
You're simply a f_ing liar, Brian. While not comparable to scholarly research, wiki is sufficient to prove you wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...
The only law cited in T.F.'s 'history' is this:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.(Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Do you want more proof how same sex marriage harms gays most?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3119 Oct 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, do not confuse marriage with many religion's rite of matrimony or whatever they call it. they may even call it marriage, as is their right, but it is not the same as legal marriage.

a religious rite has the same legal weight as a couple of people dancing around a fire with sticks and chanting ...
Or?

Tossing salt over your left shoulder: the same thing, really.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3120 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The only law cited in T.F.'s 'history' is this:
When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.(Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
Perhaps you should learn to read entire articles, Brian rather than your typical selective cherry picking. The "law" you cite is one banning same sex marriage that was previously legal within the Roman Empire. And not content to merely ban same sex marriage, the law decreed execution for those violating it. Not surprisingly, that marriage ban and death penalty law was decreed by the son of the first Christian Roman emperor.

You skipped over other parts of the article such as this;

"Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]"

"In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[13]"

"The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[30]"
Brian_G wrote:
Do you want more proof how same sex marriage harms gays most?
You've yet to provide any proof that marriage itself harms gays. All you've done is cite an instance of rabid discrimination against gays that inflicted death as punishment. The death penalty was imposed by bigots like you.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#3121 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only law cited in T.F.'s 'history' is this:
When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.(Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
From the same site: "The Codex Theodosianus was a compilation of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors since 312."

Typical x-tian hate.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3122 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only law cited in T.F.'s 'history' is this:
When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.(Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
Do you want more proof how same sex marriage harms gays most?
not more, just some proof. that is about as far from proof as you can get.

what we do have is proof that isarm gays at all, in the many states and countries where SSM has been legal for a while now.

no harm to gays, no harm to marriage. none of the doom and gloom scenarios that were proven to not happen before you were told to parrot them.

you should check history before parroting things you cannot understand...

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3123 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
Then why do you hate them?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms gays most, distracting us with this new radical redefinition of marriage while gays are being persecuted and slaughtered in Russia and the Muslim world.
You are stupid.
Gay marriage isn't the problem, bigotry like yours is.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min Uncle Sam 11,601
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min MIDutch 29,521
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Thinking 9,606
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Thinking 4,250
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr NightSerf 254,940
Religion Down Suicide Up 9 hr Patrick 87
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 10 hr Richard 50,963
More from around the web