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

#3492 Nov 3, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you know he's just going to come back and say that everyone already has equal marriage rights, i.e., the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Somehow, in his homophobic little mind, gays can marry heterosexuals and all will be right with the world.
He'll just keep repeating it no matter how ridiculous he sounds.
Lyin' Brian is a bit of a whackadoodle.
I agree.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3493 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those Christians chose not to attend or support a same sex wedding rite, then they were sued. Where's the tolerance for their religious and artistic freedom?
Boo hoo.
They weren't asked to support a gay wedding rite. They were asked to bake a cake, IIRC. They were asked to engage in a business transaction. Once a person steps outside of the religious realm and into the commerce realm, they should have to follow the same rules everybody else does. Their bigotry shouldn't get special consideration because it's based on Bronze Age superstition.
Brian_G wrote:
Labeling opponents of same sex marriage,'bigots';
If the shoe fits...
Brian_G wrote:
that's all they've got. Same sex marriage is so harmful, they can't rationally discuss consequences. When boys are allowed to identify as girls and participate in girls sports or use girls facilities, our daughters are called bigots for voicing privacy concerns. This name calling is a bad habit.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
The issue is marriage, not sports nor restrooms.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3494 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Arguing to defend one man and one woman marriage isn't a personal insult.
Your use of the term "defend" is an insult against gay people.
It implies gay marriage is harmful.
Brian_G wrote:
The left is using you for political gain, we care about your right to privacy, freedom from big government and freedom of association. The only insult to gay people is Rose's argument.
You can do better than name calling. Keeping marriage male/female is unfair to gay people but the greater societal good outweighs individual sexual predilection.
That many choose to organize for political action is great but that includes civil discourse, not defamation.
Your claim gay marriage would harm society is an insult against gay people.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3496 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They refused to attend and support same sex wedding rites;
Do you think that if you tell that lie enough it will become true. Nobody asked them to attend or support the gay wedding. They were asked to provide a commercial services.
Brian_G wrote:
the law infringes on their religious freedom. I believe all people, even business owners have the right to decide which religious services to attend and serve, or not attend as they see right. They refused to perform an act they see as profane; suing them isn't tolerance.
.
That sort of discrimination shouldn't be tolerated.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense because all those business owners have served and will again serve homosexuals. The issue isn't orientation, the issue is a ritual to perform same sex marriage; they chose not to participate. Then the state tried to compel their serving for same sex marriage. That's so wrong.
.
<quoted text>I argue because they sue some business owners is a good reason to keep marriage one man and one woman.
But, you stupid bee itch, the indecent was in a state were gay marriage isn't recognized.
Brian_G wrote:
This is only the beginning of the erosion on liberty; they sue our states for same sex dependent entitlement benefits too.
Another insult aimed at gays, you say "our" states as if gays aren't part of the country.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is wasteful government spending, intrusive new regulations and higher taxes all rolled up into one issue.
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is a VERY bad idea.
Dummy, it takes two to tango. If Christians just provide the services, they won't be sued.
Duh.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#3497 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Untrue, I'm telling gay youth marriage is one man and one woman, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. One is an issue about a basic cultural institution, the other is the issue of individual worth; the two aren't connected.
Wow, Brian, you just took the BS to the next level. One of the things done to dehumanize slaves was to not allow them to marry.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Again, untrue. I embrace their freedom to associate as they please. If they choose to have children, then marry the other parent of your child so your kid can have a mother and father.
So, they embrace their freedom to choose, as long as you agree with that choice...
Brian_G wrote:
Or adopt, I'm all about freedom and anti-big government intrusive new regulations. Especially around marriage.
Look, dummy, there aren't going to be any intrusive new regulations. Instead of "wife" and "husband" on the marriage license form, you have "party 1" and "party 2". That's fkn it.
Brian_G wrote:
Many homosexuals oppose courts placing their morality as new law over the consent of the governed.
Jesus H. Nobody will be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

That just opposes our Nation's founding principles; self government not rule imposed by unelected and unaccountable elites.[
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm arguing the opposite, gay people are worthy of being treated exactly equally and unworthy of special new marriage equality rights to define marriage to suit sexual predilection. I'm for gay equal rights and I acknowledge the perfect sex integration of 1:1 marriage affirmative action diversity. I'm arguing segregation is not worthy of being treated equally under the law and sex segregated marriage is bad even when voluntary.
That's stupid, like you are.
Why is it bad? Don't give us the dumb asp "perfect balance" crap, give us a real reason.
Brian_G wrote:
Gay people are as worthy of equality as anyone else; just women and men are unequal. Sexual differences mean the survival of the species, orientation differences not so much.
Dumb fk, people will survive just fine with gay marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please define these families of male/male and female/female union. As far as I understand biology, same sex unions are infertile. Every child of those unions is missing either a mother or father; what's up with that?
You missed either a mother or father. Why not fight divorce? I'm sure there are at least three orders of magnitude more children without a father or mother due to divorce than due to gay marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's a political issue, please put aside feelings and address the issue like an adult.
Oh, damn, now I have to wipe Fanta off of my screen...
Brian_G wrote:
It's consequences, consideration of the greater good over individual good and simple courtesy.

<quoted text>Quest owns the gay insult issue; I'm arguing to keep marriage one man and one woman. Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman; maybe to honor their mother and father.
That makes no sense.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3498 Nov 3, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>And with those words utterd from the lips of woodtick57,the Universe suddenly twisted in on its self.
Time,space,dimensions,reality, ripped apart!
In one world,Atheisim took down a mighty Christain nation.
In another,assassins conspiring to posison a beloved king fell dead in agony.
Yet in another,a very much alive king Elvis's head suddenly exploded on stage before horrfied fans!
YES the power of his words brought utter destruction.
What can a creationist troll with no proof of god really say in 2013?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3499 Nov 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I argue gay people are entitled to exactly equal rights, no more and no less, to live under the laws with all the rest of us. Nobody may have same sex marriage, polygamy, underage marriage, forced marriage, incest marriage or any further derivation. Marriage is one man and one woman because that's the beauty of perfect affirmative action and integration. Men and women together create something greater than men and women alone or man/man or women/women.
That doesn't' say gays are less, nor do they have special rights to redefine marriage law for everybody.
.
<quoted text>My arguments take a different tact, I focus on issues instead of characterizations. I don't name people to embarrass them but I do call attention to the truth, written on the screen in front of your nose.
.
<quoted text>Not gender equality; gays may marry under the same laws as everyone else not redefine marriage as if men and women are not different in the eyes of law, precedent, convention, civilized standard, rule or convention. Equal before the law yet not equal to one another.
There have been ancient debates about racial discrimination, but no such discourses on same sex marriage, what's up with that? When Socrates kept arguing the logic of same sex marriage and Plato kept replying, "Shut up, bigot" were those dialogs edited from history or are that fantasy?
.
<quoted text>Of course, Barronelle Stutzman disagrees, so did Obama and Biden in 2008, so di I. Same sex marriage changes the way government sees husband and wife, it makes gender blindness, invades privacy and imposes elite morality on the majority.
Same sex marriage impacts everyone big time. All taxpayers will see increased wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries. Now Obamacare uses your premiums to pay for a same sex partner's Viagra to treat infertility, then rents a surrogate. And we all pay!
Same sex marriage under Obamacare is a dirty joke.
.
<quoted text>I campaign for equal treatment not a new standard of sex segregation in marriage. Separatism means discrimination and disunity; I oppose dividing people into sex orientation voting blocks.
.
<quoted text>I believe the comments from my opponents explain their own arguments. I speak for myself, any reader may judge my comments and lides' without my interjection.
The truth is out there, all you have to do is speak your mind.
.
<quoted text>
Creationism is no excuse for sharing your hateful opinions about homosexual marriage.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3500 Nov 4, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>You are brave and honest.
If more Atheists 'came out' we would not be bickering so much about religion. I salute you!
You know there are far more Christian homosexuals than atheist homosexuals, right?

You should encourage them to "come out".

Will you still love them?

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#3501 Nov 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
What do you think about Christians sued for not supporting and attending same sex wedding ceremonies? Doesn't that prove all the intolerance comes from the left?
As I've stated before, I believe certain types of businesses (specifically, those that perform an artistic service: i.e. sketch artists, painters, sculptors, photographers, cake decorators, florists) should be able to apply for an exemption to non-discrimination laws. This application would be a matter of public record.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3502 Nov 4, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
Brian_G wrote:
I argue gay people are entitled to exactly equal rights, no more and no less, to live under the laws with all the rest of us. Nobody may have same sex marriage etc.
O.k. Brian... How is this statement not contradictory?
As the old saying goes, those with homes as well as those without are barred from sleeping under bridges. That, of course, doesn't make the law fair.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3503 Nov 4, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you know he's just going to come back and say that everyone already has equal marriage rights, i.e., the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Somehow, in his homophobic little mind, gays can marry heterosexuals and all will be right with the world.
He'll just keep repeating it no matter how ridiculous he sounds.
Lyin' Brian is a bit of a whackadoodle.
He is exactly correct.

What is sought is not "equal" rights.

It's something else.

Remember when the same lefty activists used to say "it's nobody's business"?

Now, they want it to be everybody's business, and they will see to it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3504 Nov 4, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Thanks, man.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3505 Nov 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your use of the term "defend" is an insult against gay people.
It implies gay marriage is harmful.
<quoted text>
Your claim gay marriage would harm society is an insult against gay people.
There is no such thing as gay marriage.

The effort is to eliminate marriage. Period.

Marriage would end, by definition. Whatever the re-defined entity is, it is not marriage.

This is the hypocrisy - marriage is so important to gays, they must eliminate it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3506 Nov 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Brian, you just took the BS to the next level. One of the things done to dehumanize slaves was to not allow them to marry.
.<quoted text>
So, they embrace their freedom to choose, as long as you agree with that choice...
<quoted text>
Look, dummy, there aren't going to be any intrusive new regulations. Instead of "wife" and "husband" on the marriage license form, you have "party 1" and "party 2". That's fkn it.
<quoted text>
Jesus H. Nobody will be forced to marry someone of the same sex.
That just opposes our Nation's founding principles; self government not rule imposed by unelected and unaccountable elites.[
.
<quoted text>
That's stupid, like you are.
Why is it bad? Don't give us the dumb asp "perfect balance" crap, give us a real reason.
<quoted text>
Dumb fk, people will survive just fine with gay marriage.
<quoted text>
You missed either a mother or father. Why not fight divorce? I'm sure there are at least three orders of magnitude more children without a father or mother due to divorce than due to gay marriage.
<quoted text>
Oh, damn, now I have to wipe Fanta off of my screen...
<quoted text>
That makes no sense.
Which one gets to throw the bouquet?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3507 Nov 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As the old saying goes, those with homes as well as those without are barred from sleeping under bridges. That, of course, doesn't make the law fair.
Wrong again.

That makes it totally fair.

Anyone advocating otherwise wants something other than "fair".

We don't even have to know what they want, but we know they are not seeking "fairness".

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3508 Nov 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I argue gay people are entitled to exactly equal rights, no more and no less, to live under the laws with all the rest of us.
No, you don’t. You argue for some fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law under the mindless rationalization that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet, you can never offer a state interest served by such a definition, which expressly denies same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, that would render such a restriction constitutional.
[QUOTE who=“Brian_G”]My arguments take a different tact, I focus on issues instead of characterizations.[/QUOTE]
Did you mean to say tack (as in the sailing term), or track? Tact makes no snese in your sentence.
[QUOTE who=“Brian_G”]Not gender equality; gays may marry under the same laws as everyone else not redefine marriage as if men and women are not different in the eyes of law, precedent, convention, civilized standard, rule or convention. Equal before the law yet not equal to one another.[/QUOTE]
Can you offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitution, and render your argument valid.
[QUOTE who=“Brian_G”]Of course, Barronelle Stutzman disagrees, so did Obama and Biden in 2008, so di I. Same sex marriage changes the way government sees husband and wife, it makes gender blindness, invades privacy and imposes elite morality on the majority.[/QUOTE]
Bronelle Stutzman broke the law by denying service to a client when it became apparent that they were gay because they attempted to retains services for their same sex wedding. She’s fighting a lsing case, and like you, she has no valid argument in defense of her position. Her religious freedom was no compromised, she attempted to compromise the religious freedom of others.
[QUOTE who=“Brian_G”]I campaign for equal treatment not a new standard of sex segregation in marriage. Separatism means discrimination and disunity; I oppose dividing people into sex orientation voting blocks.[/QUOTE]
It’s nothing new, Brian. Marriage exists as a protection of the law in every state in the union, and thus far, you haven’t been able to offer the most basic case as to why same sex couples should be denied equal protection of the law to marry.
[QUOTE who=“Brian_G”]The truth is out there, all you have to do is speak your mind.[/QUOTE]
In your case, such as your mind is, I am not certain that is wise.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3509 Nov 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as gay marriage.
The effort is to eliminate marriage. Period.
Marriage would end, by definition. Whatever the re-defined entity is, it is not marriage.
This is the hypocrisy - marriage is so important to gays, they must eliminate it.
Bullshit.

If you think that same-sex marriage will harm your 'traditional' marriage in any way, then perhaps your 'traditional' marriage is not that strong.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3510 Nov 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
That's right Brian! And when Same-sex marriage is a fact everywhere, YOU will have the right to marry a man.
You already can have a religious same sex wedding rite in every state of the Union. In some, you can even sue wedding vendors if they turn down the gig. The left loves it when you sue Christians.

Kong's fantasy ignore that fact that 30 states have laws defining marriage as male/female.

.
Kong_ wrote:
BTW, did you read where West Point recently hosted a same-sex marriage between 2 men? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
Yes, what a waste of tax dollars. I'm writing my representatives. Supposed to have a sequester, no tours of the White House but we can waste taxpayer dollars on a same sex marriage ceremony.

Be sure to tell your atheist friends.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3511 Nov 4, 2013
lides wrote:
...Bronelle Stutzman broke the law by denying service to a client when it became apparent that they were gay because they attempted to retains services for their same sex wedding. She’s fighting a lsing case, and like you, she has no valid argument in defense of her position. Her religious freedom was no compromised, she attempted to compromise the religious freedom of others....
She was never tried by a jury of her peers, I don't believe she broke the law:

Stutzman says she has no problem with homosexual customers but won’t support gay weddings because of her religious beliefs.
http://legalnewsline.com/news/245189-wash-flo...

Show me how "she attempted to compromise the religious freedom of others." Didn't she give referrals?

"The suit, Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson, filed in Benton County Superior Court, explains that the problem for Stutzman was promoting the same-sex ceremony, not serving customers who identify as homosexual. She has served such customers, including the one suing her in a separate lawsuit, for many years and even offered him a list of referrals to florists that would prepare flowers for his ceremony."
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8199
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3512 Nov 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as gay marriage.
The effort is to eliminate marriage. Period.
Marriage would end, by definition. Whatever the re-defined entity is, it is not marriage.
This is the hypocrisy - marriage is so important to gays, they must eliminate it.
Not really, since there are gay couples who are married now. That in no way affects the current marriage status of straight couples.

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) 26 min Into The Night 15,982
A Universe from Nothing? 39 min IB DaMann 54
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 40,435
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 3 hr IB DaMann 215
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr ChristineM 255,959
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 5 hr Thinking 4,656
News Why I quit atheism 5 hr Nooooo 391
More from around the web