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

#3534 Nov 4, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>'Oh its you!'
Sorry I never botherd to look at the post name.
As I said,I'd like to wait to see if you was a female or not before commenting.
Better for you to make this comment, than to try to prove your god and realise its a big fat lie!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3535 Nov 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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
She has been charged.
The case has not yet come to trial.
She will lose.
She broke the law.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3536 Nov 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
His words indicate otherwise:
<quoted text>
You do realise I was describing you, right?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3537 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realise I was describing you, right?
Gay marriage is about to be legal in Illinois…Brian is off somewhere crying like a baby while curled up in the fetal position…he'll get back to you shortly...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3538 Nov 5, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage is about to be legal in Illinois…Brian is off somewhere crying like a baby while curled up in the fetal position…he'll get back to you shortly...
Go, Illinois! That's what? Number 15? Only 35 to go...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3539 Nov 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
His words indicate otherwise:
<quoted text>
Creationism is no excuse for sharing your homosexual hate Brian. Prove your god first then all your childish predjudices will matter more.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3540 Nov 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Go, Illinois! That's what? Number 15? Only 35 to go...
"Opponents of the bill expressed disappointment with the vote and fears that the law will infringe on religious freedoms.

The Catholic Conference of Illinois said in a statement that it is "deeply disappointed that members of the General Assembly chose to redefine what is outside of its authority: a natural institution like marriage. We remain concerned about the very real threats to religious liberty that are at stake with the passage of this bill."

Bishop Larry Trotter, another staunch opponent of the bill, said in a statement that he applauds those who voted against the bill "for standing their ground in their defense of traditional marriage in Illinois."

"(W)e will always believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Trotter said in the statement. "Yet we will still love the members of the LGBT community.""
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3541 Nov 6, 2013
They also love choirboys.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
"Opponents of the bill expressed disappointment with the vote and fears that the law will infringe on religious freedoms.
The Catholic Conference of Illinois said in a statement that it is "deeply disappointed that members of the General Assembly chose to redefine what is outside of its authority: a natural institution like marriage. We remain concerned about the very real threats to religious liberty that are at stake with the passage of this bill."
Bishop Larry Trotter, another staunch opponent of the bill, said in a statement that he applauds those who voted against the bill "for standing their ground in their defense of traditional marriage in Illinois."
"(W)e will always believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Trotter said in the statement. "Yet we will still love the members of the LGBT community.""

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3542 Nov 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
They also love choirboys.
<quoted text>
Bishop Larry Trotter who can't get married said, "Blah blah blah or somethng".

Bishop Larry Trotter said, "Why can't these gay freaks just fuckthe alter boys like I do?"
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3543 Nov 6, 2013
Bishop Larry Trotter clearly does not think sex should be consensual.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Bishop Larry Trotter who can't get married said, "Blah blah blah or somethng".
Bishop Larry Trotter said, "Why can't these gay freaks just fuckthe alter boys like I do?"

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3544 Nov 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution only guarantees trials by jury to those accused of breaking criminal law. It's not a mandatory requirement of administrative law.
<quoted text>
When you become a prosecutor or an Attorney General, than you'll authority to make such a determination. Until such time, it's merely your uninformed opinion.
<quoted text>
Previous compliance with the law doesn't excuse current violations of it.
<quoted text>
"Here's a list of people who won't discriminate against you". Yes, that makes ALL the difference. Not.
<quoted text>
How was creating floral arrangements "promoting" anything. Was someone going to hang a big banner at the ceremony stating "Floral arrangements were proudly supplied by Arlene's Flowers, which heartily endorses and supports the constitutional right of gays exercising their fundamental right of marriage"? No? Then how would anyone even know she old the floral arrangements used in the wedding?
There is no "fundamental right of marriage".

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3545 Nov 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
They also love choirboys.
<quoted text>
Your comment seems to be disparaging and discriminatory toward the sexual preference of another.

Are you a bigot, Tinkling?

Stop the hate-speech, please.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3546 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
There is no "fundamental right of marriage".
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

Funny, the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. Does your opinion carry the weight of law? Theirs does.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3547 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
Funny, the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. Does your opinion carry the weight of law? Theirs does.
I checked your link, and there is no example given of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a fundamental right to marry.

Your guy in your video is a liar.

Of the SC cases he cites, he quotes one (Turner) as declaring such a "fundamental right". It did not. The opinion uses that terminology in referring to a District Court opinion:

"The District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order finding both the correspondence and marriage regulations unconstitutional. The court, relying on Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 413-414 (1974), applied a strict scrutiny standard. It held the marriage regulation to be an unconstitutional infringement upon the fundamental right to marry..."

Even if the SC issued such a statement, it would still be wrong.

They issued a fundamental "right to privacy", and no such right exists.

So it wouldn't be a first.


Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3548 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment seems to be disparaging and discriminatory toward the sexual preference of another.
Are you a bigot, Tinkling?
Stop the hate-speech, please.
Says the idiot follower whose cult teaches how to keep slaves & beat women and children

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3549 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I checked your link, and there is no example given of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a fundamental right to marry.
Your guy in your video is a liar.
Of the SC cases he cites, he quotes one (Turner) as declaring such a "fundamental right". It did not. The opinion uses that terminology in referring to a District Court opinion:
"The District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order finding both the correspondence and marriage regulations unconstitutional. The court, relying on Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 413-414 (1974), applied a strict scrutiny standard. It held the marriage regulation to be an unconstitutional infringement upon the fundamental right to marry..."
Even if the SC issued such a statement, it would still be wrong.
They issued a fundamental "right to privacy", and no such right exists.
So it wouldn't be a first.
Concentrate on proving the god your cult sent you here to lie about, there's a good societal reject.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3550 Nov 6, 2013
Slow progress maybe, but definitely sure progress.
No one will unravel all the progress in the US now.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Go, Illinois! That's what? Number 15? Only 35 to go...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3552 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I checked your link, and there is no example given of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a fundamental right to marry.
Your guy in your video is a liar.
Of the SC cases he cites, he quotes one (Turner) as declaring such a "fundamental right". It did not. The opinion uses that terminology in referring to a District Court opinion:
"The District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order finding both the correspondence and marriage regulations unconstitutional. The court, relying on Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 413-414 (1974), applied a strict scrutiny standard. It held the marriage regulation to be an unconstitutional infringement upon the fundamental right to marry..."
Even if the SC issued such a statement, it would still be wrong.
They issued a fundamental "right to privacy", and no such right exists.
So it wouldn't be a first.
Well, you've just proven that your reading comprehension is less than stellar. Well played.

Even if the court hadn't ruled as it has on 14 separate occasions (that in bizzaro-land apparently don't count), that wouldn't negate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
Do you have a valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry?
Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3553 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you've just proven that your reading comprehension is less than stellar. Well played.
Even if the court hadn't ruled as it has on 14 separate occasions (that in bizzaro-land apparently don't count), that wouldn't negate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
Do you have a valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry?
Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?
It isn't "equal protection of the law".

It is "equal protection under the law".

The 14 rulings you refer to do not, as you claimed previously, have the Supreme Court saying there is a fundamental right to marry.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an anti-slavery measure, and has not one thing to do with homosexuals or marriage.

Even if it did, "equal protection under the law" is perfectly satisfied by the situation - where all people can marry the opposite sex, and none can marry the same sex.

Everybody equal. Under the law.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3554 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you've just proven that your reading comprehension is less than stellar. Well played.
Even if the court hadn't ruled as it has on 14 separate occasions (that in bizzaro-land apparently don't count), that wouldn't negate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
Do you have a valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry?
Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?
It is not "equal protection of the law".

The proper term is "equal protection under the law".

(My reading comprehension??)

The 14 cases do not show what you previously claimed, to wit, the U.S. Supreme Court saying there is a fundamental right to marry.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an anti-slavery measure, and has not one thing to do with marriage or homosexuals.

Even it it did, "equal protection" is satisfied by the situation - all people, under the law, can marry members of the opposite sex, and none can marry members of the same sex.

Everybody equal.

Equality is not what you are advocating.

And yes I can show a compelling governmental interest.

You're wasting your time flagellating your second-hand arguments with me.

You're out of your league.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 min Frindly 3,445
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 84,097
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... Fri Eagle 12 - 9
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Dec 14 Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Dec 14 blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web