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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3555 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It isn't "equal protection of the law".
It is "equal protection under the law".
That correction was short, but pointless.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
The reality remains that marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and absent a compelling state interest to deny such protection, same sex couples should be allowed equal protection OF the laws.
Buck Crick wrote:
The 14 rulings you refer to do not, as you claimed previously, have the Supreme Court saying there is a fundamental right to marry.
Actually, they do. There is a long history of marriage being upheld as a fundamental right, and there is also a history of striking down restrictions agains who should be able to marry.

Unless you can present a valid state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry, that too shall likely come to pass, as it did in Illinois last night.
Buck Crick wrote:
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is an anti-slavery measure, and has not one thing to do with homosexuals or marriage.
Sorry charlie, nowhere does Section 1 of the 14th Amendment mention slavery, and it has been applied, time and time again by courts across the country (including the US Supreme Court), to issues having nothing to do with slavery.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Actually, if such a restriction does not serve a compelling governmental interest, then it is unconstitutional. Can you offer any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I would bet that you cannot.
Buck Crick wrote:
Everybody equal. Under the law.
Everyone should be, but that is currently not the case in many jurisdictions. Time will tell if you can offer a valid argument against equality for same sex couples.

I don't think that you can.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3556 Nov 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Slow progress maybe, but definitely sure progress.
No one will unravel all the progress in the US now.
<quoted text>
Full equality is just a matter of time.

Its inevitable, really.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3557 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That correction was short, but pointless.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
The reality remains that marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and absent a compelling state interest to deny such protection, same sex couples should be allowed equal protection OF the laws.
<quoted text>
Actually, they do. There is a long history of marriage being upheld as a fundamental right, and there is also a history of striking down restrictions agains who should be able to marry.
Unless you can present a valid state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry, that too shall likely come to pass, as it did in Illinois last night.
<quoted text>
Sorry charlie, nowhere does Section 1 of the 14th Amendment mention slavery, and it has been applied, time and time again by courts across the country (including the US Supreme Court), to issues having nothing to do with slavery.
<quoted text>
Actually, if such a restriction does not serve a compelling governmental interest, then it is unconstitutional. Can you offer any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I would bet that you cannot.
<quoted text>
Everyone should be, but that is currently not the case in many jurisdictions. Time will tell if you can offer a valid argument against equality for same sex couples.
I don't think that you can.
No. The 14 cases do not say what you claimed. If they do, point it out. You're saying so does not make it so, because you are a liar.

The 14th Amendment was ratified as a remedy to the practice of states, post-slavery, resisting recognition of the rights of freed slaves. This is incontrovertible history. Applying the amendment to such subjects as gay marriage was not contemplated with its ratification, and nobody voted on such inclusions. If they had been included, it would not have been ratified.

So some courts have tacked it on.

That's a no-no, if you respect the Constitution. You do not. I am suspicious of someone arguing what the Constitution requires when they prove they have contempt for the Constitution. You fit the bill.

You (and some courts) are advocating creation of rights without the consent of "we the people".

I will grant you that such constitutionally fraudulent cases have prevailed in courts.

As, during other times, the right to own, buy, and sell other human beings was codified.

Rights do not originate from the Supreme Court.

"Time will tell if you can offer a valid argument against equality for same sex couples."

Couples? Nice dodge.

Rights belong to individuals. I am in favor of equality for individuals, including gays.

The right to marry the opposite sex exists for them, as for every person - under the law.

You are advocating something other than equality under the law.

What is it?


“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3558 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No. The 14 cases do not say what you claimed. If they do, point it out. You're saying so does not make it so, because you are a liar.
I'm not going to read to you. Each decision upholds that marriage is a fundamental right. Simply saying that they don't doesn't make it so.
Buck Crick wrote:
The 14th Amendment was ratified as a remedy to the practice of states, post-slavery, resisting recognition of the rights of freed slaves. This is incontrovertible history. Applying the amendment to such subjects as gay marriage was not contemplated with its ratification, and nobody voted on such inclusions. If they had been included, it would not have been ratified.
So some courts have tacked it on.
That's a no-no, if you respect the Constitution.
So, the US Supreme Court has been wrong in citing it in any number of other instances having to do with equal protection of the laws?
Tell me, oh great constitutional scholar, where does the 14th Amendment limit equal protection to recently freed slaves? Oh right, it doesn't. It applies to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. Do you wonder why it was written that way? Could it be, perhaps, that legislators of the day wished to see that no act of majority tyranny could be used to "enslave" any American minority, or to deny any US Citizen equal protection OF the law?
There is no need to vote upon inclusion of rights, they exist in the amendment as written. Were you not ignorant of the law and jurisprudence, you might also understand that fundamental rights are not subject to any vote.
Buck Crick wrote:
You do not. I am suspicious of someone arguing what the Constitution requires when they prove they have contempt for the Constitution. You fit the bill.
I have no contempt for the constitution, and I am not the one attempting to rationalize away it's provisions, you are.
Buck Crick wrote:
You (and some courts) are advocating creation of rights without the consent of "we the people".
I will grant you that such constitutionally fraudulent cases have prevailed in courts.
As, during other times, the right to own, buy, and sell other human beings was codified.
Rights do not originate from the Supreme Court.
A little education for you:
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Just as I am not allowed to vote on your right to speak, carry a firearm, worship the religion of your choosing, be free of unreasonable search an seizure,etc; you are not allowed to vote on the right of someone else to marry who they choose.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Time will tell if you can offer a valid argument against equality for same sex couples."
Couples? Nice dodge.
Rights belong to individuals. I am in favor of equality for individuals, including gays. The right to marry the opposite sex exists for them, as for every person - under the law.
You are advocating something other than equality under the law.
What is it?
So, you accuse someone of making a dodge, and then offer this nonsense rationalization?
First of all, it is equality.

Secondly, unless you can offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protection of marriage to opposite sex couples, and thus far you have not, such a restriction remains unconstitutional.

Feel free to make a valid argument against same sex marriage by illustrating the elusive compelling state interest served by barring such a union. I don't think you can.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3559 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Smiling while holding a knife at someone's throat is not friendly
The Dude wrote:
You do realise I was describing you, right?
I don't condone violence and never use violent imagery. Search my posts if you doubt.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3560 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to read to you. Each decision upholds that marriage is a fundamental right. Simply saying that they don't doesn't make it so.
<quoted text>
So, the US Supreme Court has been wrong in citing it in any number of other instances having to do with equal protection of the laws?
Tell me, oh great constitutional scholar, where does the 14th Amendment limit equal protection to recently freed slaves? Oh right, it doesn't. It applies to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. Do you wonder why it was written that way? Could it be, perhaps, that legislators of the day wished to see that no act of majority tyranny could be used to "enslave" any American minority, or to deny any US Citizen equal protection OF the law?
There is no need to vote upon inclusion of rights, they exist in the amendment as written. Were you not ignorant of the law and jurisprudence, you might also understand that fundamental rights are not subject to any vote.
<quoted text>
I have no contempt for the constitution, and I am not the one attempting to rationalize away it's provisions, you are.
<quoted text>
A little education for you:
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Just as I am not allowed to vote on your right to speak, carry a firearm, worship the religion of your choosing, be free of unreasonable search an seizure,etc; you are not allowed to vote on the right of someone else to marry who they choose.
<quoted text>
So, you accuse someone of making a dodge, and then offer this nonsense rationalization?
First of all, it is equality.
Secondly, unless you can offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protection of marriage to opposite sex couples, and thus far you have not, such a restriction remains unconstitutional.
Feel free to make a valid argument against same sex marriage by illustrating the elusive compelling state interest served by barring such a union. I don't think you can.
The 14th provided protection of rights fully adjudicated and recognized.

It was not ratified as a basket to toss newly conceived rights into.

The people consented to the previously mentioned rights; they have not consented to the right you claim. You are in favor of the citizenry being ruled without their consent. That is what the system this nation created was to prevent.
----------

The rights to free speech, property, etc. were ALREADY voted on, and exist by the consent of the people. The right to own a firearm or to speak was VOTED ON, and the MAJORITY consented to it.

The right of women to vote was VOTED ON BY MEN. And the "tyranny of the majority" was necessary to ratify it.

So it is correct that they cannot be voted away.

The right now being discussed went through no such process.

Thinking

Royston, UK

#3561 Nov 6, 2013
Exactly. Good news. The tin foil hat wearers are still getting hung up on definitions of marriage whilst the rest of the first world is making same sex marriage equal.
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Full equality is just a matter of time.
Its inevitable, really.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3562 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

A little education for you:

"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Thanks, maam. That's quite an education for me.

So, the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not, and could not be "submitted to vote".

I didn't know that.

I wonder if those who voted on them knew they couldn't be voted on when they voted on them?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3563 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Thanks, maam. That's quite an education for me.
So, the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not, and could not be "submitted to vote".
I didn't know that.
I wonder if those who voted on them knew they couldn't be voted on when they voted on them?
Is that the best you can do? The case in question has to do with compelling individuals to recite the pledge of allegiance in violation of both their free speech, and free exercise of religion. The founders were not trying to compel anyone to do anything. They were ensuring the existence of legal rights. Do you understand the difference between creating a legal right and infringing upon one?

One wonders if you believe the arguments you advance?

Can you come up with a compelling state interest served by denying equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry? I don't think you can.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3564 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that the best you can do? The case in question has to do with compelling individuals to recite the pledge of allegiance in violation of both their free speech, and free exercise of religion. The founders were not trying to compel anyone to do anything. They were ensuring the existence of legal rights. Do you understand the difference between creating a legal right and infringing upon one?
One wonders if you believe the arguments you advance?
Can you come up with a compelling state interest served by denying equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry? I don't think you can.
Your post is gibberish.

I have not commented on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Your claim, on which I do comment, is the claim that rights cannot be voted on, and are not subject to the majority.

You are wrong.

Denying certain people the right to marry the same sex is not denying equal protection.

It is the same level of protection everyone has.

Equal.

Hence, you are advocating something other than "equal protection".

What is it? Why won't you say?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3565 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Your post is gibberish.
I have not commented on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Your claim, on which I do comment, is the claim that rights cannot be voted on, and are not subject to the majority.
You are wrong.
A) The post wouldn't be gibberish to you if you had been paying attention, and reading what I have posted.
B) Fundamental rights may not be put to a vote. Read West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette.
C) I referenced West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, in which the fundamental issue before the court was the Pledge of Allegiance. Specifically if one can be compelled to recite it against their free speech and freedom of religion.
D) I am not wrong. You are, however ignorant, even when the truth is place directly in front of you.
Buck Crick wrote:
Denying certain people the right to marry the same sex is not denying equal protection.
It is the same level of protection everyone has.
Equal.
Hence, you are advocating something other than "equal protection".
What is it? Why won't you say?
The problem with your argument is that you cannot illustrate the restricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples serves a compelling governmental interest, which would render such a restriction constitutional.

It appears you aren't familiar with the concept of strict scrutiny either.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

Your ignorance is showing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3566 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Your ignorance is showing.
Your ignorance is showing = lides
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3567 Nov 6, 2013
However much you prattle on, same sex marriage is becoming equal.

Good news.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post is gibberish.
I have not commented on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Your claim, on which I do comment, is the claim that rights cannot be voted on, and are not subject to the majority.
You are wrong.
Denying certain people the right to marry the same sex is not denying equal protection.
It is the same level of protection everyone has.
Equal.
Hence, you are advocating something other than "equal protection".
What is it? Why won't you say?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3568 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
A) The post wouldn't be gibberish to you if you had been paying attention, and reading what I have posted.
B) Fundamental rights may not be put to a vote. Read West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette.
C) I referenced West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, in which the fundamental issue before the court was the Pledge of Allegiance. Specifically if one can be compelled to recite it against their free speech and freedom of religion.
D) I am not wrong. You are, however ignorant, even when the truth is place directly in front of you.
<quoted text>
The problem with your argument is that you cannot illustrate the restricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples serves a compelling governmental interest, which would render such a restriction constitutional.
It appears you aren't familiar with the concept of strict scrutiny either.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Your ignorance is showing.
I am familiar with "strict scrutiny"

It is the same as regular scrutiny, only stricter.

That's all you need to know about it because it is an absolutely meaningless term.
__________

I read what you posted. I paid attention. I did not pay attention to what you did not post. The relevant portion of the case you cited, which you quoted in your post (suggesting you also thought it was the relevant portion, if I may say), was that rights of speech, religion, etc. cannot be voted on. You repeated it again just now.

Those rights have been voted on. That's how they became part of the Constitution.

The occurrence of an act is proof the act is possible. I think I'm on pretty solid ground with that. So you're wrong.

Rights are codified for protection by consent of the people. I'm also on solid ground with that.
__________

Compelling state interest:

You are the one advocating change in restriction of marriage. The showing of a state interest is your burden.

Whether I can show such a compelling interest (and I can) is not a "problem with your [my] argument" as you claim, as I am not arguing for changing any law. My argument is that the present restrictions on marriage does not violate equal protection.

No compelling state interest is required for that case.

Maybe you should go to law school. Or at least some school.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3569 Nov 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>I don't condone violence and never use violent imagery. Search my posts if you doubt.
But you have no problem advocating harm to gays by demanding they be discriminated against and have their fundamental rights infringed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3570 Nov 6, 2013
Thinking wrote:
However much you prattle on, same sex marriage is becoming equal.
Good news.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is "becoming equal"?

What does that mean?

Does it mean one of you has two holes?

...I mean three,...pardon me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3571 Nov 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>

.. gays by demanding they be discriminated against and have their fundamental rights infringed.
Infringing doesn't seem so bad, considering many like fringes.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3572 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text> "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
If someone wants to pray out loud (freedom of speech) and someone doesn't want to listen to it (freedom of religion) which right supersedes the other?

Here is a good one. SAN FRANCISCO - Five students were sent home from Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill on Wednesday for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Both are American citizens and both have equal rights. It was a Mexican holiday/celebration day but in an American school where many Spanish children as well as American children attend. Who has the rights in this?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3573 Nov 6, 2013
The link http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Students...

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3574 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone wants to pray out loud (freedom of speech) and someone doesn't want to listen to it (freedom of religion) which right supersedes the other?
Here is a good one. SAN FRANCISCO - Five students were sent home from Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill on Wednesday for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Both are American citizens and both have equal rights. It was a Mexican holiday/celebration day but in an American school where many Spanish children as well as American children attend. Who has the rights in this?
I can answer that for you, RebateDime.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with rights or the Constitution.

Nothing. Nada.

That is liberalism. Pure and simple.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents students from praying in school or wearing a flag on their shirt.

Liberals hate the Constitution, and they hate religion, thus such actions as you describe occur.

The only exception is Islam. Liberals will stand up for the rights of Islamists (see Gitmo; waterboarding)- only because so many Islamists hate America, too.

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend"



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 Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 min Eagle 12 10,113
News Why I quit atheism 23 min Eagle 12 732
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 30 min Mikko 21,246
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 42 min Eagle 12 18,723
Good arguments against Christianity 1 hr Eagle 12 241
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 43,441
A Universe from Nothing? 2 hr u196533dm 624
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 hr thetruth 256,643
More from around the web