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

#3575 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Actually, it's not so meaningless, unless one has no rational foundation for their argument, and therefore needs desperately to ignore existing rules for heightened judicial scrutiny.
Strict Scrutiny is in no way meaningless. Your dismissal of judicial levels of review and other legal concepts implies that your argument is without a basis is reason.
Buck Crick wrote:
I read what you posted. I paid attention. I did not pay attention to what you did not post.
With cyclical logic like that, you must be a hit on the playground.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Sorry Charlie, once again you illustrate that you don't understand basic legal concepts.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."
Before the law was made, the right did not exist. Only a fool would say that rights cannot be made or protected with laws. The purpose of the ruling was to decide when, or if, the government could infringe upon those legal protections.
Buck Crick wrote:
Compelling state interest:
You are the one advocating change in restriction of marriage. The showing of a state interest is your burden.
Sorry Charlie, a compelling state interest must be served before rights are infringed. Are you attempting, foolishly, to imply that restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman does not prohibit same sex couples from marriage. Of course it does, only a fool would claim otherwise. At question is whether such a restriction serves a compelling state interest. Clearly, it does not, or you would be able to offer up the interest and easily put an end to the debate.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3576 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "fundamental right of marriage".
In which case it doesn't matter who gets married then.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3577 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.
Holy crud, you sure ain't a fan of irony meters.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3578 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nope, that's not equal. If the law disallows gay marriage then a woman can't marry a woman, but a man can. Ergo a man has a right women do not. A man can't marry a man, but a woman can. Ergo a woman has a right men do not. Hence it's not equal. Twice.

Of course you could simply stop caring if gay couples marry and just stay the f ck out of other people's business.(shrug)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3579 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's not so meaningless, unless one has no rational foundation for their argument, and therefore needs desperately to ignore existing rules for heightened judicial scrutiny.
Strict Scrutiny is in no way meaningless. Your dismissal of judicial levels of review and other legal concepts implies that your argument is without a basis is reason.
<quoted text>
With cyclical logic like that, you must be a hit on the playground.
<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie, once again you illustrate that you don't understand basic legal concepts.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."
Before the law was made, the right did not exist. Only a fool would say that rights cannot be made or protected with laws. The purpose of the ruling was to decide when, or if, the government could infringe upon those legal protections.
<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie, a compelling state interest must be served before rights are infringed. Are you attempting, foolishly, to imply that restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman does not prohibit same sex couples from marriage. Of course it does, only a fool would claim otherwise. At question is whether such a restriction serves a compelling state interest. Clearly, it does not, or you would be able to offer up the interest and easily put an end to the debate.
Strict scrutiny is indeed meaningless. The court uses it subjectively as an excuse to rule in a particular way when inductive reasoning might not be sufficient. It is a way, simply, to cloak judicial bias. Same for light scrutiny and medium scrutiny, if the court chose to call them such. Nonsense. Strike 1.
__________

Your quotation is largely correct on the Bill of Rights, but it is placed beyond POLITICAL MAJORITIES AND OFFICIALS. It is not placed beyond majorities. Case in point - it's requirement to be ratified by majorities. Strike 2.
__________

Rights have to be shown to be infringed before a compelling state interest for the infringement is required, which gets us back to my point - if every citizen is equally prohibited from marrying another person of the same sex, how is equal protection infringed? Strike 3.
__________

Since the restrictions on marriage are equal for all citizens, you are not advocating "equal rights"

So what are you advocating? Why won't you say?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3580 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You (and some courts) are advocating creation of rights without the consent of "we the people".
Since those rights do not impinge on the rights of others, the consent of others should be irrelevant. Otherwise it is simply people like you dictating their rules onto others and impinging on their freedoms. A gay couple getting married doesn't impinge on your freedom. You disallowing them that right DOES impinge on their freedom.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3581 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You are advocating something other than equality under the law.
What is it?
If you know what it is and this something is unfair then you should have no trouble demonsrating it. If you don't know what it is then you don't have an argument. You have a conspiracy theory.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3582 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.
It was a pretty obvious analogy of you being friendly to someone's face while working to undermine them. Not surprised you didn't have the neurons to work it out. Unless of course you were playing silly beggers for the sake of a rhetorical attack, which is certainly a part of your Raison d'ĂȘtre.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3583 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?
During class time verbal prayer is not allowed anymore than any other speech not related to the class. At that time you are interfering with the right of others to learn.

The American flag wearers were incorrectly stopped from wearing their shirts since it was seen as an action that could have incited violence. That was wrong of the school. Cinco de Mayo is not "Mexican Independence Day" at any rate. At best it is a U.S. drinking holiday. In Mexico it is celebrated in only a very small area. September 16 is Mexican Independence Day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3584 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Yes, and the point being that should not have been necessary in the first place. However due to ancient-minded troglodytes like yourself apparently there is a need to run things by people like you first, just to check if things like freedom and democracy are okay for people you don't like.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3585 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's not equal. If the law disallows gay marriage then a woman can't marry a woman, but a man can. Ergo a man has a right women do not. A man can't marry a man, but a woman can. Ergo a woman has a right men do not. Hence it's not equal. Twice.
Of course you could simply stop caring if gay couples marry and just stay the f ck out of other people's business.(shrug)
"Against stupidity, even the gods struggle."

Dud, under the law, men and women are considered "equal".

Under the law, there is no differential benefit attached to marrying a woman, as none is attached to marrying a man.

If you, as a woman, want to argue before the courts that men and women should not be equal under the law, go ahead and develop the case you just alluded to.

You moron.



“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3586 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
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?
That's a pretty childish example. When last I checked freedom of speech was freedom of speech. That said, if they are on private property and are asked to stop, then they could be asked or compelled to leave.

All to often stupid hypothetical situations are a matter of common sense.
replaytime wrote:
Here is a good one.
Good, because that last one was pretty pathetic.
replaytime wrote:
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?
It's a simple matter of free expression, the school was out of line.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3587 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Since those rights do not impinge on the rights of others, the consent of others should be irrelevant. Otherwise it is simply people like you dictating their rules onto others and impinging on their freedoms. A gay couple getting married doesn't impinge on your freedom. You disallowing them that right DOES impinge on their freedom.
Read to me where I said I wanted to prevent same-sex marriage.

....waiting.

The law impinges (should be infringes) on the freedom to marry.

The argument is to which restrictions are constitutional.

The restriction on same-sex marriage violates no part of the Constitution.

And all the rights contained therein were consented to by "the people".

The alleged right to marry the same sex was not.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3588 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know what it is and this something is unfair then you should have no trouble demonsrating it. If you don't know what it is then you don't have an argument. You have a conspiracy theory.
Oh, I know what he is advocating.

I just want him to say it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3589 Nov 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
During class time verbal prayer is not allowed anymore than any other speech not related to the class. At that time you are interfering with the right of others to learn.
The American flag wearers were incorrectly stopped from wearing their shirts since it was seen as an action that could have incited violence. That was wrong of the school. Cinco de Mayo is not "Mexican Independence Day" at any rate. At best it is a U.S. drinking holiday. In Mexico it is celebrated in only a very small area. September 16 is Mexican Independence Day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
Where in the Constitution is "the right to learn"?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3590 Nov 6, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Strict scrutiny is indeed meaningless. The court uses it subjectively as an excuse to rule in a particular way when inductive reasoning might not be sufficient. It is a way, simply, to cloak judicial bias. Same for light scrutiny and medium scrutiny, if the court chose to call them such. Nonsense. Strike 1.
Sorry Buck, it's well defined and applicable in this instance. It isn't my fault that you can't offer a valid argument that can meet the appropriate level of judicial review.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your quotation is largely correct on the Bill of Rights, but it is placed beyond POLITICAL MAJORITIES AND OFFICIALS. It is not placed beyond majorities. Case in point - it's requirement to be ratified by majorities. Strike 2.
Once again, it is from West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. It isn't largely correct, it is a US Supreme Court decision. You seem to suffer from the delusion that you opinion carries the same weight that the court does. Surprise, it does not.
Buck Crick wrote:
Rights have to be shown to be infringed before a compelling state interest for the infringement is required, which gets us back to my point - if every citizen is equally prohibited from marrying another person of the same sex, how is equal protection infringed? Strike 3.
Does defining marriage as being between a man and a woman prevent same sex couples from marrying? If so equal protection has been denied, unless you can offer a compelling state interest served by restricting marriage to being between man and a woman.

Once again, it sin't my problem that you can't make even a fundamental argument in support of your position. Don't feel too badly, those against same sex marriage are having similar problems supporting their arguments in the courts.
Buck Crick wrote:
Since the restrictions on marriage are equal for all citizens, you are not advocating "equal rights"
So what are you advocating? Why won't you say?
Sorry Buck, unless the restrictions serve a legitimate state interest they are not valid. Truth be told, I don't think they even have a rational basis. Would you like to attempt to clear that lower bar? You haven't even attempted to clear the higher, more appropriate one.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3591 Nov 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
During class time verbal prayer is not allowed anymore than any other speech not related to the class. At that time you are interfering with the right of others to learn.
The American flag wearers were incorrectly stopped from wearing their shirts since it was seen as an action that could have incited violence. That was wrong of the school. Cinco de Mayo is not "Mexican Independence Day" at any rate. At best it is a U.S. drinking holiday. In Mexico it is celebrated in only a very small area. September 16 is Mexican Independence Day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo
uhm who said it was "Mexican Independence Day". No one here did. At any rate I believe most know what it is. It is no doubt an excuse for Americans to drink up.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3592 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the point being that should not have been necessary in the first place. However due to ancient-minded troglodytes like yourself apparently there is a need to run things by people like you first, just to check if things like freedom and democracy are okay for people you don't like.
There are some rights, such as giving women the right to vote, a questionable move at best ;-), that we do have to vote on to change. The rights of homosexuals to marry is on the middle ground. It can be changed by the courts or by the popular vote, or by acts of state legislation. At any rate there is no reasonable reason to keep gays from marrying. I can think of all sorts of unreasonable reasons for this. For example we all know who god hates!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3593 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty childish example. When last I checked freedom of speech was freedom of speech. That said, if they are on private property and are asked to stop, then they could be asked or compelled to leave.
All to often stupid hypothetical situations are a matter of common sense.
<quoted text>
Good, because that last one was pretty pathetic.
<quoted text>
It's a simple matter of free expression, the school was out of line.
Exactly. Freedom of speech is only freedom of speech if you do it in the right place. If not you don't have freedom of speech. So at best it should be called limited freedom of speech.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3594 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Exactly. Freedom of speech is only freedom of speech if you do it in the right place. If not you don't have freedom of speech. So at best it should be called limited freedom of speech.
No, otherwise you are merely arguing against property rights. All freedoms have limits. Even the US Supreme Court has stated that free speech is limited and not all speech is protected.

Speech which creates a clear and present danger, for example is not protected. This does not mean that one does not have free speech. It just means that speech has consequences, and if one decides to use it stupidly, then they should expect consequences. Ultimately none of this is a threat to free speech for any reasonable person.

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) 1 hr AmericanPagan 21,175
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 43,230
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 18,569
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 6 hr Eagle 12 10,051
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 6 hr Eagle 12 753
A Universe from Nothing? 6 hr Into The Night 538
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 7 hr Patrick 465
More from around the web