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: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3635 Nov 6, 2013
Pierre wrote:
<quoted text>
They have to wear butt plugs to keep their sh!t from leaking out.
Homosexuality is disgusting.
You are a sock puppet replying to your own post.
So obvious.
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3636 Nov 6, 2013
Julie wrote:
<quoted text>
Straight to hEll phaGG, continue to make excuses for your crude & deviant behavior.
'phaGG'? Not I!
I'm a male lesbian.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3637 Nov 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
But you have no problem advocating harm to gays by demanding they be discriminated against and have their fundamental rights infringed.
Keeping marriage one man and one woman doesn't harm gays, since many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is sex discrimination marriage, where segregation is accepted as a marriage norm.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3638 Nov 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Keeping marriage one man and one woman doesn't harm gays, since many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is sex discrimination marriage, where segregation is accepted as a marriage norm.
You are so full of shyt it is time to call Mr Septic. You don't know any gays so how the hellll can you say gays defend marriage as male/female. If you were around gays you would avoid them and/or treat them like shyt.

Same sex marriage is sex discrimination to who? A bigot idiot like you! You are just PO'd because inside you are gay and you won't show it while others do so you feel like you are missing out.

Come out of the closet Brian. The only way you can dislike gays so mush is to be a closet gay. Either come out of the closet or shut up and let the ones that have came out of the closet live and be happy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3639 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of shyt it is time to call Mr Septic. You don't know any gays so how the hellll can you say gays defend marriage as male/female. If you were around gays you would avoid them and/or treat them like shyt.
Same sex marriage is sex discrimination to who? A bigot idiot like you! You are just PO'd because inside you are gay and you won't show it while others do so you feel like you are missing out.
Come out of the closet Brian. The only way you can dislike gays so mush is to be a closet gay. Either come out of the closet or shut up and let the ones that have came out of the closet live and be happy.
Creationism is a joke. You're arguing against another mentally ill person when you both share the same delusion - god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3640 Nov 6, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>Try signing up for Obama care!
Or asking a theist for proof of god!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#3641 Nov 6, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism is a joke. You're arguing against another mentally ill person when you both share the same delusion - god.
Do you ever do anything besides run around an be an @ss and flap your dicsuker?

Tomorrow try to do something you have never ever done before,,, try to make a difference for once.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3642 Nov 7, 2013
Your prattling changes nothing. Same sex marriages are being made legal in more and more territories. Sucks to be you.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Keeping marriage one man and one woman doesn't harm gays, since many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is sex discrimination marriage, where segregation is accepted as a marriage norm.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3643 Nov 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us where in the Constitution it says we have a "right to own a gun". And remember, just like with the "right to privacy", only exact words count.
They went to the trouble of spelling out the right to keep and bear arms, recognizable at first reading.

On the alleged right to privacy, they totally forgot to mention it, and it took justices 200 years to locate it.

Same with separation of church and state.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3644 Nov 7, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever do anything besides run around an be an @ss and flap your dicsuker?
Tomorrow try to do something you have never ever done before,,, try to make a difference for once.
Septic does things other than flap his dicsuker.

He also chases farts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3645 Nov 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people into anal sex are straight.
When I was playing football at Alabama, some of the cheerleaders liked it anal.

One liked me to beat her in the face with it.

The Buck Member, I mean.

Good ole days.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3646 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I know strict scrutiny is well-defined. Just like other judicial terms, "stare decisis", for instance.
And none of them mean anything. They mean the court gives them importance - when the court wants to give them importance. They are meaningless and unnecessary terms, all falling under the category of "the court does as pleases the court".
That's a pretty blithe dismissal, which tends to indicate you aren't up to the task of formulating a valid argument. Congratulations, as Monty Python used to say, "run away!"
Buck Crick wrote:
I'm not arguing with Virginia v. Barnette, only in the sense that the opinion is imprecise.
I'm saying you do not understand what it is saying.
You are taking them to say the mentioned rights are beyond the people's reach. They did not say that. They say they are beyond political majorities and officials.
I am sorry I have to explain your own citation to you.
It's actually pretty specific. Only a fool would claim otherwise. Do you see how you are always trying to explain away the law, and how you never present an actual argument?
Buck Crick wrote:
Defining marriage as between members of the opposite sex DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM MARRYING! Any person who meets the legal eligibility can get married. A gay person is not prevented, nor is a straight person.
Try to grasp the concept. Equal treatment under the law - it applies to everyone. A straight guy cannot marry another guy. Are his rights violated? No.
Can same sex couples marry? If not, such a provision prevents people from marrying. Thus far, you have been utterly incapable of justifying the restriction. Saying everyone has equal protection to marry someone of the same sex is tantamount to saying that people had equal protection to marry people of the same race prior to Loving v Virginia. Your argument is anything but sound.
Buck Crick wrote:
To continue your legal training with me, I'm requiring you to put in some extra study.
Here is your first assignment, and I think it might clear up some of the flawed responses you have been giving me.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (Equal Protection Clause)
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,..."
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,..."
Question 1:
Does the Equal Protection clause refer to "person[s]" or "couples"?
People, of course.
Buck Crick wrote:
A. person[s]
B. couples
Really, you offered answers? What are you, six?
Buck Crick wrote:
Please take your time.
No need, it's a simplistic question (like all of your arguments) with a simple answer.

Now, I will ask you a question which may take you some time to answer. Does a marriage require two people?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3647 Nov 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty blithe dismissal, which tends to indicate you aren't up to the task of formulating a valid argument. Congratulations, as Monty Python used to say, "run away!"
<quoted text>
It's actually pretty specific. Only a fool would claim otherwise. Do you see how you are always trying to explain away the law, and how you never present an actual argument?
<quoted text>
Can same sex couples marry? If not, such a provision prevents people from marrying. Thus far, you have been utterly incapable of justifying the restriction. Saying everyone has equal protection to marry someone of the same sex is tantamount to saying that people had equal protection to marry people of the same race prior to Loving v Virginia. Your argument is anything but sound.
<quoted text>
People, of course.
<quoted text>
Really, you offered answers? What are you, six?
<quoted text>
No need, it's a simplistic question (like all of your arguments) with a simple answer.
Now, I will ask you a question which may take you some time to answer. Does a marriage require two people?
You got your homework question wrong. Sorry.

The correct answer is B, "Person(s)". I will allow you to retake the test. I'm a good guy that way.
__________

My arguments stand unrefuted. However, in most cases, I am not prompted to produce an argument, only to correct you on facts.
__________

"Does a marriage require two people?"

As of now, yes. If you and your cohorts invent some more new "fundamental rights", like say, the right to be married to 4 people at once, or a donkey, then we will have to revisit the question.
__________

But the more important point (since you are unable to grasp it, I will point it out for you) is that constitutional protection of rights does not accrue to "couples", or "people". They accrue by virtue of being a "person".

Hence, there is no right of a couple to marry. No couple. No couple gay or straight.

There went your argument.

Now, get back to your homework. I'm going to have to do a lot of work on you.

I hope you appreciate it.



“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3649 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You got your homework question wrong. Sorry.
The correct answer is B, "Person(s)". I will allow you to retake the test. I'm a good guy that way.
It's so cute when you are a control freak. It's even cuter when you can't advance a legitimate argument in defense of your position.

Grow up.
Buck Crick wrote:
My arguments stand unrefuted. However, in most cases, I am not prompted to produce an argument, only to correct you on facts.
You've yet to make one. Just as you've yet to offer a compelling state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. Your assertions that such an interest isn't applicable doesn't negate your inability to present the interest. And your assertions are incorrect.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Does a marriage require two people?"
As of now, yes. If you and your cohorts invent some more new "fundamental rights", like say, the right to be married to 4 people at once, or a donkey, then we will have to revisit the question.
Sorry Buck, learn to count. Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law. Anyone who has passed the first grade would understand that. Arguments of polygamy are utterly irrelevant.
Buck Crick wrote:
But the more important point (since you are unable to grasp it, I will point it out for you) is that constitutional protection of rights does not accrue to "couples", or "people". They accrue by virtue of being a "person".
Hence, there is no right of a couple to marry. No couple. No couple gay or straight.
There went your argument.
Now, get back to your homework. I'm going to have to do a lot of work on you.
I hope you appreciate it.
Are you asserting that a homosexual is not a person? That would be a pretty stupid argument.

The reality remains the legal protections of marriage require a couple. This is true in every state in the union.

How's that hunt for a compelling state interest served by denying same sex individuals from marrying going.(See, we can both play stupid semantics games, moron)
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3650 Nov 7, 2013
Are you still cheerleading?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was playing football at Alabama, some of the cheerleaders liked it anal.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#3651 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was playing football at Alabama, some of the cheerleaders liked it anal.
One liked me to beat her in the face with it.
The Buck Member, I mean.
Good ole days.
So your wife used to be a cheerleader?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3652 Nov 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's so cute when you are a control freak. It's even cuter when you can't advance a legitimate argument in defense of your position.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
You've yet to make one. Just as you've yet to offer a compelling state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. Your assertions that such an interest isn't applicable doesn't negate your inability to present the interest. And your assertions are incorrect.
<quoted text>
Sorry Buck, learn to count. Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law. Anyone who has passed the first grade would understand that. Arguments of polygamy are utterly irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Are you asserting that a homosexual is not a person? That would be a pretty stupid argument.
The reality remains the legal protections of marriage require a couple. This is true in every state in the union.
How's that hunt for a compelling state interest served by denying same sex individuals from marrying going.(See, we can both play stupid semantics games, moron)
You are making no progress.

Get back to the homework assignment and see if you can answer the question correctly this time. I gave you the answer, so you don't even have to be able to read the amendment. That's as far as I'm willing to go to help you on that question.
__________

Polygamy seeks no greater protection under the law than same-sex marriage. It simply involves more persons (that's a hint for your test) than monogamy. Each person has one set of rights, just like with the proposed same-sex marriage. You obviously have spent no time studying law, or the Constitution to blurt out a stupid contention like that.
__________

State protection of marriage and the concomitant legal benefits have nothing to do with Equal Protection. The constitutional right of equal protection applies to individuals, and the resulting rights and benefits existing by entrance into legal marriage are decided elsewhere, and requires two persons, by definition. I don't know how you get all of this wrong.
__________

On your question of whether I consider a homosexual a person, I'll let that slide as floundering.

Homosexual persons are persons; that's why they have the same right to marry as heterosexual persons do. Equal.

Now get back to your homework. Obviously, you are just getting started on this path to know something about law.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3653 Nov 7, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So your wife used to be a cheerleader?
No, but I believe your wife played tailback with us.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3654 Nov 7, 2013
Marriage under threat:

Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce
'We Would Save Thousands Of Dollars If We Got Divorced,' Woman Says
November 6, 2013 10:00 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork)— From website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act are well documented.

But now, could it be breaking couples up?

CBS 2’s Don Champion spoke to one Brooklyn couple on Wednesday who said they may be forced to get a divorce to get health insurance.

Nona Willis Aronowitz and Aaron Cassara’s love affair began at a party in 2008.

“We kissed on a bean bag chair,” Aronowitz said.

A year later, it grew into a marriage at City Hall in Manhattan.

“It was really sudden,” Aronowitz said.“It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.”

But four years later, there is now irony in the fact the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.

“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced,” Aronowitz said....
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/obamac...

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#3655 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I believe your wife played tailback with us.
It is always possible but would be dependent on whether have or had a wife.

In any event, I wouldn't be married to anyone that had spent time in the Alabama prison system.

Sorry to have disturbed you while were batin'.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min One way or another 33,901
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Brian_G 14,806
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr thetruth 255,484
News Atheist group in Kenya tests boundaries of reli... 4 hr thetruth 20
church disowns Trump for being too gay friendly 4 hr thetruth 4
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr thetruth 3,674
News The Atheist Delusion': Ray Comfort's Masterpiece 4 hr thetruth 57
More from around the web