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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#3656 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I believe your wife played tailback with us.
I forgot to mention that I know I am not related to you by marriage.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3657 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your entire premise is moot, as the SCOTUS has already shot down DOMA -- which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- was unconstitutional.

You can bitch and moan all you want.

It's a done deal, and one by one, each state will adopt same-sex marriage.

And it will affect your own marriage NOT. ONE. BIT.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3658 Nov 7, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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'.
I didn't play ball in prison.

I played for the University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Ray Perkins and Bill Curry.

Prison was after I got kicked off the team - for the final time, and was convicted of armed robbery,...and assault,....and,...well never mind.

Also did a stretch with the Bengals.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3659 Nov 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your entire premise is moot, as the SCOTUS has already shot down DOMA -- which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- was unconstitutional.
You can bitch and moan all you want.
It's a done deal, and one by one, each state will adopt same-sex marriage.
And it will affect your own marriage NOT. ONE. BIT.
My argument is correct, and it's accuracy and logic are not affected by what 5 self-aggrandized lawyers in robes say.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3660 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is correct, and it's accuracy and logic are not affected by what 5 self-aggrandized lawyers in robes say.
You say that as if anyone should care what you think.

Hint: It does not.

If you PERSONALLY choose not to marry another guy, that's your business. Being straight myself, I wouldn't either.

But removing the DOMA restriction for those individuals that DO choose to marry a person of their own sex was the right thing to do.

If you don't like it, you could always move to Iran. I understand they don't have any homosexuals over there (according to Ahmadinejad, anyway).

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3661 Nov 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that as if anyone should care what you think.
Hint: It does not.
If you PERSONALLY choose not to marry another guy, that's your business. Being straight myself, I wouldn't either.
But removing the DOMA restriction for those individuals that DO choose to marry a person of their own sex was the right thing to do.
If you don't like it, you could always move to Iran. I understand they don't have any homosexuals over there (according to Ahmadinejad, anyway).
Did you think you were contradicting some position of mine, Gong?

I haven't expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

All I have done is show that its prohibition does not violate the Constitution. And I am correct.

There is no constitutional basis for awarding a "right" to same-sex marriage.

Other than that, do what you will, but please don't scare the horses in the street.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3662 Nov 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that as if anyone should care what you think.
Hint: It does not.
If you PERSONALLY choose not to marry another guy, that's your business. Being straight myself, I wouldn't either.
But removing the DOMA restriction for those individuals that DO choose to marry a person of their own sex was the right thing to do.
If you don't like it, you could always move to Iran. I understand they don't have any homosexuals over there (according to Ahmadinejad, anyway).
Oh,..by the way. Thank you, Gong, for caring what I think enough to spend that much time telling me you don't care what I think.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3663 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.
All I have done is show that its prohibition does not violate the Constitution. And I am correct.
There is no constitutional basis for awarding a "right" to same-sex marriage.
Congratulations on having the courage to not oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

But you're incorrect that the prohibition of same-sex marriage doesn't violate the Constitution. As we have pointed out, DOMA *DID* attempt to define marriage thusly, and it was found by the SCOTUS -- whose job it is to interpret the Constitution -- that DOMA *WAS* unconstitutional.

You're right there's not constitutional basis for awarding a 'right' to SSM.....BUT it *IS* UNconstitutional to deny same-sex marriage for those that would choose to do so.
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3664 Nov 7, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Or asking a theist for proof of god!
Skeptic!
I dont know you that well, but I know you an't no gay!

Why did you drag us here anyway?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3665 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh,..by the way. Thank you, Gong, for caring what I think enough to spend that much time telling me you don't care what I think.
Meh.....it's a slow day at work.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3666 Nov 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations on having the courage to not oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.
But you're incorrect that the prohibition of same-sex marriage doesn't violate the Constitution. As we have pointed out, DOMA *DID* attempt to define marriage thusly, and it was found by the SCOTUS -- whose job it is to interpret the Constitution -- that DOMA *WAS* unconstitutional.
You're right there's not constitutional basis for awarding a 'right' to SSM.....BUT it *IS* UNconstitutional to deny same-sex marriage for those that would choose to do so.
The two are one and the same.

And there is no constitutional violation in denying same sex marriage.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#3667 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't play ball in prison.
I played for the University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Ray Perkins and Bill Curry.
Prison was after I got kicked off the team - for the final time, and was convicted of armed robbery,...and assault,....and,...well never mind.
Also did a stretch with the Bengals.
Thank you Duck for wasting your time by responding to my posts. I had a bet that you would.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3668 Nov 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh.....it's a slow day at work.
Does that mean I don't have to move to Iran?

Hope not. Not sure I could live on sand and camel milk.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3669 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The two are one and the same.
And there is no constitutional violation in denying same sex marriage.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The two are one and the same.
And there is no constitutional violation in denying same sex marriage.
The Supreme Court of the United States would disagree.
They have ruled in very clear language that denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Justice Kennedy on the SCOTUS decision:

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group.

DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/2...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3670 Nov 7, 2013
Damn, double-tapped Buck's portion of the post above.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3671 Nov 7, 2013
Julie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to hell queer.
Oh look. It's God.

Wait, Julie isn't God? In that case Julie's talking BS.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3672 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Still, as dumb and dishonest as Kennedy is
There goes another irony meter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3673 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Except there isn't one human on the planet with bear arms. Human arms, yes, but not bear arms.

Ain't the English language grand.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3674 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.
And here she is:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gyBbPIoveYM/UTO66u0...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3675 Nov 7, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Hence, there is no right of a couple to marry. No couple. No couple gay or straight.
There went your argument.
In which case no reason to prevent marriage, gay or straight. There went your argument.

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) 5 min Dogen 3,188
High School Atheism 2 hr Eagle 12 - 37
How Do You Debate? 2 hr blacklagoon 3 2
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 83,810
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sun Reason Personified 60
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Dec 9 ChristineM 3,995
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Dec 8 Frindly 1,190
More from around the web