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: May 10

Location hidden

#3716 Nov 9, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It says, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", it doesn't say "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, except those laws concerning marriage."
<quoted text>
Begging the question.
Look up the term.
Then look up "Loving v VA".
You changed your story.

You claimed there is a "right to marriage".

Obviously, the 14th, which you referred to, establishes no such "right".

If there was no marriage law of any kind, the 14th amendment would be entirely valid as written.

So, there is no right to marriage, unless you can point out an alternative source.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3717 Nov 9, 2013
EdSed wrote:
Nobody is "Asking homosexuals to rewrite marriage law". You're talking jibberish.
Marriage should be a matter of conscience, not law....
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/featur...
It will be anyway, regardless of laws, traditions or convensions.
Every marriage is unique and there are all types, regardless of legislation. There's open marriages, strictly exclusive couple marriages, some where sex is vital and others where it isn't important. There are homosexual ones and bisexual ones. They are usually monogamous but some are polygamous. Some marriages are arranged and some are for convenience. Some persist beyond their usefulness and the good they do.
(For the benefit of those who hold extreme views and desperate religionists - none of that has anything to do with bestiality or marriage to pot-plants. People who make such silly comments simply aren't listening).
There's far too much nonsense and intolerance surrounding marriage in Western society.
^^^At least this 'marriage equality' supporter understands, the justifications also apply to polygamy, adult brother/sister incest marriage, bestial and necrophilia marriage. If conscience is the standard, what's to stop solo marriage for singles who don't want either a same sex or opposite sex spouse?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3718 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^At least this 'marriage equality' supporter understands, the justifications also apply to polygamy, adult brother/sister incest marriage, bestial and necrophilia marriage. If conscience is the standard, what's to stop solo marriage for singles who don't want either a same sex or opposite sex spouse?
The point is, with allowing same-sex marriage, marriage no longer exists.

Marriage has a defining quality - it involves a man and woman.

Whatever the new thing is called, the former is gone.

Progressives wanted marriage equality so much, they had to destroy it.

Fact is, they never gave a crap about it. They just wanted validation for themselves.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#3719 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^At least this 'marriage equality' supporter understands, the justifications also apply to polygamy, adult brother/sister incest marriage, bestial and necrophilia marriage. If conscience is the standard, what's to stop solo marriage for singles who don't want either a same sex or opposite sex spouse?
You missed paragraph 4.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#3720 Nov 9, 2013
When I say marriage should be a matter of conscience, not law, I in no way imply that the law is irrelevant to what goes on in a marriage. Obviously the law would intervene in a marriage between an adult and a child. I have read of rare instances of biological brother and sister who met without knowledge that they were related and end up married. most people migh find that understandable and acceptable, but having biological children might need to be illegal as it threatens the health of any offspring.

More common is romance between children of two people each of whom have had a child from a previous relationship. e.g.....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-storie...
That young couple aren't biologically related so, apart from their youth perhaps, why must society judge any ban or intervention necessary?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3721 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You are making no progress.
With you, I don't expect to make any progress. You clearly don't acknowledge facts or reality, you exist in your own bubble of how you think the world should be, not how it is. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the_most_depr...
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Your "homework assignment" (God, you really are a hopeless control freak) was a pathetic piece of drivel, which I have both answered and debunked.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Is three greater than, less than, or equal to two. Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law. Anyone who can count can see that simple fact. An intelligent person would realize that polygamy is not relevant to the topic at hand. A foolish person with no valid argument would advance an irrelevant one, like polygamy.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
How dumb do you want people to believe that you are? Your first sentence in this segment proves you wrong. The second that marriage becomes a "state protection" it is a protection of the law, and as such must be afforded equally to all persons within a state's jurisdiction. Read the amendment, moron.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Of course, you have yet to offer that elusive compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument relevant. On the whole, you seem unequipped to rationally defend your position.
Buck Crick wrote:
Now get back to your homework. Obviously, you are just getting started on this path to know something about law.
I need not be bothered by your "homework," fool. You can't seem to offer even so little as a rational basis for your argument, and at the same time seem utterly incapable of understanding basic constitutional and legal concepts. The only one who needs to do some homework here is you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3722 Nov 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>So now you think politics is bull huh?
I hope I'm not talking to a self confessed comunist.
Your feeble attempts to change the topic away from the lack of evidence of god is kinda cute.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3723 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
This is coming from the cult with an Old Testament and a New Testament.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3724 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
You claimed there is a "right to marriage".
Obviously, the 14th, which you referred to, establishes no such "right".
If there was no marriage law of any kind, the 14th amendment would be entirely valid as written.
So, there is no right to marriage, unless you can point out an alternative source.
Creationists are butthurt that they don't own marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3725 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^At least this 'marriage equality' supporter understands, the justifications also apply to polygamy, adult brother/sister incest marriage, bestial and necrophilia marriage. If conscience is the standard, what's to stop solo marriage for singles who don't want either a same sex or opposite sex spouse?
Creationism is a stupid excuse for hating gays.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3726 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Asking homosexuals to rewrite marriage law is like asking atheists to rewrite your religious ceremonies.
What an odd analogy. What does one's religious belief have to do with civil marriage?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3727 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, with allowing same-sex marriage, marriage no longer exists.
M......
Yours, perhaps, but sane folks don't base THEIR marriages, or the value they place in the institution, on the marriages of others.

To suggest that gay folks marrying will somehow devalue the marriages of straight folks is rather insulting to straight folks, don't you think?

I'm sure white supremacists said the same silly things when interracial couples gained the right to legally marry. The concept is just as silly know, as it was then.

You just need to relax.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3728 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You changed your story.
You claimed there is a "right to marriage".
Obviously, the 14th, which you referred to, establishes no such "right".
If there was no marriage law of any kind, the 14th amendment would be entirely valid as written.
So, there is no right to marriage, unless you can point out an alternative source.
Is marriage a protection of the law in every state in the union?
Are homosexuals people?

The reason that the 14th Amendment was written so broadly was to ensure that no subset of Americans could be denied equal protection of the laws.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#3729 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, with allowing same-sex marriage, marriage no longer exists.
How so?
Please elaborate.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3730 Nov 9, 2013
doom wrote:
<quoted text>
Jealous of men who like to take it up the a$$? Not a chance fairy.
:)
Oh, you **are** so very jealous of people who are honest with who they are.

You are dishonest-- it appears that you deny your own homosexuality.

That isn't very healthy. And your mental illness shows, with your hateful posting.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3731 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Asking homosexuals to rewrite marriage law is like asking atheists to rewrite your religious ceremonies.
Actually?

An atheist would be more honest about your religious bullshyt.

For one?

An atheist would not attempt to justify raping little kids-- in direct contrast to you religious pedophiles.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#3732 Nov 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually?
An atheist would be more honest about your religious bullshyt.
For one?
An atheist would not attempt to justify raping little kids-- in direct contrast to you religious pedophiles.
are you sure that he personally is a religious pedophile? or is he an apologist for them? I know he is a disgusting commenter, but do you have evidence to imply that he behaves in such a disgusting manner. I agree entirely with your point that most free thinking persons are more friendly toward the rights of gay persons, including to marriage, based on respect of persons - and that rightwing religious persons are more likely to tolerate pedophiles, as in the case of too many Catholic priests and of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, especially.
Do you ever watch the Rachel Maddow show? Friday night she had on a section about the extremist rightwing fundie types who want to take control of the US government, to get us to adopt policies leading to the types of wars and events that they think are part of Biblical prophecy, in order to bring about end times, with torment for most of us and rapture for the chosen few. She showed a film clip of Hagee saying that God needed Hitler to drive
Jews out so they would go to Israel to help fulfill the prophecy they claim to be unfolding now. The recruitment of Jews to Christian faith is another of its aspects. She also showed info about how George W Bush is one of those types, raising money for them and giving speeches at their meetings - though she said that info about this was being taken off the internet after it got too much notice from non-fundie types. I call these types the Armageddon Welcoming and Facilitating Committee. It is worth checking on.
One reason I disagree with you and other nonbelievers who are a bit too anti religion in general, is that I think there are enough believers to outvote the freethinkers, and thus I want to be friendly to anyone - even a believer in a silly theology - who is not out to destroy the planet and all life, in the cause of fulfilling Biblical prophecy of end times. I am even willing to be friendly to be nice to those who think this scenario will happen in God's own time, as long as they do not actively support those who wish to bring it on by being warmongers, in particular, or by bringing theocratic policy into legislatures - as ALEC and the GOP are doing under the influence of these nutcase types. I even have hopes for this new Pope. I called the old one pope ratty. This one has some leanings toward kindness and love.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3733 Nov 9, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> are you sure that he personally is a religious pedophile? or is he an apologist for them? I know he is a disgusting commenter, but do you have evidence to imply that he behaves in such a disgusting manner. I agree entirely with your point that most free thinking persons are more friendly toward the rights of gay persons, including to marriage, based on respect of persons - and that rightwing religious persons are more likely to tolerate pedophiles, as in the case of too many Catholic priests and of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, especially.
Do you ever watch the Rachel Maddow show? Friday night she had on a section about the extremist rightwing fundie types who want to take control of the US government, to get us to adopt policies leading to the types of wars and events that they think are part of Biblical prophecy, in order to bring about end times, with torment for most of us and rapture for the chosen few. She showed a film clip of Hagee saying that God needed Hitler to drive
Jews out so they would go to Israel to help fulfill the prophecy they claim to be unfolding now. The recruitment of Jews to Christian faith is another of its aspects. She also showed info about how George W Bush is one of those types, raising money for them and giving speeches at their meetings - though she said that info about this was being taken off the internet after it got too much notice from non-fundie types. I call these types the Armageddon Welcoming and Facilitating Committee. It is worth checking on.
One reason I disagree with you and other nonbelievers who are a bit too anti religion in general, is that I think there are enough believers to outvote the freethinkers, and thus I want to be friendly to anyone - even a believer in a silly theology - who is not out to destroy the planet and all life, in the cause of fulfilling Biblical prophecy of end times. I am even willing to be friendly to be nice to those who think this scenario will happen in God's own time, as long as they do not actively support those who wish to bring it on by being warmongers, in particular, or by bringing theocratic policy into legislatures - as ALEC and the GOP are doing under the influence of these nutcase types. I even have hopes for this new Pope. I called the old one pope ratty. This one has some leanings toward kindness and love.
Yes, I watch Ms Maddow occasionally.

And yes-- I'm guilty of simplifying religious discussion here on Topix.

This is because I've seen few moderate religious people in the atheist threads-- all we get here, are the extremists.

So I quit bothering to try to placate people who are not even there (here).

I have no beef with moderate-to-liberal theists, for these people do not try to impose their dogma onto others.

And yes, I've heard of the Dominionists, as some call these "bring on the end times".

They actually believe that Jesus is up in heaven, twiddling his divine thumbs, waiting for the exact super-secret magical gosh-number of Jews to "convert". So he can unlock his return.

It's rather sad, really-- the tiny little box they have put their god into?

Is ... pathetic.
LCNLin

United States

#3734 Nov 9, 2013
doom wrote:
<quoted text>
Jealous of men who like to take it up the a$$? Not a chance fairy.
:)
This post should have be taken down by the Moderator!!!
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3735 Nov 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your feeble attempts to change the topic away from the lack of evidence of god is kinda cute.
My buddy!
No matter how much you ridicule me I still enjoy our time together.

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 56 min The Troll Stopper 363
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 59 min Subduction Zone 69,650
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 30,032
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr superwilly 258,464
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 7 hr John 575
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Dogen 3,765
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) 19 hr Eagle 12 12,668
More from around the web