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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3736 Nov 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>My buddy!
No matter how much you ridicule me I still enjoy our time together.
What else can a lying cult member with no proof of god say to the atheists that exposed his cult?
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3737 Nov 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What else can a lying cult member with no proof of god say to the atheists that exposed his cult?
Not to say that you did anything wrong,but the other day I came home and my girl friend looked like she had been on the computer,and she started acting all horny and stuff.She says "Smack my azz you dirty cult member!"

You been messing with my ol'lady?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3738 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Asking homosexuals to rewrite marriage law is like asking atheists to rewrite your religious ceremonies.
Your marriage will remain the same until you divorce, unaffected by gay marriages.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3739 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
You claimed there is a "right to marriage".
No, stupid, I did not change my story.
That's why I said "Then look up "Loving v VA"".
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
If down were up, I wouldn't need a bra.
Buck Crick wrote:
So, there is no right to marriage, unless you can point out an alternative source.
Like I said, "Then look up "Loving v VA"."

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3740 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.
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality.
But then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.
Buck Crick wrote:
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?
Idiots like you don't have actual arguments, so you try to change the subject.
Let's face it, there isn't a rational argument against gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3741 Nov 9, 2013
Ooops, copy/paste mistake, should have been Brian_G for both quotes.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3742 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, with allowing same-sex marriage, marriage no longer exists.
Marriage has a defining quality - it involves a man and woman.
Circular non argument.
It's like going into a debate about whether pot should be legalized or not arguing that pot shouldn't be legalized because it's illegal.
Buck Crick wrote:
Whatever the new thing is called, the former is gone.
No, a man married to a woman will still be married to her.
Buck Prick wrote:
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.
Want to see marriage destroyed? No need to put any work into it. Just sit back with a doobie, a bag of Ruffles and laugh while watching hypocritical con dumbs do it. How many times has Limpaugh been married?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3743 Nov 9, 2013
EdSed wrote:
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.
That is a myth. Just a social taboo. Effects of inbreeding only show up after several generations of inbreeding.
But even if it were true, I think the government should stay out of our reproductive choices. Women in their 40's are much more likely to give birth to babies with health issues than women in their 20's are. Should we make it illegal for women over 40 to have children?

What if it were illegal for brother and sister to have kids together? If they do, then what? Send them to jail? What about the infant?
I think often people say, "Such and such should be illegal", without really thinking it through.

LCNLin

United States

#3744 Nov 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
p r o j e c t i o n ?

LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3745 Nov 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>Not to say that you did anything wrong,but the other day I came home and my girl friend looked like she had been on the computer,and she started acting all horny and stuff.She says "Smack my azz you dirty cult member!"
You been messing with my ol'lady?
That's it, change the subject away from proving your god, like the creationist coward liar that you are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3746 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.
God isn't real. It doesn't matter if you deny the facts, it's your mental illness after all.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3747 Nov 9, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
p r o j e c t i o n ?
LOL
You can't lol away a direct insult to your face however much you hallucinate creationist.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3748 Nov 9, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a myth. Just a social taboo. Effects of inbreeding only show up after several generations of inbreeding.
But even if it were true, I think the government should stay out of our reproductive choices. Women in their 40's are much more likely to give birth to babies with health issues than women in their 20's are. Should we make it illegal for women over 40 to have children?
What if it were illegal for brother and sister to have kids together? If they do, then what? Send them to jail? What about the infant?
I think often people say, "Such and such should be illegal", without really thinking it through.
Agreed.

One day in the not-so-distant future? It will be possible to read the DNA of the parents, and make pretty good guesses as to what sort of problems (if any) they can expect from any children.

Should we make it illegal for bad DNA miss-matches? And if we do not, should we then help to care for any children born of such miss-matches, who have severe genetic-related disabilities? Especially if the parents were warned this would likely happen--but have children anyway?

Where do we draw the line, here?

These are not entirely theoretical issues-- the human race will be facing them one day soon.

I do not have an answer, and I lean heavily to the "let adults do what they will" camp.

I'm also a strong supporter of "help babies and kids in whatever way we are able to help" camp too.

It is a conundrum, for sure.

I'm just glad I'm past worrying about it, personally.
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3749 Nov 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it, change the subject away from proving your god, like the creationist coward liar that you are.
I almost forgot what the thread is about.
You don't have to put on a mask and take your frustrations out on people like me that happen to belive in a loving God.

Its 2013! Admit to yourself that you have no shame for the gay lifestyle and move on.

We all love and support you Skeptic.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3750 Nov 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
One day in the not-so-distant future? It will be possible to read the DNA of the parents, and make pretty good guesses as to what sort of problems (if any) they can expect from any children.
Should we make it illegal for bad DNA miss-matches? And if we do not, should we then help to care for any children born of such miss-matches, who have severe genetic-related disabilities? Especially if the parents were warned this would likely happen--but have children anyway?
Where do we draw the line, here?
These are not entirely theoretical issues-- the human race will be facing them one day soon.
I do not have an answer, and I lean heavily to the "let adults do what they will" camp.
I'm also a strong supporter of "help babies and kids in whatever way we are able to help" camp too.
It is a conundrum, for sure.
I'm just glad I'm past worrying about it, personally.
I think about things like that, and agree it's a continuum. While I think it's clear that a child should be given a blood transfusion in a life and death situation despite the objections of their Jehovah Witness parents, I'm not so sure about vaccinations.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3751 Nov 9, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think about things like that, and agree it's a continuum. While I think it's clear that a child should be given a blood transfusion in a life and death situation despite the objections of their Jehovah Witness parents, I'm not so sure about vaccinations.
Well... vaccinations are one of the most sane things medical science has ever invented so far.

The **only** possible objection would be, if the child is allergic to the medium the vacc is made with-- some children are. Most are not, and should be vaccinated.

To not do so? Is criminal in my opinion.

I agree with you re: blood transfusion. I would also say that we must treat children's life-threatening diseases over the objections of those idiots who thing "pray the illness away" is ... useful.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3752 Nov 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>I almost forgot what the thread is about.
You don't have to put on a mask and take your frustrations out on people like me that happen to belive in a loving God.
Its 2013! Admit to yourself that you have no shame for the gay lifestyle and move on.
We all love and support you Skeptic.
Your god?

Not loving.

Sorry, but that's the fact-jack. The god you believe in?

Is a monster.

Now, isn't it a good thing your god isn't real?
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#3753 Nov 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god?
Not loving.
Sorry, but that's the fact-jack. The god you believe in?
Is a monster.
Now, isn't it a good thing your god isn't real?
Bob? I have no gripe with you.
You are a true patriot!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3754 Nov 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>Bob? I have no gripe with you.
You are a true patriot!
Okay. I'll be nice, then.

:)

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3755 Nov 9, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, with allowing same-sex marriage, marriage no longer exists.
Wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has a defining quality - it involves a man and woman.
Nope.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever the new thing is called, the former is gone.
If you say so but wrong again :)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact is, they never gave a crap about it. They just wanted validation for themselves.
Fact? Buck Crick is handing out facts. Where's the crowd?

I expected more.

Corn Dog? I made too many.

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) 4 min Into The Night 48,654
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 min Richardfs 5,698
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 40
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Thinking 21,875
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 hr ChristineM 258,041
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 12 hr Mikko 1
More from around the web