Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Conservapedia

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)

Comments
3,701 - 3,720 of 3,864 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3834
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That law would violate the rights of everyone - including Catholics.
Imagining a law that deprives everyone is not an argument against a law that deprives no one.
Also, that's now your THIRD evasion of my question.

Are anti-miscegenation laws equal?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3835
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, I've pointed this out to you.
Loving v VA.
You are an idiot.

Fundamental rights are not made in court cases.

Point out the constitutional right to marriage.

I'll save you the time - there is none.

That's why it is a state issue and a political issue, not a constitutional one.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3836
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I can easily reword it to be a $100 tax credit FOR attending Mass or any other positive effect.
<quoted text>
The existing law does deprive gay people of marrying their partners. You're aware of this. You just don't care.
Whether I "care" is irrelevant.

Whether it violates the Constitution was the question.

It does not.

It also deprives single persons from marrying married persons.

That is no violation, either.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3837
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, that's now your THIRD evasion of my question.
Are anti-miscegenation laws equal?
Your question makes no sense, but I'll answer what I think you are trying to ask.

The courts ruled against anti-miscegenation on the basis that skin color was not a basis for denying marriage, and did not affect the primary purposes of marriage, as far as the state is concerned. So then to prohibit it was invidious.

The classification by laws of blacks as a group was the problem, and the court saw that they were similarly situated with respect to marriage as whites.

Not so with marriage among members of the same gender.

Classification by gender is fundamental to marriage.
Rick not in Kansas yet

Salina, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3838
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
You are an idiot.
Fundamental rights are not made in court cases.
Point out the constitutional right to marriage.
I'll save you the time - there is none.
That's why it is a state issue and a political issue, not a constitutional one.
Although the individual's right to enter into a marriage recognized by the state has not been spelled out for you in the US Constitution, it nonetheless still is guaranteed to us by it. I can name three SCOTUS rulings (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley) which prove that you aren't able to fake having a clue. While the states are empowered to regulate marriage, their regulation of it cannot violate rights guaranteed to us federally. The Supremes ducking the issue in Perry v Brown merely prolonged the inevitable. The next challenge to a state amendment prohibiting same sex marriages that makes it to the Court kills them all. The standing precedents on this issue are so against you that it's just a matter of time.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3839
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot.
Fundamental rights are not made in court cases.
Hmmm...the Supreme Court or some fundie LOLSER named "Buck Crick" on Topix...
Who would know better?
Buck Crick wrote:
Point out the constitutional right to marriage.
Oh! I get it, you don't realize "Loving v VA" is the name of a court case. You thought I was talking about the emotion.
Buck Crick wrote:
I'll save you the time - there is none.
That's why it is a state issue and a political issue, not a constitutional one.
Loving v VA

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3841
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick not in Kansas yet wrote:
<quoted text>Although the individual's right to enter into a marriage recognized by the state has not been spelled out for you in the US Constitution, it nonetheless still is guaranteed to us by it. I can name three SCOTUS rulings (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley) which prove that you aren't able to fake having a clue. While the states are empowered to regulate marriage, their regulation of it cannot violate rights guaranteed to us federally. The Supremes ducking the issue in Perry v Brown merely prolonged the inevitable. The next challenge to a state amendment prohibiting same sex marriages that makes it to the Court kills them all. The standing precedents on this issue are so against you that it's just a matter of time.
You are mistaken.

I asked for a constitutional right to marriage.

I didn't ask for what courts have said.

Now if you can point it out, I would appreciate it.

Or I'll even settle for what you just claimed - where the Constitution "guarantees to us" the right.

Take your time.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3842
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...the Supreme Court or some fundie LOLSER named "Buck Crick" on Topix...
Who would know better?
<quoted text>
Oh! I get it, you don't realize "Loving v VA" is the name of a court case. You thought I was talking about the emotion.
<quoted text>
Loving v VA
Loving v. Virginia is not the U.S. Constitution.

See, the Constitution is a document with sections and amendments and stuff like that.

I'm sure you've heard of it. Well, reasonably sure.

It was ratified and consented to "by the people".

People don't ratify court cases.

Now point it out - that fundamental right to marriage.

Take your time.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3843
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia is not the U.S. Constitution.
And?
Buck Crick wrote:
See, the Constitution is a document with sections and amendments and stuff like that.
I'm sure you've heard of it. Well, reasonably sure.
It was ratified and consented to "by the people".
Actually, it wasn't.
Buck Crick wrote:
People don't ratify court cases.
Now point it out - that fundamental right to marriage.
Take your time.
Loving v VA.
Rick not in Kansas yet

Salina, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3844
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
You are mistaken.
I asked for a constitutional right to marriage.
I didn't ask for what courts have said.
Now if you can point it out, I would appreciate it.
Or I'll even settle for what you just claimed - where the Constitution "guarantees to us" the right.
Take your time.
Another one who slept through 8th grade Civics. If you hadn't, you'd be aware that what the Courts have said is very relevant to the discussion. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to us by the Constitution and while it has not been spelled out specifically for you, the 9th Amendment takes care of that. Thanks for playing, but your denial of reality doesn't change reality.
Straight Sh00ter

Topeka, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3845
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If the constitution allows for gay marriage, then thats the end of the constitution.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3846
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "fundamental right" to marriage.
If you can find it, point it out to me.
By making such an assertion you demonstrate you lack the intelligence to understand it if I did.8446

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3847
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But equal protection of the law IS THE SAME as equal protection of the law.
Prohibition of same sex marriage is equal protection.
SCOTUS disagrees with you. Imagine that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3848
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are mistaken.
I asked for a constitutional right to marriage.
I didn't ask for what courts have said.
Now if you can point it out, I would appreciate it.
Or I'll even settle for what you just claimed - where the Constitution "guarantees to us" the right.
Take your time.
God isn't real so why are you even arguing back?

Take your failed 2005 creationist cult and go home, nobody is going to believe your "jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs" childish rubbish in this age.

You act like prison made you tough, but its just made you dumb

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3849
Nov 13, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia is not the U.S. Constitution.
See, the Constitution is a document with sections and amendments and stuff like that.
I'm sure you've heard of it. Well, reasonably sure.
It was ratified and consented to "by the people".
People don't ratify court cases.
Now point it out - that fundamental right to marriage.
Take your time.
What hope is there for you when you proudly procalim you are winning when your 'facts' have been shot to sh*t?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3850
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
Prohibiting same sex marriage IS equal.
Same protection for everyone. There is no attempt at a law that says this group can marry the same sex, but this group cannot.
The protection is across the board. Equal.
You want something other than equal protection.
No, it isn't equal. Unless you can indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, such a restriction is unconstitutional.
Buck Crick wrote:
Why won't you say what it is you want?
Equality under the law, you moron.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, 1-Eye, you hate the Constitution.
I suspect if you knew what it says, you would hate it even more.
You still haven't turned in your homework assignment.
I don't hate the US Constitution. Read the 14th Amendment, and grow up.

You could also grow up and attempt to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, but that would require that you have the intelligence to understand the law and jurisprudence, which you clearly do not.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3851
Nov 14, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether I "care" is irrelevant.
Whether it violates the Constitution was the question.
It does not.
No, the point being discussed was whether a law applying equally makes that law non-discriminatory or not. And it doesn't.
Buck Crick wrote:
It also deprives single persons from marrying married persons.
That is no violation, either.
No, it isn't. That stipulation has a utilitarian purpose and harms no particular group. Banning same-sex couples from marrying has no utilitarian purpose and clearly harms a particular group (gay people).

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3852
Nov 14, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question makes no sense, but I'll answer what I think you are trying to ask.
The question makes perfect sense. You didn't want to answer it because you didn't want to provide the answer, which is 'no', proving that equal application does not prevent discrimination.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3853
Nov 14, 2013
 
Can you show your working out in the margin?
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
If the constitution allows for gay marriage, then thats the end of the constitution.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3854
Nov 14, 2013
 
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
If the constitution allows for gay marriage, then thats the end of the constitution.
Oh please explain.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 3 hr Siro 76
If Christianity were true... 3 hr Thinking 121
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Thinking 225,513
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 3 hr Thinking 98
Richard Dawkins jumps yet another shark 3 hr Thinking 30
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 6 hr NightSerf 131
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 9 hr NightSerf 285
•••
•••