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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3962 Nov 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
You wear your hypocrisy proudly, don't you?
What hypocrisy? He broke church law and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Baronelle Stutzman was never tried before a jury of her peers, that won't happen because they would lose.

Let's vote on same sex marriage; I love democracy.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3963 Nov 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Let's see:
The Republicans
The Democrats
The Tea Party
The Independents
<quoted text>
None of the above.
Why don't you believe the Democratic Party supports same sex marriage?

"We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples."
DNC Platform
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-...

Democrats call all the other parties 'haters' who want to tell gays how to live, they refuse to consider people might have reservations about redefining what government understands as marriage and family. It might be cool if I could claim my dog as heir and dependent, but that's not what the founders meant when they signed the Constitution.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3964 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
jury of his peers. Baronelle Stutzman was never tried before a jury of her peers, that won't happen because they would lose.
She is being sued, both by the ACLU and the State of Washington. Her case has not yet come up, and when it does she will lose, because she broke the law.

Why do you defend people who broke the law, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Let's vote on same sex marriage; I love democracy.
Brian, "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

This has been explained to you before. Don't be a troll.

Should I get to vote on whether you may speak freely, what religion you may worship, whether you may own a firearm, or whether you may be free from unreasonable search or seizure? Of course not.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3965 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What hypocrisy? He broke church law and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Baronelle Stutzman was never tried before a jury of her peers, that won't happen because they would lose.
Let's vote on same sex marriage; I love democracy.
Ms Stutzman didn't break "CHURCH" law. She broke the ACTUAL law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/barr...

"The Washington state-based florist who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding is now facing a lawsuit from the state attorney general.

The Seattle Times reports that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of ArleneĀ’s Flowers and Gifts, had been asked by Attorney General Bob Ferguson to reconsider her decision and comply with the state's anti-discrimination laws before the lawsuit was filed.

"As attorney general, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington," Ferguson is quoted by KIRO News as saying. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."

<end cut/paste>

Your proud hypocrisy is noted.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3966 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you believe the Democratic Party supports same sex marriage?
You asked:
Brian_G wrote:
I'm asking who demeans political opponents, sees them as unenlightened ignorant bigots and who is seriously working out the issues."

My answer was they all demean their opponents and none of the parties are trying to work out the issues.

If you think only the Democrats are to blame, you are very naive.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]It might be cool if I could claim my dog as heir and dependent, but that's not what the founders meant when they signed the Constitution.
Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized you had discussed this with the Founding Fathers.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3967 Nov 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
...Oh, sorry. I hadn't realized you had discussed this with the Founding Fathers.
MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3968 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.
You know what, it probably was.

Do you think that we don't know more now than we did then?

Is slavery moral? It was for the founding fathers? I

I am sure there are many other examples that I could site.

We learn from the past. Especially from our mistakes All education is accumulative, not just science education. So we can do better not because we are better people but because we have more experience.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3969 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.
By whom, and in what (non-religious) document is it stated that "Marriage is considered one man and one woman."?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#3970 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.
Not my mistake, BG. Yours.

What they 'considered' and what they put in the constitution can be two different things. Only the constitution is law.

I know where equal protection is mentioned. Where is the definition of marriage?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3971 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Let's see; anyone can read the truth.
I'm asking who demeans political opponents, sees them as unenlightened ignorant bigots and who is seriously working out the issues.
.
<quoted text>Untrue, I believe marriage should be integrated so individuals won't discriminate.
That's stupid.
Just flat out nonsense.
Brian_G wrote:
<
I'm opposed to government approving sex segregated marriage;
Because you are stupid, desperately searching for an "argument".
Should the government not approve of race segregated marriage?
Brian_G wrote:
<
I believe that harms society and every individual.
Again, because you are stupid and homophobic.

I discriminate between husband and wife, not lesbian and gay. Homosexuals may marry in every state while polygamists are banned by criminal law.
Brian_G wrote:
<
<quoted text>There is no fundamental right to expect insults to replace rational argument. Many gays defend marriage as husband and wife,
Your parents didn't, they divorced.
Brian_G wrote:
every gay was born of male/female union.
So what, stupid? What does that have to do with equal protection under the law?
Brian_G wrote:
<
Many recognize the importance of keeping marriage one man and one woman.
Your parents didn't. LOL.
Brian_G wrote:
<
<quoted text>^^^There you have it; I'm trying to engage in civil discourse but T.F. is content to fight. My arguments are addressed to the consequences and effects while T.F. is satisfied to shut down opponents with labeling them bigots wanting "infringement of their fundamental rights". I oppose abortion because that's an infringement on the fundamental right of the unborn.
Well if you ever get pregnant, don't abort.
Brian_G wrote:
<
Abortion arguments are ancient, same sex marriage arguments relatively new.
We're all trying to find the truth and I thank T.F. for ample demonstration of his version.
If you like your healthcare you can keep it. People are out of work. The left's dream of utopia is crumbling before their eyes.
Whatever.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3972 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If somebody broke the law seven years ago, that doesn't change the facts. The timing is slow, not terrible.
Better late than never.
.
<quoted text>The punishment was "suspended for 30 days Tuesday and told he will lose his credentials if he violates any of the church's rules in that time." He was unrepentant and refused to promise to keep Church law. If he doesn't respect the church's laws, he should leave it like Subduction Zone had the integrity to do, not masquerade as a minister to a church that he opposes.
.
<quoted text>That's a media thing, don't let it bother you. Truth doesn't change just because some broadcaster says otherwise. Remember, they were trying to sell you healthcare plans too.
.
<quoted text>A Christian women turned down a same sex wedding gig requested by a long term customer, it made him feel sad. Rather than looking for a vendor who wants their business, he sued. The harm was done to Baronelle Stutzman, at least from a financial perspective. Sure, the plaintiff's feelings were hurt, but rather than find another florist for the happiest days of their lives, they decided on court litigation.
.
<quoted text>Nobody's questioning a father's love,
Did your father love you? Not enough to stay with your mom, it seems.
Brian_G wrote:
their questioning the judgement of an ordained United Methodist minister who clearly ignored church law. He took the risk when he violated his covenant with his congregation and performed a same sex marriage contrary to the teachings and law of the Methodist Church. If he had only attended, and had a colleague from another Christian church, that allowed same sex marriage, he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
The issue is violating an office, not a father's love or a gay son's marriage.
.
<quoted text>You apply justice instead of emotion. You read, study and learn the truth instead of letting emotions and name calling turn you aside.
.
<quoted text>Right, at the time and now, same sex marriage was legal in other parts of America, but instead of following the law, we have a pastor who advocates against the law.
.
<quoted text>S.Z. wishes the church just kept their mouths shut so a renegade pastor wouldn't have to face justice.
.
<quoted text>30 days suspension is positive? How? Do you think he'll lose credentials? I hope more same sex marriage supporters learn of God's mercy and justice.
.
<quoted text>I agree, it was probably an atheist stiffing the waiter or the Christian appeared to leave no tip on paper but gave him cash to shelter the income from taxes.
.
<quoted text>Leftism is like a religion, not Christianity I admit. Keep up the good work.
Why do you fundies say that? So you can say, "Look, you're stupid, too!"?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3973 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What hypocrisy? He broke church law and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Baronelle Stutzman was never tried before a jury of her peers, that won't happen because they would lose.
Let's vote on same sex marriage; I love democracy.
People are guaranteed equal protection under the law, even when bigots like you don't like that.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3974 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you believe the Democratic Party supports same sex marriage?
"We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples."
DNC Platform
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-...
Democrats call all the other parties 'haters' who want to tell gays how to live, they refuse to consider people might have reservations about redefining what government understands as marriage and family. It might be cool if I could claim my dog as heir and dependent, but that's not what the founders meant when they signed the Constitution.
Too bad.
And, stupid, the 14th Amendment was added long after the were dead.
They didn't mean for women or black people to be able to vote. They wanted it to be legal to murder the natives and black people to be sold as property.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3975 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.
And black people were considered property. What's your point?
It's the 21st, not the 18th Century, idiot.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#3977 Nov 20, 2013
Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Groids aren't considered property anymore because nobody wants worthless property.
It's funny the way you follow me around like a love sick puppy dog.
You say the same 4 or 5 things, changing usernames and proxy servers, sometimes several times an hour.
Just want newcomers to know.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3978 Nov 20, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
Let's see; anyone can read the truth.
No one will find the truth reading your posts, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm asking who demeans political opponents
Your advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays demean them, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
sees them as unenlightened ignorant bigots
When that's all you present to us how are we to think otherwise?
Brian_G wrote:
and who is seriously working out the issues.
Not you.
Brian_G wrote:
Untrue, I believe marriage should be integrated so individuals won't discriminate.
So now you're demanding that only interracial and interfaith marriages be allowed?
Brian_G wrote:
I'm opposed to government approving sex segregated marriage.

The government's "approval" isn't required. The only thing government can legitimately do from a constitutional standpoint regarding a fundamental right like marriage is to offer a compelling government interest to restrict the exercise of such rights. In the absence of such a compelling government interest, the state is expected to mind its own business and let citizens exercise their fundamental rights unimpeded.
Brian_G wrote:
I believe that harms society and every individual.
Your belief isn't fact nor is it supported by factual evidence.
Brian_G wrote:
I discriminate between husband and wife, not lesbian and gay.
I never claimed you discriminate BETWEEN gays, I said you advocate discrimination against them. Illiterate much?
Brian_G wrote:
Homosexuals may marry in every state while polygamists are banned by criminal law.
Polygamists can marry within the same marriage restrictions you expect gays to abide by, Brian.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3979 Nov 20, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
There is no fundamental right to expect insults to replace rational argument.
You have no f-ing clue what a fundamental right is, Brian, the way you constantly misuse the term.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays defend marriage as husband and wife
Far more straight people support same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
every gay was born of male/female union.
Which has nothing to do with exercising one's fundamental right of marriage, whether gay or straight.
Brian_G wrote:
Many recognize the importance of keeping marriage one man and one woman.
Far more recognize the importance of eliminating the remaining vestiges of prejudice against a minority group that been historically discriminated against.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^There you have it; I'm trying to engage in civil discourse but T.F. is content to fight.
There's nothing civil in your advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
My arguments are addressed to the consequences and effects
When do you plan to start detailing these consequences and effects, Brian? Because to date you've offered nothing that's a direct result of legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
while T.F. is satisfied to shut down opponents with labeling them bigots wanting "infringement of their fundamental rights".
Have you been "shut down", Brian? You have over 5 time the number I do in Topix in less time as a registered poster. How exactly have my posts to you infringed your freedom of expression?
Brian_G wrote:
I oppose abortion because that's an infringement on the fundamental right of the unborn.
The only problem with your assertion, Brian, is unborn children aren't legally recognized as citizens possessing fundamental rights.
Brian_G wrote:
Abortion arguments are ancient, same sex marriage arguments relatively new.
Gays have existed as long as humans and discrimination against them is almost as old.
Brian_G wrote:
We're all trying to find the truth and I thank T.F. for ample demonstration of his version.
You'll never find truth in unjust discrimination against others, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
If you like your healthcare you can keep it. People are out of work. The left's dream of utopia is crumbling before their eyes.
George W. Bush: "Mission accomplished!" Enough said. Republicans haven't done in any better in recent history, Brian; you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3980 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If somebody broke the law seven years ago, that doesn't change the facts. The timing is slow, not terrible.
Better late than never.
.
<quoted text>The punishment was "suspended for 30 days Tuesday and told he will lose his credentials if he violates any of the church's rules in that time." He was unrepentant and refused to promise to keep Church law. If he doesn't respect the church's laws, he should leave it like Subduction Zone had the integrity to do, not masquerade as a minister to a church that he opposes.
.
<quoted text>That's a media thing, don't let it bother you. Truth doesn't change just because some broadcaster says otherwise. Remember, they were trying to sell you healthcare plans too.
.
<quoted text>A Christian women turned down a same sex wedding gig requested by a long term customer, it made him feel sad. Rather than looking for a vendor who wants their business, he sued. The harm was done to Baronelle Stutzman, at least from a financial perspective. Sure, the plaintiff's feelings were hurt, but rather than find another florist for the happiest days of their lives, they decided on court litigation.
.
<quoted text>Nobody's questioning a father's love, their questioning the judgement of an ordained United Methodist minister who clearly ignored church law. He took the risk when he violated his covenant with his congregation and performed a same sex marriage contrary to the teachings and law of the Methodist Church. If he had only attended, and had a colleague from another Christian church, that allowed same sex marriage, he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
The issue is violating an office, not a father's love or a gay son's marriage.
.
<quoted text>You apply justice instead of emotion. You read, study and learn the truth instead of letting emotions and name calling turn you aside.
.
<quoted text>Right, at the time and now, same sex marriage was legal in other parts of America, but instead of following the law, we have a pastor who advocates against the law.
.
<quoted text>S.Z. wishes the church just kept their mouths shut so a renegade pastor wouldn't have to face justice.
.
<quoted text>30 days suspension is positive? How? Do you think he'll lose credentials? I hope more same sex marriage supporters learn of God's mercy and justice.
.
<quoted text>I agree, it was probably an atheist stiffing the waiter or the Christian appeared to leave no tip on paper but gave him cash to shelter the income from taxes.
.
<quoted text>Leftism is like a religion, not Christianity I admit. Keep up the good work.
It's rather strange you expect Christian pastors to abide by their denominations rules and laws or suffer the consequences, Brian, but demand Christian citizens be able to break civil law with impunity. Your unmitigated hypocrisy is noted.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3981 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
What hypocrisy?
Expecting Christian pastors to obey the laws of their denomination or suffer the consequences but demanding Christian citizens be able to break civil law with impunity.
Brian_G wrote:
He broke church law and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Baronelle Stutzman was never tried before a jury of her peers, that won't happen because they would lose.
A trial by jury is only constitutionally guaranteed in criminal proceedings, Brian, not civil or administrative proceedings governing anti-discrmination law compliance.
Brian_G wrote:
Let's vote on same sex marriage
SCOTUS has previously ruled against that. From West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Brian_G wrote:
I love democracy.
Then I suggest you move to one, Brian, because the US is a constitutional republic.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3982 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>MikeF's mistake, we can learn from reading the founding documents they made no mention of considering same sex marriage. Marriage by the Founders was considered one man and one woman.
Yet the Founders made no mention of marriage at all, much less marriage as "one man and one woman" in the constitution they ratified.

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) 45 min lightbeamrider 85,572
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Subduction Zone 4,910
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Jan 15 superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web