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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#887 Jul 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Being the political sleaze that he is it's worth pointing out that technically probably 100% of gays support marriage between one man and one woman. It's just that probably a large amount also support gay marriage.
Of course how many support what is ultimately irrelevant to the law.
Oh, well... when you put it like **that**, of course they support marriage-- why would they lobby for the right TO marry if they didn't think the basic idea was sound?

They just want an equal slice of the human-rights' pie.

That's all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#888 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL evidence to the contrary.
<quoted text>
First of all, your rights do not derive FROM the Constitution. The Constitution PROTECTS your rights.

Blacks were not "given the right to vote". The Government was BARRED from blocking the right to vote.

You were not "given the right to free speech". The Government was BARRED from interfering with your right to free speech.

The right for an individual to choose who they wish to enter into contract with is not something that the government should be determining beyond these qualifications:
- Mentally capable of giving informed consent?
- Age capable of giving informed consent?

That's it. That should be the criteria for ALL contracts, be they business partnerships or marriages. The race, age (above 18), gender, blindness, weight, whatever should not be a factor in determining if the people can enter into contracts.

Gay people are not being GIVEN the right to vote. The government is losing the ability to deny citizens equal access.

And, your argument, does not give a justification for you position.

You're saying "I don't want gays to be able to get married" but there is no BECAUSE... there.

If you want to convince us that the Government needs to bar some citizens from equal access, then you need to demonstrate a VERY solid reason for that.
Very succinct and logically put.

It's a damn shame the person you posted to ...

... is incapable of basic reading comprehension.
CH2O2

Portugal

#889 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer rational argument.
That is good to know. I do too. If I may, I will ask you some questions to which I would like to have your rational answer.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality...
I agree.
Brian_G wrote:
...but that's not a right to marriage equality.
Why? What is the rational argument to exclude same sex couples from marriage?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US constitution.
The US constitution has changed over time when people decided it would be better to change it. Why do you believe it should not change to include marriage to same sex couples?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in.
The rule of the majority over the minority is closer to tyranny than to democracy. In a true democracy, when a conflict between majority and minority happens, the first priority is the protection of the minority. It is my subjective opinion that most US citizens do not understand or agree with this view of democracy.
What about you? Do you agree with the protection of the minority? If not, why?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to get a court to rewrite law to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group; that's judicial activism.
Do you support this view because you are confident heteroxexual votes would maintain the current rule of the majority or because you reject the constitutional authority of a court of law. If you want to get a court to rewrite law (…) that's judicial activism.
Brian_G wrote:
Do you support this view because you are confident heterosexual votes would maintain the current rule of the majority or because you reject the constitutional authority of a court of law?
Brian_G wrote:
a mascot victim group
Please elaborate the meaning of “mascot victim group”.
CH2O2

Portugal

#890 Jul 25, 2013
I keep messing up the quotations. Please do not consider my last post. The following is the correction (I hope).
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer rational argument.
That is good to know. I do too. If I may, I will ask you some questions to which I would like to have your rational answer.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality...
I agree.
Brian_G wrote:
...but that's not a right to marriage equality.
Why? What is the rational argument to exclude same sex couples from marriage?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US constitution.
The US constitution has changed over time when people decided it would be better to change it. Why do you believe it should not change to include marriage to same sex couples?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in.
The rule of the majority over the minority is closer to tyranny than to democracy. In a true democracy, when a conflict between majority and minority happens, the first priority is the protection of the minority. It is my subjective opinion that most US citizens do not understand or agree with this view of democracy.
What about you? Do you agree with the protection of the minority? If not, why?
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to get a court to rewrite law (...) that's judicial activism.


Do you support this view because you are confident heteroxexual votes would maintain the current rule of the majority or because you reject the constitutional authority of a court of law.
Brian_G wrote:
...to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group;
Please elaborate the meaning of “mascot victim group”.
CH2O2

Portugal

#891 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
First of all, your rights do not derive FROM the Constitution. The Constitution PROTECTS your rights.
Blacks were not "given the right to vote". The Government was BARRED from blocking the right to vote.
You were not "given the right to free speech". The Government was BARRED from interfering with your right to free speech.
The right for an individual to choose who they wish to enter into contract with is not something that the government should be determining beyond these qualifications:
- Mentally capable of giving informed consent?
- Age capable of giving informed consent?
That's it. That should be the criteria for ALL contracts, be they business partnerships or marriages. The race, age (above 18), gender, blindness, weight, whatever should not be a factor in determining if the people can enter into contracts.
Gay people are not being GIVEN the right to vote. The government is losing the ability to deny citizens equal access.
And, your argument, does not give a justification for you position.
You're saying "I don't want gays to be able to get married" but there is no BECAUSE... there.
If you want to convince us that the Government needs to bar some citizens from equal access, then you need to demonstrate a VERY solid reason for that.
I am amazed by the quality of this reply (no sarcasm here). Well done Nuggin!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#892 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL evidence to the contrary.
<quoted text>
First of all, your rights do not derive FROM the Constitution. The Constitution PROTECTS your rights.
Blacks were not "given the right to vote". The Government was BARRED from blocking the right to vote.
You were not "given the right to free speech". The Government was BARRED from interfering with your right to free speech.
The right for an individual to choose who they wish to enter into contract with is not something that the government should be determining beyond these qualifications:
- Mentally capable of giving informed consent?
- Age capable of giving informed consent?
That's it. That should be the criteria for ALL contracts, be they business partnerships or marriages. The race, age (above 18), gender, blindness, weight, whatever should not be a factor in determining if the people can enter into contracts.
Gay people are not being GIVEN the right to vote. The government is losing the ability to deny citizens equal access.
And, your argument, does not give a justification for you position.
You're saying "I don't want gays to be able to get married" but there is no BECAUSE... there.
If you want to convince us that the Government needs to bar some citizens from equal access, then you need to demonstrate a VERY solid reason for that.
Wow, well said! Excellent way of thinking about these issues - thank you.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#893 Jul 25, 2013
All this big praise and you guys didn't even notice I said that gays were trying to get the right to vote instead of marry.

Damn you Topix and your lack of an edit feature!
LCN Llin

United States

#894 Jul 25, 2013
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—Moments after approving a new law legalizing gay marriage in England and Wales, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain unleashed a blistering attack on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for “lacking the guts” to do the same.

The British monarch’s brutal evisceration of Gov. Christie stunned observers, who did not know that she was such a close follower of his gay-marriage stance.

“I don’t like to badmouth people,” she said.“But I’m the head of a monarchy that began in the ninth century, and I’m apparently more modern than Chris Christie.”

After shocking observers with her opening salvo, she continued to tear Gov. Christie to shreds.

“Look, I know he has to appeal to the crazy right wingers in his party,” she added.“But the fact is, he’s not as forward-thinking as an eighty-seven-year-old lady who wears a crown on her head. It’s pathetic.”

Asked if she had advice for Gov. Christie, the British monarch said, bluntly,“Just sign the damn bill, Chris.”

Responding to a reporter’s question about the upcoming royal birth, Elizabeth replied,“Tell you the truth? I’m just glad the kid’s not being born in New Jersey.”

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#895 Jul 25, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—Moments after approving a new law legalizing gay marriage in England and Wales, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain unleashed a blistering attack on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for “lacking the guts” to do the same.
The British monarch’s brutal evisceration of Gov. Christie stunned observers, who did not know that she was such a close follower of his gay-marriage stance.
“I don’t like to badmouth people,” she said.“But I’m the head of a monarchy that began in the ninth century, and I’m apparently more modern than Chris Christie.”
After shocking observers with her opening salvo, she continued to tear Gov. Christie to shreds.
“Look, I know he has to appeal to the crazy right wingers in his party,” she added.“But the fact is, he’s not as forward-thinking as an eighty-seven-year-old lady who wears a crown on her head. It’s pathetic.”
Asked if she had advice for Gov. Christie, the British monarch said, bluntly,“Just sign the damn bill, Chris.”
Responding to a reporter’s question about the upcoming royal birth, Elizabeth replied,“Tell you the truth? I’m just glad the kid’s not being born in New Jersey.”
Cute but I doubt the queen has ever uttered the words "New Jersey" except when talking about what she wants on her Jockey

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#896 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
All this big praise and you guys didn't even notice I said that gays were trying to get the right to vote instead of marry.
Damn you Topix and your lack of an edit feature!
No! We can't give them the right to vote! What madness is this?!?

Back to the salt mines with you, Nuggin.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#897 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
All this big praise and you guys didn't even notice I said that gays were trying to get the right to vote instead of marry.
Damn you Topix and your lack of an edit feature!
I noticed the mistake. But I guessed what you wanted to say.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#898 Jul 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
...Sorry, but you can't vote for slavery to come back. Well you can, but it would violate the Constitution, and so therefore your votes can be dismissed by the court....
That vote was already taken, when the 13th Amendment was ratified into law. We already got to vote on slavery; now we want to vote on same sex marriage.

They don't like the idea of referendum or legislation; they prefer unelected courts rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why same sex marriage is bad; it's antidemocratic.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#899 Jul 26, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—Moments after approving a new law legalizing gay marriage in England and Wales, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain unleashed a blistering attack on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for “lacking the guts” to do the same.
The British monarch’s brutal evisceration of Gov. Christie stunned observers, who did not know that she was such a close follower of his gay-marriage stance.
“I don’t like to badmouth people,” she said.“But I’m the head of a monarchy that began in the ninth century, and I’m apparently more modern than Chris Christie.”
After shocking observers with her opening salvo, she continued to tear Gov. Christie to shreds.
“Look, I know he has to appeal to the crazy right wingers in his party,” she added.“But the fact is, he’s not as forward-thinking as an eighty-seven-year-old lady who wears a crown on her head. It’s pathetic.”
Asked if she had advice for Gov. Christie, the British monarch said, bluntly,“Just sign the damn bill, Chris.”
Responding to a reporter’s question about the upcoming royal birth, Elizabeth replied,“Tell you the truth? I’m just glad the kid’s not being born in New Jersey.”
The Creationist bulletin strikes again. atheists converted = 0.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#900 Jul 26, 2013
I've asked you some questions a few comments back, but I guess you missed it. I'll try again.
Brian_G wrote:
...now we want to vote on same sex marriage.
They don't like the idea of referendum or legislation;
1 - Should a majority have the right to impose it's will on the minority.
2 - Should the majority be able to dictate rules to the minority even in cases where those rule only affect the minority and not the majority?
Brian_G wrote:
they prefer unelected courts rewriting marriage law for everyone.
3 - Do you support a referendum on same sex marriage because you are confident heterosexual votes would maintain the current rule of the majority or because you reject the constitutional authority of a court of law.
Brian_G wrote:
That's why same sex marriage is bad; it's antidemocratic.
2 - Is your concept of democracy the absolute rule of the majority over the minority? Or should a democracy be primarily concerned with the protection of a minority?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#901 Jul 26, 2013
Quote: The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/w...

Quote: 64 percent of New Jersey voters said they supported gay marriage while 30 percent opposed it....
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/...

One man, one woman isn't the only example in history of what constitutes a marriage. Modern marriage is whatever modern reasoning and mores say it should be. Tradition and religion have little to do with it.

UK note: There have almost certainly been homosexual or bisexual British monarchs, not that anyone cared much at the time. It seems highly likely that the first monarch of 'Great Britain',(James I of Eng & VI of Scotland) was homosexual or bisexual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I
He had four children, I believe.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#902 Jul 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That vote was already taken, when the 13th Amendment was ratified into law. We already got to vote on slavery; now we want to vote on same sex marriage.
They don't like the idea of referendum or legislation; they prefer unelected courts rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why same sex marriage is bad; it's antidemocratic.
"They"? "Antidemocratic"?

First of all, equal rights are not up for a vote.
Second, the _MAJORITY_ of people support same sex marriage.
Third, it's not "rewriting marriage law". It's making marriage inclusive and fair to all.

What I can't understand is why ANY person in the US would be OPPOSED to gaining rights?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#903 Jul 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
UK note: There have almost certainly been homosexual or bisexual British monarchs, not that anyone cared much at the time. It seems highly likely that the first monarch of 'Great Britain',(James I of Eng & VI of Scotland) was homosexual or bisexual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I
He had four children, I believe.
Oh, those gay monarchs. Always putting on heirs.
Thinking

UK

#904 Jul 26, 2013
"A YouGov poll for Stonewall has found that 83% of people in Britain would be "very comfortable", "comfortable", or "neutral" if the heir to the throne was lesbian, gay or bisexual. The poll was conducted before the sex of the child was revealed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/23/ro...

Looks like we're finally growing up in the UK.
EdSed wrote:
Quote: The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/w...
Quote: 64 percent of New Jersey voters said they supported gay marriage while 30 percent opposed it....
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/...
One man, one woman isn't the only example in history of what constitutes a marriage. Modern marriage is whatever modern reasoning and mores say it should be. Tradition and religion have little to do with it.
UK note: There have almost certainly been homosexual or bisexual British monarchs, not that anyone cared much at the time. It seems highly likely that the first monarch of 'Great Britain',(James I of Eng & VI of Scotland) was homosexual or bisexual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I
He had four children, I believe.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#905 Jul 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Two wrongs don't make a right. Name calling is still ad hominem and irrational. I prefer rational argument.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; but that's not a right to marriage equality. There is no gender equality right in the US constitution. If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in. If you want to get a court to rewrite law to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group; that's judicial activism.
Fine let's try a rational argument.

How is it that a divorced man like you can lecture ANYONE on the sanctity of marriage being one man one woman?

When you re-marry are you still going to insist your marriages were with one woman?

Now let's move to another sphere that you homophobic christians like to have us ignore:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Romans 2

New International Version (NIV)
God’s Righteous Judgment

"1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

Then you can explain where you get a get out of jail free card come the final judgement as told in Matt. 25.

You wanted rational so I gave you rational. Now what?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#906 Jul 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That vote was already taken, when the 13th Amendment was ratified into law. We already got to vote on slavery; now we want to vote on same sex marriage.
They don't like the idea of referendum or legislation; they prefer unelected courts rewriting marriage law for everyone. That's why same sex marriage is bad; it's antidemocratic.
Equality is anti-democratic? Does some guy called Palpatine write your speeches?

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 238,876
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr karl44 7,431
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 2 hr thetruth 29
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 3 hr thetruth 79
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 7,176
News .com | What hope is there without God? Wed Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed thetruth 2,171
More from around the web