Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 Full story: Conservapedia 3,862

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)

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#907 Jul 26, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
What I can't understand is why ANY person in the US would be OPPOSED to gaining rights?
I can. They're called fundies.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#908 Jul 26, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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)
Godís 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 Godís 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 Godís judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that Godís 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 Godís wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God ďwill repay each person according to what they have done.Ē[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 Godís 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 peopleís 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?
I was wrong an am promptly admitting it. Brian now says he is not divorced. Why it took him a week to tell me while he was responding to every post I wrote is beyond my comprehension skills.

But I liked his lectures on honesty!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#909 Jul 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I can. They're called fundies.
The Fundamentalist Agenda By Davidson Loehr

"....From 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100 scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture.

They identified five characteristics shared by virtually all fundamentalisms. The fundamentalists' agenda starts with insistence that their rules must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life. There can be no separation of church and state, or of public and private areas of life. The rigid rules of Godóand they never doubt that they and only they have got these rightómust become the law of the land. Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. In Khomeini's Iran, and in the recent Taliban rule of Afghanistan, we saw how brutal and bloody this looks in real time....Fourth, fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase ďovercoming the modernĒ is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941...."

http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#910 Jul 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
That's why same sex marriage is bad; it's antidemocratic.
What a moron you are: banning of slavery was antidemocratic TOO.

You clearly don't know your history-- the MAJORITY in the south wanted to keep it-- and fought to do so too.

The democratic process was pro-slavery.

Sometimes? For the greater good? You simply must go against the mob-rule.

Slavery is one such: banning it was not a popular decision-- it was pretty much rammed down the throats of the south.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#911 Jul 26, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"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?
That's what the True Believersô are about: stripping ALL RIGHTS that they think are "icky".

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#912 Jul 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron you are: banning of slavery was antidemocratic TOO.
You clearly don't know your history-- the MAJORITY in the south wanted to keep it-- and fought to do so too.
.
Well the majority that we let vote.

The actual majority were the slaves.
CH2O2

Portugal

#913 Jul 26, 2013
A democracy is NOT the absolute rule of the majority. That is more similar to a dictatorship. The first priority of a democracy is the protection of the individual and the protection of minorities when a conflict between these and the majority happens.

In my mind that is so obvious, i wonder why so many people disagree.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#914 Jul 27, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
I've asked you some questions a few comments back, but I guess you missed it. I'll try again.

1 - Should a majority have the right to impose it's will on the minority.
Of course, the majority imposes its will, to punish drunk drivers on the minority of drunk drivers.

.
CH2O2 wrote:
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?
Laws affect everyone, the majority doesn't drink and drive but if one of them does, they'll be prosecuted just like any other drunk driver.

.
CH2O2 wrote:
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.
I support a referendum on same sex marriage because the government's legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed. I oppose courts rewriting law; they need to apply law to all, consistent with precedent; not judicial activism.

When courts decide marriage law, that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

.
CH2O2 wrote:
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?
That's the key point; same sex cohabitation is legal in every state, so are religious same sex marriage ceremonies. There is no ban on same sex marriage; it's just some citizens don't want their states promoting gender segregation marriage where perfectly diverse and gender integrated marriage is precedent.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#915 Jul 27, 2013
DNF wrote:
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?...
^^^That argument is about me, not about the issue.

1. Ad hominem arguments are irrational.

2. It's defamation since I've never been divorced. DNF cares more about political goals than truth.

3. I don't argue to the sanctity of marriage, but I note Biden and Obama have:

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/ful...
WARREN: Thereís a lot more Iíd like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ó for me ó for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix. But Ė
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically ó because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. Itís been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, letís break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that ó about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not ó that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, thatís all right, I donít think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Joe-Biden-on-th...
Joe Biden Quotes on Same Sex Marriage: "I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007



http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/de...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#916 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That argument is about me, not about the issue.
1. Ad hominem arguments are irrational.
2. It's defamation since I've never been divorced. DNF cares more about political goals than truth.
3. I don't argue to the sanctity of marriage, but I note Biden and Obama have:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/ful...
WARREN: Thereís a lot more Iíd like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ó for me ó for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix. But Ė
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically ó because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. Itís been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, letís break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that ó about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not ó that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, thatís all right, I donít think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Joe-Biden-on-th...
Joe Biden Quotes on Same Sex Marriage: "I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/de...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
All you need to do is prove the god you're lying about. Then all of your ignorant opinions suddenly become true at the same time.

Just do that instead of pretending you've thought through your argument.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#917 Jul 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
All you need to do is prove the god you're lying about.
For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman, on my list He's number 26. Well, sort of:

26 Spirit, soul, religion

I don't need to prove His existence, only concede those arguments legitimate for those who choose to believe. I'm not skeptical of your faith and if it brings you to believe marriage is one man and one woman; I say bravo!

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Then all of your ignorant opinions suddenly become true at the same time.
You have your ignorant opinions, I have mine. This is where we differ. I don't believe you're stupid, bigoted, hateful or bad if you hold ignorant opinions. In fact, I want to appeal to curiosity, humor and good nature to improve my political arguments.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Just do that instead of pretending you've thought through your argument.
People believe in God or their secular superstitions through faith, not proof. I'm not here to prove anything about God.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#918 Jul 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
What a moron you are: banning of slavery was antidemocratic TOO. You clearly don't know your history-- the MAJORITY in the south wanted to keep it-- and fought to do so too. The democratic process was pro-slavery.
Are you talking about American history? The courts gave us Dred Scott, slaves must be returned to their owner because of property rights, democratic process gave us the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment banning slavery. Abolitionism was democratic, the same sex marriage movement antidemocratic. Same sex marriage was brought to American law by an unelected and unaccountable activist court, not legislation by legitimate representatives.

.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Sometimes? For the greater good? You simply must go against the mob-rule.
True, you must stand for the good; that's why I defend marriage as one man and one woman. I also stand for your freedom of association and wish you all the best. I don't stand for rewriting marriage law for everybody.

.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Slavery is one such: banning it was not a popular decision-- it was pretty much rammed down the throats of the south.
The South seceded over slavery, they lost the Civil War. It's good to be curious about American history, the abolitionist was religious Americans against the evil of slavery. The G.O.P. led the abolitionist movement and passed the 13th Amendment the Democratic party fought against it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#919 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman, on my list He's number 26. Well, sort of:
26 Spirit, soul, religion
I don't need to prove His existence, only concede those arguments legitimate for those who choose to believe. I'm not skeptical of your faith and if it brings you to believe marriage is one man and one woman; I say bravo!
.
<quoted text>You have your ignorant opinions, I have mine. This is where we differ. I don't believe you're stupid, bigoted, hateful or bad if you hold ignorant opinions. In fact, I want to appeal to curiosity, humor and good nature to improve my political arguments.
.
<quoted text>People believe in God or their secular superstitions through faith, not proof. I'm not here to prove anything about God.
If marriage is only one man and one woman, why do so many men and women get to marry again after they married one man or one woman?

Is there a limit?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#920 Jul 27, 2013
River Tam wrote:
If marriage is only one man and one woman, why do so many men and women get to marry again after they married one man or one woman?
Divorce, it maintains consent after marriage.

.
River Tam wrote:
Is there a limit?
One at a time.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#921 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman, on my list He's number 26. Well, sort of:
26 Spirit, soul, religion
I don't need to prove His existence, only concede those arguments legitimate for those who choose to believe. I'm not skeptical of your faith and if it brings you to believe marriage is one man and one woman; I say bravo!
.
<quoted text>You have your ignorant opinions, I have mine. This is where we differ. I don't believe you're stupid, bigoted, hateful or bad if you hold ignorant opinions. In fact, I want to appeal to curiosity, humor and good nature to improve my political arguments.
.
<quoted text>People believe in God or their secular superstitions through faith, not proof. I'm not here to prove anything about God.
You're a coward who can't prove the god you're here to lie about.

A mental illness is no basis for opinions about society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#922 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>For some people, God is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman, on my list He's number 26. Well, sort of:
26 Spirit, soul, religion
I don't need to prove His existence, only concede those arguments legitimate for those who choose to believe. I'm not skeptical of your faith and if it brings you to believe marriage is one man and one woman; I say bravo!
.
<quoted text>You have your ignorant opinions, I have mine. This is where we differ. I don't believe you're stupid, bigoted, hateful or bad if you hold ignorant opinions. In fact, I want to appeal to curiosity, humor and good nature to improve my political arguments.
.
<quoted text>People believe in God or their secular superstitions through faith, not proof. I'm not here to prove anything about God.
Atheism is based on facts - the fact that there is no evidence for your cult myth having any effect on reality.

When we want your judgmental personal hallucinations to become part of civilized society, we will give you a call.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#923 Jul 27, 2013
Now that I have a better understanding of your opinion, I'll try to explain why I believe you are wrong.
Brian_G wrote:
Of course, the majority imposes its will, to punish drunk drivers on the minority of drunk drivers.
A law against drunk driving does not serve the purpose of punishing the minority of drunk drivers just because they are a minority. They are not automaticaly outlawed because they are the minority but because of the effect they have on everybody else. Imagine a world were minorities are outlawed just for being a minority, regardless of their effect on the rest of us. Landlords are a minority. Should we make it ilegal to own a house? Vegans are a minority. Should we make veganism ilegal? Cat owners are a minority. Should we make it ilegal to own a cat? We do not make laws based on how many people act a certain way. We make make laws based on the effect of peoples actions.
The law against drunk driving exists to protect individuals from being hurt by drunk drivers, not because drunk drivers are a minority.
.
Brian_G wrote:
Laws affect everyone...
[QUOTE]
Good laws do. Bad laws don't. How does being able to marry a man affect you? It doesn't, does it? A law that stops me from marrying my partner affects me, but it does not affect you.
This is a fundamental question to which I would like to have your answer. How does it affect you?
[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]
...the majority doesn't drink and drive but if one of them does, they'll be prosecuted just like any other drunk driver.
It does not matter how many people are hurt by drunk drivers. What ematters is that Every single one of us can be hurt by a drunk driver. A law against drunk driving makes sense because it can affect all of us.
Brian_G wrote:
I support a referendum on same sex marriage
You should not have the right to impose your will on a matter which does not affect you. Imagine if the roles were reversed and you were the minority. Do you own a home? Do you eat meat? Do you own a cat? How would you feel if the majority tried to take those away from you, when they are not affected by any of that?
Brian_G wrote:
...because the government's legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed.
And each time vote, you give the government consent and legitimacy to choose for you. When the government does not choose the way you would like, you just have to wait until next election.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#924 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I oppose courts rewriting law;
I guess you will just have to accept the will of the majority in this case.
Brian_G wrote:
they need to apply law to all
Yes, they do. Same law to all the people. You either have marriage for all or no marriage at all.
Brian_G wrote:
consistent with precedent
That is just silly. Precedents have to change according to the cultural norm. If precedents could not be changed we would still have slavery and women would still be denied the right to vote.
Brian_G wrote:
not judicial activism.
Call it what you want. Fighting for a fair society is worth being called a few names.
Brian_G wrote:
When courts decide marriage law, that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
If democracy were anything like you want it to be, I would prefer to live in a antidemocratic world.
Brian_G wrote:
That's the key point; same sex cohabitation is legal in every state
Ad hoc. Same sex cohabitation is not equivalent or a substitute of same sex marriage recognized by the state/country. Nobody is arguing for or against same sex cohabitation. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
Brian_G wrote:
so are religious same sex marriage ceremonies.
Ad hoc. Same sex religious marriage is not equivalent or a substitute of same sex marriage recognized by the state/country. Nobody is arguing for or against same sex religious marriage. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no ban on same sex marriage
Whaaaa...? Yes, there is. If you try to marry a man you can't (in most places). That, by definition, constitutes a ban on same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
it's just some citizens don't want their states promoting gender segregation marriage
First, what "some citizens" should want is to stay out of my bedroom. What I do in there is none of their business. Where I put my genitals does not concern "some citizens".
And, "promoting gender segregation marriage", what does that even mean? It sounds you just put some random words together.
Brian_G wrote:
where perfectly diverse and gender integrated marriage is precedent.
"Diverse" and "integrated" just mean between a man and a woman, right? Well, between a man and a woman is not enough. I don't want to marry someone from the opposite sex. And you should not have the right to ban me from doing something which does not have the slightest effect on you.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#925 Jul 27, 2013
!"$"%#/&$/% I lost the first half of my post above... Maybe i'' write it again... or maybe not

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#926 Jul 27, 2013
weird... the first half is now where it should be. Are these the signs of mental illness?

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
Our world came from nothing? 8 min NightSerf 1,001
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min Insults Are Easier 229,855
Islam for peace, or violence? 26 min Larry 23
Man center of the universe. 54 min Thinking 85
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 22,978
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE