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.

Thinking

Royston, UK

#927 Jul 27, 2013
We can certainly assume an upper limit of say 70 billion, to allow for multiple remarriages.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#928 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, the majority imposes its will, to punish drunk drivers on the minority of drunk drivers.
Drunk drivers are punished because they are endangering the lives of others, not because the majority disapproves.

If you don't understand the difference, you really don't belong in America.
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.
Again, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea how the US government works at all.

The Judicial branch determines whether or not a law passed by Congress (or any state government) violates the guidelines of the Constitution. If it does, it goes.

That's not judicial activism. That's their JOB.

As for a referendum, it would be useless. Rights do not stem from a majority vote. Your rights don't change on a whim with some popular idea in the population.

And rights _always_ move forward.
When courts decide marriage law, that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Courts are deciding that laws are unconstitutional and then striking them down.

If "same sex marriage" is antidemocratic, then so too is "interracial marriage" since courts also had to strike down those laws.

Should we void all marriages between races?
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.
Who cares what "some citizens" want or don't want?

Some citizens don't want Hindus to be allowed to be married in their state. Should be therefore ban Hindu marriage?

This is a question of equality. The states are making ALL people equal regardless of gender. That's not a bad thing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#930 Jul 27, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the majority that we let vote.
The actual majority were the slaves.
You are, of course, correct. Neither slaves nor women were permitted to participate in the "democratic" process back then.

Just as now, where many southern states are trying to go **back** to limiting who gets to play (vote) and who does not.

It's the **only** way the ReThuglicans can come up with, to keep themselves in office.

If **everyone** voted, who could? The ReThugs would lose...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#931 Jul 27, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
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.
Well-- that would depend on how your democracy was set up.

A **pure** democracy would have **no** absolute limits.

But in the USA? There **are** strict limits: the US Constitution strictly limits what may be voted for or against.

Of course, how those limits are applied and who enforces the application?

That is naturally up to whomever is in the position of authority at the time, isn't it?

I'm remembering when the US Supreme Court voted into place certain protections for Native Americans. This was back a ways. The then-sitting US President was pretty much **against** any and all Native Americans, especially against letting them keep their lands.

He was famously quoted as saying something like, "It was his[chief justice] decision-- let **him** enforce it" (not an exact quote).

So even within **strict** limits? There is leeway for injustice...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#932 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.
If a fictitious character is even **on** your list at all?

That automatically makes your list bogus.

Until and **IF** you can prove this fictional character is real, of course.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#933 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Bullshit. It was **FORCED** onto the South, by WAR.

They had their chance to repeal it by the "democratic" process-- they refused.

So much did they refuse-- THEY WENT TO WAR TO REFUSE.

Or don't you count the **southern** voters in your "democratic" process?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#934 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>True, you must stand for the good; that's why I defend marriage as one man and one woman.
You simply cannot justify your bigotry as "greater good", here.

Unless you invoke MAGIC or IMAGINARY FRIENDS.

Fail.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#935 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The South seceded over slavery, they lost the Civil War.
So much for the "democratic process" ....

... war, by definition, is NOT democratic!

It is FORCED WILL imposed by VIOLENCE onto the loser.

Rather the opposite of what you are claiming.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#936 Jul 27, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Only if you are white.

And a man....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#937 Jul 27, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
weird... the first half is now where it should be. Are these the signs of mental illness?
No... they are a sign that Topix computers are severely under-maintained.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#938 Jul 27, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Drunk drivers are punished because they are endangering the lives of others, not because the majority disapproves.
If you don't understand the difference, you really don't belong in America.
Yep.

I vote to send him to Saudi Arabia-- it's a theocracy-- he'd love it there.

Same god, right?

<hah>

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#939 Jul 27, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
!"$"%#/&$/% I lost the first half of my post above... Maybe i'' write it again... or maybe not
A flaw in Topix that has given me great agrivation in the past. Especially if I really felt I had provided a well written post and then it just disappears upon press "Post Comment."
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#940 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't stand for rewriting marriage law for everybody.
Nothing to worry about, since that's not what's happening. Legalizing gay marriage will not affect your marriage to your wife whatsoever.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#941 Jul 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Atheism is based on facts
No, atheism is based on a lack of facts. Not believing in fairies is based on the lack of facts supporting the existence of fairies.
-Skeptic- wrote:
the fact that there is no evidence for your cult myth having any effect on reality.
I'd say there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. If they didn't none of us would be here. Just because something is mythical doesn't mean that it can't have a lot of political influence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#942 Jul 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A flaw in Topix that has given me great agrivation in the past. Especially if I really felt I had provided a well written post and then it just disappears upon press "Post Comment."
Posts that cut it close to the character limit often don't appear for a while, then look like they are re-instated later. Can be quite worrying though if you've spent a while typing up a response.

Even more frustrating in work as we have shite computers with shite internet connection.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#943 Jul 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Posts that cut it close to the character limit often don't appear for a while, then look like they are re-instated later. Can be quite worrying though if you've spent a while typing up a response.

Even more frustrating in work as we have shite computers with shite internet connection.
Yes-- that is true-- long posts take much-much longer to propagate through the interwebs.

:)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#944 Jul 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A flaw in Topix that has given me great agrivation in the past. Especially if I really felt I had provided a well written post and then it just disappears upon press "Post Comment."
Google Chrome lets me backspace and my words are still there. Sometimes, if it's a large or important post, I'll also copy the entire thing, just to make sure.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#945 Jul 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No... they are a sign that Topix computers are severely under-maintained.
:D
The whole thing is archaic and needs to be updated. If google were running it, we'd have access to every post - and the search function would work!

grrrrrrr.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#946 Jul 27, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole thing is archaic and needs to be updated. If google were running it, we'd have access to every post - and the search function would work!
grrrrrrr.
But you **can** use advanced search in Google, and put in the as the domain, the top-level forum you wish to search.

It works pretty well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#947 Jul 27, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
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.
Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 talks about the dangers of political parties and other entities and the system that allows them to gain control.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washi...

"....Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you.

It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; ....
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection....

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion...."

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) 1 min One way or another 34,433
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min ChristineM 14,865
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 33 min ChristineM 255,503
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 46 min ChristineM 20,053
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr emperorjohn 4,468
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 5 hr emperorjohn 168
News Are There Atheists in the Foxholes? 5 hr emperorjohn 54
More from around the web