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
901 - 920 of 3,864 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...."

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#949
Jul 27, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Copying to Word was my backup until I switched to Google Chrome. It was shortly after switching from Explorer that I realized how unstable it is compared to Chrome. Since then I haven't seen a similar problem except once when a post I was proofing posted while I was making changes. That could have been operator error since I had entered the captcha numbers in prior to proofing.

Anyway it has been much better since switching. Plus it doesn't lock up like IE did.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#950
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.
I have experienced that too. It may be an instability in IE, but I don't know for certain except to say I haven't seen it yet with Chrome.

My computer needs upgraded, but I now have a much better internet connection. Still the chain is only as strong as the weakest link or some new thing will come along because someone "fixed" something.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#951
Jul 27, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Divorce, it maintains consent after marriage.
.
<quoted text>One at a time.
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?

As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#952
Jul 27, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
We can certainly assume an upper limit of say 70 billion, to allow for multiple remarriages.
<quoted text>
I'm sayin.

:-)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#953
Jul 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Copying to Word was my backup until I switched to Google Chrome. It was shortly after switching from Explorer that I realized how unstable it is compared to Chrome. Since then I haven't seen a similar problem except once when a post I was proofing posted while I was making changes. That could have been operator error since I had entered the captcha numbers in prior to proofing.
Anyway it has been much better since switching. Plus it doesn't lock up like IE did.
IE is yuk. It's useless and poopy.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#954
Jul 27, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That's true.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#955
Jul 28, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
...This is a fundamental question to which I would like to have your answer. How does it affect you?....
Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#956
Jul 28, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you? As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
Are you for real?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#957
Jul 28, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Are you for real?
Are you?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#958
Jul 28, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.

Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.

And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#959
Jul 28, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.
Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.
And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.
Homo

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#960
Jul 28, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage laws affect everyone...
OK. Lets think about that.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage laws affect (...) not just me.
You are dodging the question. I asked HOW does same sex marriage affect you. So, how does it affect you?
Brian_G wrote:
In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market.
The fundamental issue about adoption is not the parents right to adopt, but the child's right to have a familly. If any adoption service is shown not to be acting in the child's best interest, it should be given the chance to change or be put out of business. A child, unlike an adult, is not capable of consent. A child can't choose for him/herself which adoption service will serve his/her best interests. That is why we have law, to give us the best protection possible. The law must put in first place the rights of the individual before the rights of any organization.
Brian_G wrote:
In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings.
Should a business be allowed to deny services for blacks? Should a business be allowed to deny services to down sindrome individuals? Should a business be allowed to deny services to divorced people?
These are not rethorical questions. I would really like to have your reply.
Brian_G wrote:
It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries
Really? Let's stop for a moment and think this trough. Heterosexuals pay taxes so that their dependent benefefiaries have the benefits. You seem to be fine with that. Same sex couples pay taxes too but they are denied the benefits. So, what you are really proposing is that same sex couples keep paying taxes for the exclusive benefit of heterosexuals. Do you get the problem yet?
Brian_G wrote:
new intrusive government regulations
Bullshit, pardon my french. Show me one single valid example.
Brian_G wrote:
and higher taxes for everyone.
Bulshit x 2.
Show me one single state or country (I live in one of those countries, by the way) where same sex marriage led to increased taxes.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#961
Jul 28, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo
Homo-ette.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#962
Jul 28, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?
As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
Whoa! Brian G and the rest of the fundamentalists want everyone to be heterosexual, but not TOO heterosexual.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#963
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage laws affect everyone, not just me. In Massachusetts, D.C. and Illinois, laws addressing the same agenda as same sex marriage have forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption service market. In Washington state and Colorado, those laws have led to suits against business people who don't want to provide services for same sex weddings. It creates wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries, new intrusive government regulations and higher taxes for everyone.
Yes, the Civil War was wasteful government spending as well and the abolishing of slavery forced many businesses to seek new models and some even collapsed. We should probably vote to reinstate it and this time not make it so exclusive. Economic speculation is always a good reason to exclude people that scare us out of the rights they are being withheld. Right. Gotcha.

This is always where your argument leads. You are afraid the little gods living in your wallet are going to be offended. It is always your last stop on the "I want the world to be like me" train ride.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#964
Jul 28, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
IE is yuk. It's useless and poopy.
I have used similar words to describe it, yes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#965
Jul 28, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
By your reasoning above, money spent on opposite sex dependent beneficiaries, old intrusive gov't regulations and higher taxes for everyone is wasteful and should be abolished.
We can discuss entitlement reform if you like, then let's compromise on civil unions; everybody's happy.

.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Same sex marriages don't affect you. You just don't like them. That's pretty obvious.
The issue isn't emotion, like and dislike; the issue is the greater good. Same sex marriage forces government to see husband and wife as if unisex, affecting all of society. Same sex marriage laws affect divorce, property and child custody laws; it's a fundamental change to the sex integration and affirmative action male/female marriage provides society.

Same sex marriage law affected , Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in Richland, Washington when she was sued by the State's AG. Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 Schedule B donors list to their political enemies, the HRC.

How does same sex marriage not affect everyone?

.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
And you don't really understand capitalism, since you're failing to see that marriages are economic units. Promoting them increases the economy. What gay couples save b/c of marriage, they spend into the economy, just like straight couples do.
Changing the nomenclature doesn't create wealth. You can call something a 'marriage' but that doesn't make it so.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#966
Jul 28, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, theoretically, you could marry all the women in the world, couldn't you?
As long as you marry them one at a time, it's legal, right?
You realize that just saying this causes thousands of divorce lawyers to salivate uncontrollably.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••