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 (Page 50)

Showing posts 981 - 1,000 of3,864
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1030
Jul 29, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Segregated sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality, it's about special rights to redefine marriage because of a mascot victim group. If gays get to redefine marriage, what stops Muslims from doing the same?
Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.
That is part of Sharia Law you idjit!

<< 1 Corinthians 13 >>
New International Version
1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9F or we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1031
Jul 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, out of fear of a religion exerting it's undue influence on our culture you want to ban gays from getting married because that's...
exactly what would happen under Sharia law...
That guy is no end of stupid. Oh well.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1032
Jul 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Gay rights aren't like civil rights; gays have always passed and enjoyed every privilege of the majority. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.
Same sex marriage is ex post facto law for married gays. It would lead to divorce, family separation and child custody battles. Keep marriage one man and one woman for a more civil society.
Because we have no divorce, family separation and child custody battles now? Are you lit up when you post this stuff?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1033
Jul 29, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Segregated sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality, it's about special rights to redefine marriage because of a mascot victim group. If gays get to redefine marriage, what stops Muslims from doing the same?
Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.
I believe Muslims have a definition of marriage. I do too for that matter.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1034
Jul 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ermmm...? Whaaaa...? What did I just read? Same sex marriage will lead to sharia law? Oh boy! I don't know if I ought to laugh or cry.
Both are probably warranted.

Just keep in mind that someone drowning will grasp at straws. When fundamentalists are drowning it is the worst. A lot of excrement starts to rise up.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1035
Jul 29, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That guy is no end of stupid. Oh well.
Hello Hiding. I have been meaning to get back to you and our discussion. Lately I have been in a mood and I have had little patience with the fundies and their petulant ignorance (no end of stupid). I may be too eager to get in the mud with them and sling it out. Anyway, a long story and I am short on bed time. I hope we can re-establish at some future point in the mean time, I still have some reading to do.

Have a great evening, morning or day. Don't know what time it is in Japan.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1036
Jul 30, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hello Hiding. I have been meaning to get back to you and our discussion. Lately I have been in a mood and I have had little patience with the fundies and their petulant ignorance (no end of stupid). I may be too eager to get in the mud with them and sling it out. Anyway, a long story and I am short on bed time. I hope we can re-establish at some future point in the mean time, I still have some reading to do.
Have a great evening, morning or day. Don't know what time it is in Japan.
Yeah, no worries, study hard, get lots of sleep, enjoy!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1037
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That guy is no end of stupid. Oh well.
Hey Hiding! How you been doing? I see you are having some fun in the atheism forum.*smiles*

How about some Merlot and some Sciency talk?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1038
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nuggin wrote:
Who is getting special rights? Gays don't have any right that you are not getting.
I don't get to redefine marriage to suit my sexual predilections. If I could do that too, I'd be married to Taylor Swift.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1039
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
I don't get to redefine marriage to suit my sexual predilections. If I could do that too, I'd be married to Taylor Swift.
No, you wouldn't, there's that little matter of legal consent. I'm pretty sure she's looking for a bright bulb than you.

Brian, you've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry. Unless you can indicate such an interest, the reality remains that such a ban is unconstitutional. A smarter person would recognize this legal reality.
Amused

Monomoy Island, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1040
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Gay rights aren't like civil rights; gays have always passed and enjoyed every privilege of the majority. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.
Same sex marriage is ex post facto law for married gays. It would lead to divorce, family separation and child custody battles. Keep marriage one man and one woman for a more civil society.
So much nonsense in such a compact space.
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else;


True enough, but that's like saying our society is equal because both rich and poor have the same right to beg for alms, sleep under the bridge and go to bed hungry. Gays can't marry those people with whom they feel a bond.
Same sex marriage is ex post facto law for married gays.
Obviously, you have no idea what "ex post facto" means, because it makes absolutely no sense in your statement. No doubt you heard it on some lawyer show on TV and latched onto it because dropping a Latin phrase into an argument seems to give that argument gravitas. At least it works that way when the Latin phrase is used properly. When it isn't, as here, it just makes you look like you opened Black's Law Dictionary to a random page and stuck your finger about halfway down the page.

An ex post facto law is one which makes conduct legal when it happened retroactively illegal. If they lowered the speed limit on a street from 30 to 20, then sent you a speeding ticket for having driven 30 on that road the day before the change, that would be ex post facto. The concept has absolutely no bearing on gay marriage. Inserting the phrase into your argument just shows that you know as little about the law as you do about gay marriage.
It would lead to divorce, family separation and child custody battles.
How so? I have no intention of divorcing my wife because gays can get married too. That would be a non sequiter.(See, that is a Latin phrase used properly and consistently with its meaning. If you are going to use Latin phrases, this is the correct way to do it.)

The only people who would want to exit their marriages because gay marriage is now legal would be that tiny portion of the gay population who married a person of the opposite sex for reasons other than love, such as social pressure, wanting to pass as straight to advance their career, or simple denial of their own sexual identity. Those marriages were mostly inherently unstable to begin with. Few of them involve children, for obvious reasons. Most of them will break up eventually. If the gay partner is living in denial of their own sexuality, sooner or later they will have to confront who they really are. Seems much better than living your entire life trying to repress your basic instincts. That would be like living someone else's life instead of your own.

If the gay partner has hidden that part of his life and identity from the straight partner, eventually he/she will be found out. Imagine the hurt that person will feel when they discover that they have simply been used by the person they trusted most. Is this really the type of marriage you support? T

his is the type of marriage you will get if you expect gays to marry someone of the opposite sex. This seems like a blueprint for "divorce, family separation and child custody battles". In contrast, letting people marry those they actually love and actually want to commit to seems a better way to promote stable marriages.
Amused

Monomoy Island, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1041
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't get to redefine marriage to suit my sexual predilections. If I could do that too, I'd be married to Taylor Swift.
That's within your definition of marriage. She is female. Your problem is that your ideal definition of marriage apparently does not recognize the right of females to consent or refuse consent.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1042
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't get to redefine marriage to suit my sexual predilections. If I could do that too, I'd be married to Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift is 23 and female. How does a marriage to her redefine marriage?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1043
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you wouldn't, there's that little matter of legal consent. I'm pretty sure she's looking for a bright bulb than you.
Brian, you've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry. Unless you can indicate such an interest, the reality remains that such a ban is unconstitutional. A smarter person would recognize this legal reality.
I hadn't thought of it that way. So Brian G is confessing that his own sexual preferences orbit around forced matrimony and imply rape. Yes, I would now have to agree with him that would indeed be a redefinition of marriage here, but not necessarily in the more fundamentalists authoritarian parts of the world. Which seems to be how BG wants the US.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1044
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't get to redefine marriage to suit my sexual predilections. If I could do that too, I'd be married to Taylor Swift.
You are mistaking access to marriage with forcing people to marry.

Gays or straights who want to marry don't get to pick someone and force them to marry against their will.

It is decision that both parties enter into. Like any other contract.

No one has been granted any special rights. No one has rights that you don't have.

That's the definition of equality.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1045
Jul 30, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Hiding! How you been doing? I see you are having some fun in the atheism forum.*smiles*
How about some Merlot and some Sciency talk?
I'm hot! So very, very hot here in Tokyo!

But I would love some beer and sciency talk :) or merlot if you can get me out of this damn place.

How're you doing?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1046
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
So, out of fear of a religion exerting it's undue influence on our culture you want to ban gays from getting married because that's... exactly what would happen under Sharia law...
^^^That's untrue, in no state are gays banned from marriage. No state has an orientation test for a marriage license.

The issue is rewriting marriage law to define two men or two women as married; just as the issue would be Sharia if Muslims rewrote our marriage laws. Keep marriage as is, because NOBODY on this thread wants to practice Sharia.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1047
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's untrue, in no state are gays banned from marriage. No state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
The issue is rewriting marriage law to define two men or two women as married; just as the issue would be Sharia if Muslims rewrote our marriage laws. Keep marriage as is, because NOBODY on this thread wants to practice Sharia.
You are advocating for Sharia law right now.

Sharia law is about imposing arbitrary religious rules to a society to limit their freedom.

The changes to marriage laws do not limit anyone, they do not grant anyone any special privilege which you don't have. In that way they are inherently an expansion of human rights and equality.

Sharia Law is no different than Mosiac Law. Christians can't complain about Muslims trying to impose the EXACT SAME LAWS that Christians are trying to force on the majority of people who don't want to be subject to them.

If _YOU_ choose to continue to obey Sharia law, you are welcome to do so. However, advocating that others MUST obey Sharia law just to appease your God is ridiculous.

Mind your own business.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1048
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's not just the Christian religion that reflect marriage as male/female; every major religion does the same. Every holy text, from every one of the world's religions, describe marriage as male/female, if they mention marriage at all. I'm not advocating Sharia law; I'm advocating natural law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1049
Jul 30, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
^^^That's untrue, in no state are gays banned from marriage. No state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
Liar. 35 states still have implemented gay marriage bans, that is not to say that those bans are constitutional. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/...

Why do you lie about things that can so easily be prove to be false?
Brian_G wrote:
The issue is rewriting marriage law to define two men or two women as married;
The question is if the current definition, which limits marriage to being between two people of the opposite sex in most jurisdictions, is constitutional.

Have you grown intelligent enough to offer a compelling governmental interest served by such a limited definition?
Brian_G wrote:
just as the issue would be Sharia if Muslims rewrote our marriage laws. Keep marriage as is, because NOBODY on this thread wants to practice Sharia.
Brian, you should stop bringing up Sharia law, because it would implement what you are suggesting. Do you really mean to throw in your lot with sharia law? What is more legislators are constitutionally forbidden from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 981 - 1,000 of3,864
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••