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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1181 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>not to be rude but can you two use the PM feature here on TOPIX for your e-mails?

Little late for that.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1182 Aug 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have the galaxy 3 as well. Same problem. Great phone but battery life isn't good, especially for me because I really put my phone to work.
Where did you get your external batter. I may need to look into that.
There are a plethoria of these things on Amazon. Ranging from $10 (wouldn't risk on a bet) to more than $100.

I opted for a middling-cheap test one, a Chinese company that purports to have a 12,000 miliamp-hour battery in it. Good for many recharges of my S3's battery in a given day.

So far? I've used it once: went from 80% to 99% in about 40 minutes (lunchtime, don'cha know). The external battery takes about 12 hours to go from near-flat to 100%. In practice I plan to never let it dip below 50%, as LiIon batteries don't like going flat-- that's how they die too soon.

It cost me all of $30, and took only a week to get here, about the size of a D battery, except square instead of round, and a wee bit longer. Weighs about that, though. Came with 3 shorty cords: an apple one (old style), a microUSB and a miniUSB. Input is a separate microUSB jack, and wants at least 1.2amps at 5v. I use a 2amp charger. If you're interested, PM me, I'll give you a linky.

There are more expensive brands, but this would be a nice proof-of-concept, and I don't need to change my case--which I like.

So far, this method works well for me.

You may wish to look at the Juice Back specialty case, if you don't mind a different case for you S3. It effectively doubles your battery's life, by having it's own in the caseback. When your S3 gets low? Hit a button on your case, and it feeds power into your S3. I've not tried this, but the reviews are reasonable. At $100, it's pricy, though.
Amused

Clinton, MA

#1183 Aug 2, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Your violation of the Topix Terms of Service for using this site as a fund raising venue and for solicitation of money has been reported.
You talk of how you want rules, but you don't want to have to follow them.
He wants rules for other people. The 'ickier' he thinks you are, the more rules he wants you to follow, so as to protect him from having to see, hear taste, touch or smell something icky.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1184 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
The premise of your argument is that all gay people marry opposite sex partners. That is false. Allowing people to access marriage will have no sifnificant effect on the number of straight marriages at all
That's not my premise; I've never written anything like: "all gay people marry opposite sex partners." Those are N.'s words, not mine. I've only cited two examples, Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde, I've never implied all homosexuals marry opposite sex spouses.

That doesn't change the fact gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. I figure that's because they want their kid's raised by the child's mom and dad. There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else; no state has an orientation test for a marriage license.

Keep marriage one man and one woman to encourage people to marry their child's other parent.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1185 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not my premise; I've never written anything like: "all gay people marry opposite sex partners." Those are N.'s words, not mine. I've only cited two examples, Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde, I've never implied all homosexuals marry opposite sex spouses.
That doesn't change the fact gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. I figure that's because they want their kid's raised by the child's mom and dad. There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else; no state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
Keep marriage one man and one woman to encourage people to marry their child's other parent.
1 Step one, prove your god.
2 Step two share your opinions about women.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1186 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not my premise; I've never written anything like: "all gay people marry opposite sex partners." Those are N.'s words, not mine. I've only cited two examples, Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde, I've never implied all homosexuals marry opposite sex spouses.
That doesn't change the fact gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. I figure that's because they want their kid's raised by the child's mom and dad. There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else; no state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
Keep marriage one man and one woman to encourage people to marry their child's other parent.
Brian, are you trying to prove you are a complete and total idiot, because you seem to be very effectively making that argument.

The assertions in your first paragraph are completely contradictory to the assertions of your second paragraph.

So which is it, should homosexuals inter into equal protection sham marriage, or do you not support such an interpretation?

The reality remains that you lack the grey matter to offer a valid argument against equality for homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex.

You are such a hypocrite.
LCN Llin

United States

#1187 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
1 Step one, prove your god.
2 Step two share your opinions about women.
Step one get a guy to ask your out
Step two keep your sense of humour.
Step three - remember many people find you a laugh so keep posting

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1188 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else
And there still isn't. That hasn't changed at all.

All that has happened is that everyone has been made equal.

Why do you oppose equality?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#1189 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And there still isn't. That hasn't changed at all.
All that has happened is that everyone has been made equal.
Why do you oppose equality?
You have serious patience.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1190 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
1 Step one, prove your god.
Where do I mention God when I wrote:
"That's not my premise; I've never written anything like: "all gay people marry opposite sex partners." Those are N.'s words, not mine. I've only cited two examples, Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde, I've never implied all homosexuals marry opposite sex spouses.
That doesn't change the fact gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. I figure that's because they want their kid's raised by the child's mom and dad. There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else; no state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
Keep marriage one man and one woman to encourage people to marry their child's other parent."

?

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
2 Step two share your opinions about women.
I love them. What's your opinion?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1191 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, are you trying to prove you are a complete and total idiot, because you seem to be very effectively making that argument.
^^^I never engage in name-calling; this is where we differ.
I don't bully either.

.
lides wrote:
The assertions in your first paragraph are completely contradictory to the assertions of your second paragraph.
They compliment each other; all arguments lead back to keeping marriage one man and one woman. So kid's will have a model to become mothers and father.

.
lides wrote:
So which is it, should homosexuals inter into equal protection sham marriage, or do you not support such an interpretation?
I'm against hate; many people in every party and proclivity see marriage as one man and one woman. Break up your question.

.
lides wrote:
The reality remains that you lack the grey matter to offer a valid argument against equality for homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex. You are such a hypocrite.
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution; if the genders weren't the different; there would be no heterosexuals or homosexuals, we would all be bisexual.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because man and woman aren't equal; we differ.
Thinking

UK

#1192 Aug 2, 2013
I think you mean "complement".

The plural of "kid" is "kids".

Same sex marriage has just been signed into law over here in the UK. Anyone already in a civil partnership can simply "upgrade" to married status.

I've been married quite some years now. Please explain how my marriage is undermined by same sex couples getting married.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^I never engage in name-calling; this is where we differ.
I don't bully either.
.
<quoted text>They compliment each other; all arguments lead back to keeping marriage one man and one woman. So kid's will have a model to become mothers and father.
.
<quoted text>I'm against hate; many people in every party and proclivity see marriage as one man and one woman. Break up your question.
.
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution; if the genders weren't the different; there would be no heterosexuals or homosexuals, we would all be bisexual.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because man and woman aren't equal; we differ.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1193 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Where do I mention God when I wrote:
"That's not my premise; I've never written anything like: "all gay people marry opposite sex partners." Those are N.'s words, not mine. I've only cited two examples, Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde, I've never implied all homosexuals marry opposite sex spouses.
That doesn't change the fact gays have married under the same laws as everyone else. I figure that's because they want their kid's raised by the child's mom and dad. There's no law stopping gays from marrying under the same standards as everyone else; no state has an orientation test for a marriage license.
Keep marriage one man and one woman to encourage people to marry their child's other parent."
?
.
<quoted text>I love them. What's your opinion?


So homosexuals should marry straight people. You really like to make as many people miserable as possible.

Since the Bible does not define marriage as one man and one woman why not just let them marry and be done with it. Marriage confers legal rights that committed couples need and should have. There is no reason to discriminate based on sexual preference. Oh, I should have said there is no LOGICAL or BIBLICAL reason to discriminate....

What if I have 2 wives (as permitted in the Bible), can they fool around with each other?

Can they be married after I pass away?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1194 Aug 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
So homosexuals should marry straight people. You really like to make as many people miserable as possible.
I've never written: "homosexuals should marry straight people"; those are Dogen's words, not mine. I've written homosexuals have married straight people, I'm sure they've married lesbians too. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.

.
Dogen wrote:
Since the Bible does not define marriage as one man and one woman why not just let them marry and be done with it.
Right, the bible and all holy texts define marriage as male/female. America has defined marriage "marriage as one man and one woman", and they may marry if the other standards are met too.

Same sex marriage is like getting rid of the age of consent, allowing contract marriage or polygamy. Changing marriage rules is a very bad idea.

.
Dogen wrote:
Marriage confers legal rights that committed couples need and should have.
Marriage doesn't confer rights; society and government do. Rights are won by force; there is no history for same sex marriage.

.
Dogen wrote:
There is no reason to discriminate based on sexual preference.
There's every "reason to discriminate based on sexual preference"; else we'd all be bisexual. There's no reason to rewrite marriage law based on sexual preference.

.
Dogen wrote:
Oh, I should have said there is no LOGICAL or BIBLICAL reason to discriminate....
???

I don't make biblical arguments; I make legal, moral and logical arguments.

.
Dogen wrote:
What if I have 2 wives (as permitted in the Bible), can they fool around with each other? Can they be married after I pass away?
^^^This proves the point; if same sex marriage is licensed to satisfy a mascot victim group, why not polygamy to satisfy Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1195 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's every "reason to discriminate based on sexual preference"; else we'd all be bisexual.
I wrote a response to all your points, but deleted it when I got to this.

THIS is the reason you hold your position. It is _BY A MILE_ the most telling statement you've made.

You oppose same sex marriage because of your shame over your own same sex attraction.

I'm here to tell you, those of us on the forum who are _STRAIGHT_ have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in engaging in gay sex. AT ALL. NOT EVEN A LITTLE.

A change in the marriage laws will _IN NO WAY_ influence me towards sexual acts with men. It's of absolutely no interest to me.

The fact that you believe that the only thing holding you back from turning bisexual is that the law prohibits it just reinforces what we've all be saying for months.

You're gay. You're gay. You're ashamed. That's why you're a bigot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1196 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^I never engage in name-calling; this is where we differ.
I don't bully either.
You lie a lot. This is where we differ.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm against hate
And that was a doozy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1197 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's every "reason to discriminate based on sexual preference"; else we'd all be bisexual.
What???? First, why would it be a problem if everyone was bisexual? Second, why do you think that *laws* are required to be the same as personal preferences?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1199 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
^^^I never engage in name-calling; this is where we differ.
I don't bully either.
You never engage in rational thought either. Brian, I do not stoop to insults lightly, and every one that has been leveled at you, you have more than earned.
Brian_G wrote:
They compliment each other; all arguments lead back to keeping marriage one man and one woman. So kid's will have a model to become mothers and father.
Actually, there is one that does not, namely equal protection of the law.

You have yet to offer a state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to opposite sex partners that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Similarly, you have failed to articulate, or even attempt to do so truth be told, any way in which allowing same sex marriage adversely affects anyone who would not marry someone of the same sex, or traditional marriages in any way.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm against hate; many people in every party and proclivity see marriage as one man and one woman. Break up your question.
No, you aren't. You regularly preach hate when you argue for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.

There's no need to break up my question, if you weren't a bald faced liar, you could answer it. of course, you are a bald faced liar, a bigot, and a hateful person who wishes to divide our country and create winners and losers under the law.

So I ask again:
So which is it, should homosexuals inter into equal protection sham marriage, or do you not support such an interpretation?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution; if the genders weren't the different; there would be no heterosexuals or homosexuals, we would all be bisexual.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because man and woman aren't equal; we differ.
Brian, the 14th Amendment Mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Do you know what that means? It means gender equality under the law. Women are people. Men are people. Both are included under the 14th Amendment, and only an intensely obtuse person would not grasp this simple fact.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#1200 Aug 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think you mean "complement".
The plural of "kid" is "kids".
Same sex marriage has just been signed into law over here in the UK. Anyone already in a civil partnership can simply "upgrade" to married status.
I've been married quite some years now. Please explain how my marriage is undermined by same sex couples getting married.
<quoted text>
Wow, very nice! Congrats to you UK people :)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1201 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never written: "homosexuals should marry straight people"; those are Dogen's words, not mine. I've written homosexuals have married straight people, I'm sure they've married lesbians too. There is no orientation test for a marriage license.
.
<quoted text>Right, the bible and all holy texts define marriage as male/female. America has defined marriage "marriage as one man and one woman", and they may marry if the other standards are met too.
Same sex marriage is like getting rid of the age of consent, allowing contract marriage or polygamy. Changing marriage rules is a very bad idea.
.
<quoted text>Marriage doesn't confer rights; society and government do. Rights are won by force; there is no history for same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>There's every "reason to discriminate based on sexual preference"; else we'd all be bisexual. There's no reason to rewrite marriage law based on sexual preference.
.
<quoted text>???
I don't make biblical arguments; I make legal, moral and logical arguments.
.
<quoted text>^^^This proves the point; if same sex marriage is licensed to satisfy a mascot victim group, why not polygamy to satisfy Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.

Most of your "points" don't make sense or don't follow logically.

The there are many instances of polygamy in the bible. There is nothing forbidding it. The scriptures that seem to be against homosexual relationships don't bear close examination. And there is NOTHING in the bible that EVER defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Try reading the thing.(Married) women in the bible were property, not people. Maybe we should go back to that since society had no right to change that, right. Even Jesus tolerated slavery; bring that back too. We should if we follow your "logic" to its conclusion.

I have rights and I never personally fought for them (though I was in the Army for 4 years). Marriage confers rights that homosexuals are left out of.

YOU personally, don't have to practice anything. You, personally, are not entering into a gay or even polygamous contract.

Of course I would have no problem with civil unions if they conferred all the rights of marriage. However, since the war is nearly over and the gay rights troops have Berlin surrounded, I doubt they are willing to settle for that now. The outcome is already inevitable. No reason for them to settle.

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) 3 min I Am No One_ 243,521
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr The_Box 9,502
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 5 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 6,224
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 21 hr TC_Tia 14,656
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 hr MikeF 19,806
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Jul 4 Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Jul 4 thetruth 38
More from around the web