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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1306 Aug 4, 2013
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
They won't be murdered by Christians but maybe beat up and ridiculed by rednecks, country boys and men who feel that it is not manly to be with a man.
You are **close**-- those boys you mention? Would **always** be Genuine Christians™ in their own minds-- and in the minds of their approving preachers too.

So it **would** be "murdered by christians".

Who else would do it?

Secular Humanits don't give a shyt if you are gay or straight...

... and in those same communities?

Being Muslim is **worse** than being gay...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1307 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm arguing same sex marriage is not OK; a man marrying his son isn't incest under any state law.
Bullshit. Incest does not state the gender of the individuals involved in any state law.

By **not** specifying the gender? It automatically includes same or different gendered individuals.

You are just a bigot-- and you want to enforce your horrid bigotry by LAW.

Typical of Genuine Christians™

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1308 Aug 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your position is that of a shrinking minority. You've lost this fight. Freedom has won, as it always does.

Within 10 years there won't be a single state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

Within 20 everyone who now opposes it will claim they were always for it, ashamed of their current position the way they would be if they had opposed desegregation.
Yep.

And ... yep.

And ... definitely Yep.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1309 Aug 4, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a complete lunatic. The worst sort of biased, uninformed, misinformed, controlling, hateful asshole that I hope everyone's children avoids. You are the poster boy for neoconservative views that have destroyed conservatism in this country and replaced it with revanchist fundamentalist totalitarianism. Hate flows from your kind writhing and frothing.
And **I** think you were way too kind to that arsehat...

... but that's just me.

;)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1310 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No, I'm arguing same sex marriage is not OK; a man marrying his son isn't incest under any state law.
Do you know what the definition of incest is? Clearly, you do not.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would bring new injustice, not equality.
Please feel free to support this assertion with specific facts. You often make imperial decrees, but you suck at supporting your assertions with facts. In fact, you never do so.
Brian_G wrote:
I oppose hate and violence; it seems the left is willing to tolerate hate as long as it's against their political enemies. See the quote above for proof.
Brian, there is nothing hateful in fighting for equal protection under the law, which is already constitutionally guaranteed.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^The left is very good at defaming their political opponents; see the example above.
Brian, no one has defamed you, several have called you names, but each and every one of them was both true, and well deserved. The truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#1311 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, incest bans prevent that.


Um.... then wouldn't the same prevent father-son relations?

Duh. Hello!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> All the hate comes from the left.

Okay, I laughed.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1312 Aug 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
You are furthering structural inequality through your statements. You are therefore committing structural violence upon homosexuals.
By Hfy's reasoning, Freud, Marx, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all "committing structural violence upon homosexuals".

Same sex marriage is the end of wisdom.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1313 Aug 4, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You are a complete lunatic. The worst sort of biased, uninformed, misinformed, controlling, hateful asshole that I hope everyone's children avoids. You are the poster boy for neoconservative views that have destroyed conservatism in this country and replaced it with revanchist fundamentalist totalitarianism. Hate flows from your kind writhing and frothing.
^^^This is just namecalling; Danny doesn't dispute same sex marriage would legalize a father marrying his son to avoid estate taxes. Instead of disucssing the the reasons why father/son and mother/daughter marriage don't qualify as incest, Danny resorts to insults.

Rather than report this abusive, bullying and defamatory post; I use it as an example why we'd be mistaken to follow their advice about rewriting marriage laws.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1314 Aug 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Um.... then wouldn't the same prevent father-son relations? Duh. Hello![] Okay, I laughed.
I'm not writing about father-son relations, I'm writing about father-son marriage. That's not incest, look it up.

If same sex marriage becomes law; worse things are sure to follow.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1315 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is just namecalling;
False.

It's quite an accurate description of your mental state.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1316 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By Hfy's reasoning, Freud, Marx, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all "committing structural violence upon homosexuals".
Same sex marriage is the end of wisdom.
Sorry Charlie, even Jefferson didn't get everything right. After all, slavery was still allowed in the US after his writing of the Declaration of Independence, and even during his presidency.

Abraham Lincoln took further steps to bring about equality under the law by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, and passing the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed equality under the law for all.

Same sex marriage isn't the end of wisdom, it is the end of unthinking bigotry which has been used to marginalize fellow Americans for years. Those who oppose it are not patriots, they are cowards, who will revise their stance after the fact once they find themselves on the losing size of history.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1317 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
^^^This is just namecalling; Danny doesn't dispute same sex marriage would legalize a father marrying his son to avoid estate taxes. Instead of disucssing the the reasons why father/son and mother/daughter marriage don't qualify as incest, Danny resorts to insults.
Rather than report this abusive, bullying and defamatory post; I use it as an example why we'd be mistaken to follow their advice about rewriting marriage laws.
Brian, you are truly dumber than dirt. A father Marrying a son is already outlawed in most jurisdictions by existing incest laws.

Please grown a brain and begin to think before you speak. It is actually painful to watch you consistently make a complete fool of yourself.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1318 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not writing about father-son relations, I'm writing about father-son marriage. That's not incest, look it up.
Sorry charlie, it's covered under incest. If you weren't an idiot, you would understand that.
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex marriage becomes law; worse things are sure to follow.
You've yet to prove anything worse would happen. You haven't proven that gay marriage would be bad. What is more, everything you have asserted would come to pass has already been addressed as a matter of law. One would have to be a fool not to understand these things that have been explained to you, in terms even a child could understand, dozens of times.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1319 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm not writing about father-son relations, I'm writing about father-son marriage. That's not incest, look it up.
http://www.drabruzzi.com/selected_state_inces...
Still marriage to a blood relative. Still illegal in most jurisdictions. Still a stupid argument. Still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

#brianfail

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#1320 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By Hfy's reasoning, Freud, Marx, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all "committing structural violence upon homosexuals".
Same sex marriage is the end of wisdom.

Lincoln had a homosexual relationship.

Buddha never said anything against homosexuality.

Same sex marriage has as much to do with wisdom as pigs do with asteroids.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#1321 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not writing about father-son relations, I'm writing about father-son marriage. That's not incest, look it up.
If same sex marriage becomes law; worse things are sure to follow.

It is no less stupid on your part.

Worse things to follow. You mean like a world where everyone is free and equal. Oh, the horrors.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#1322 Aug 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou, if I may, I would like to go back in our discussion.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I wrote the book titles wrong. The first is:
Foucault - his wikipedia page is here, it'll have the correct references for the books on it, and a little blurb on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_S...
Volume 2, I believe, is the one I'm referring to.
I have not read the book, just the wikipedia summary. But from what I red, Foucault argues against the common belief that, in recent history, sexuality was tabu. Focault argues that the period from centuries XVII to late XX, sexuality was largely discussed in western society. Wikipedia does not address how Focault regarded the discussion about homossexuality at this point in history. Why you defend there is a difference between homosexuality and same sex relations is still not apparent to me. Also, Facaults's study seems to be based exclusively on western society. You defend there is a difference between western and other societies when it comes to how we view sexuality. It seems to me that Facault did not make a comparative study. If that is the case, using his work to make a comparative claim such as yours would be impossible.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Here's a link to Greenburg's book. It's actually called "the construction of homosexuality" not "sexuality" as I wrote above:
http://books.google.co.jp/books/about/The_Con...
Again, I did not read the book. I've just skimmed through it. From my very supperficial reading, it seems to me this book addresses how homosexuality is/was viewed through out history and societies. I did not find a fundamental difference between "homossexuality" and "same sex behaviour" like you seem to be defending. I've only found different attitudes towards homosexuality through out history and societies.

Please correct me if I misunderstand you. I believe what you are saying is that "homossexuality" and "same sex behaviour" are different things. What I am saying is that they are different words wich mean exactly the same thing, regardless what the attitude throughout history has been towards what those words mean. Could you please explain the fundamental differences between "homosexuality" and "same sex behaviour"?

p.s. forgive my terrible spelling.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1323 Aug 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Same sex marriage has as much to do with wisdom as pigs do with asteroids.
.... mmmmm.... that reminds me... bacon.

Would bacon frying in a skillet in microgravity still turn out crispy and delicious?

:)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#1324 Aug 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By Hfy's reasoning, Freud, Marx, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all "committing structural violence upon homosexuals".
Yes, they absolutely were.

Just look at how you turned out:
Same sex marriage is the end of wisdom.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#1325 Aug 4, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
Hidingfromyou, if I may, I would like to go back in our discussion.
I have not read the book, just the wikipedia summary. But from what I red, Foucault argues against the common belief that, in recent history, sexuality was tabu. Focault argues that the period from centuries XVII to late XX, sexuality was largely discussed in western society. Wikipedia does not address how Focault regarded the discussion about homossexuality at this point in history. Why you defend there is a difference between homosexuality and same sex relations is still not apparent to me. Also, Facaults's study seems to be based exclusively on western society. You defend there is a difference between western and other societies when it comes to how we view sexuality. It seems to me that Facault did not make a comparative study. If that is the case, using his work to make a comparative claim such as yours would be impossible.
Wow, thank you for getting back to me on this!

The one I'm specifically referencing is Vol. 3, but if you read the books, it will soon become apparent to you that cultural constructions of sex, gender and sexuality change throughout history, despite that he's discussing Western culture. In no way does a 4th century European share your conceptions of sexuality.

Foucault is making a comparative study by illuminating how other people at other times experienced sexuality. It's quite different than how you or I do. That's the point.

Here's a pdf of Vol 2. I can't find the others:
http://www.revalvaatio.org/wp/wp-content/uplo...
Again, I did not read the book. I've just skimmed through it. From my very supperficial reading, it seems to me this book addresses how homosexuality is/was viewed through out history and societies. I did not find a fundamental difference between "homossexuality" and "same sex behaviour" like you seem to be defending. I've only found different attitudes towards homosexuality through out history and societies.
Please correct me if I misunderstand you. I believe what you are saying is that "homossexuality" and "same sex behaviour" are different things.
Yes.
What I am saying is that they are different words wich mean exactly the same thing, regardless what the attitude throughout history has been towards what those words mean.
No. Not possible.
Could you please explain the fundamental differences between "homosexuality" and "same sex behaviour"?
You speak more than one language, right? Each language has parts of it that cannot be translated accurately - b/c each requires certain cultural imagery/understandings to function.

It's the same with sexual behavior. Yes, throughout history, all cultures had men who had sex with other men - but they understood that sex differently than you do b/c of different cultural context (norms, beliefs, mores, practices, etc).

Current Western culture positions homo against heterosexuality, with hetero being thought of as "normal." Greeks never thought like this. Almost all men engaged in same sex sexual behavior - and, if you did, how you had sex is what shaped whether you were masculine or feminine. If you were penetrated, you were feminine - so people higher up in the social hierarchy did the penetrating and were not penetrated. They also had sex with women. B/c women couldn't penetrate, women could only be feminine.

So in Greek culture, you couldn't say "he's gay and that other guy is straight." They just couldn't understand why you'd make that kind of differentiation. But for us, differentiating like that is quite normal.

I can list example after example about how different cultures do sex, if you like. I'm running out of space here, though.

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) 20 min Dogen 84,119
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 20 min Eagle 12 - 3,569
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... Dec 15 Eagle 12 - 9
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Dec 14 Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Dec 14 blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web