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

#1758 Aug 17, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>When it comes to the question of marriage for gays and lesbians why does it even matter what causes it?
Do we outlaw males who carry the gene for early onset Alzheimer's disease from marriage?
The women who carry Duchenne muscular dystrophy; a form of muscular dystrophy that worsens quickly.... Because of the way the disease is inherited, boys are affected, not girls...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...
Or do we ban SSM because being gay is a Choice?
Like banning Presbyterian or Unitarian Universalist marriages because RELIGION is a CHOICE?
Atheism's main focus is rational thought. I have no problem with those who question my "irrational" belief in God. And I see no reason to challenge their belief because it is rational.
This thread is about a rational way to view being gay or lesbian.
Whether theological or factual logic, we exist, therefore there IS A PURPOSE FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS.
perhaps none of us know that that true purpose is. B u6t hen how many of us know our own true purpose?
I agree with your comments-- the government should-- according to the Constitution NOT be making judgements if a couple should marry or not based on RELIGION.

That is **literally** a main premise of the Constitution.

And prohibiting gays/lesbians from marrying is a **religious** argument-- and nothing but religion.

It's the same as with anti-abortion, and anti-contraception laws-- they are strictly **religious**, and are unconstitutional.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#1760 Aug 18, 2013
There was a time in America when many black people were raised in white owned households.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Using your example, lets change the parents to an opposite sex couple. If they openly display affection are their children more or less likely to become straight?
When I see that question I always see that the person asking has forgotten that nearly every gay and lesbian was raised in heterosexual households.
Nature or nurture?
Either way heterosexauls are the cause!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1761 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There was a time in America when many black people were raised in white owned households.
<quoted text>
Yes and at one time Christians banned Christmas in Boston because the celebration was too worldly for their religious senses.

http://www.livescience.com/32891-why-was-chri...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1762 Aug 18, 2013
DNF wrote:
When it comes to the question of marriage for gays and lesbians why does it even matter what causes it?
Do we outlaw males who carry the gene for early onset Alzheimer's disease from marriage?
The women who carry Duchenne muscular dystrophy; a form of muscular dystrophy that worsens quickly.... Because of the way the disease is inherited, boys are affected, not girls...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...
Or do we ban SSM because being gay is a Choice?
Like banning Presbyterian or Unitarian Universalist marriages because RELIGION is a CHOICE?
Atheism's main focus is rational thought. I have no problem with those who question my "irrational" belief in God. And I see no reason to challenge their belief because it is rational.
This thread is about a rational way to view being gay or lesbian.
Whether theological or factual logic, we exist, therefore there IS A PURPOSE FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS.
perhaps none of us know that that true purpose is. B u6t hen how many of us know our own true purpose?
Marriage is male/female, that's the choice. For integration, diversity and the greater good for public welfare we define marriage as one man and one woman. Sex segregated marriage introduces disunity and separatism.

Other than that, I agree with DNF's post.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1763 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I agree with your comments-- the government should-- according to the Constitution NOT be making judgements if a couple should marry or not based on RELIGION. That is **literally** a main premise of the Constitution.
But people may make those judgments about their religious faith; that's the main premise of the First Amendment. They may vote against politicians and judges who don't share their values, religious or secular. The judgement that same sex marriage isn't licensed in our states is based on law, not religion.

.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
And prohibiting gays/lesbians from marrying is a **religious** argument-- and nothing but religion.
.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
It's the same as with anti-abortion,
When does life begin? Religion tries to answer this question, science holds no value to human life, that's unbiased. Religion believes the unborn are human and precious at the moment of conception; science doesn't value human life as precious; science is objective.

.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
and anti-contraception laws-- they are strictly **religious**, and are unconstitutional.
Abortifacients are illegal because murdering the unborn is a bad thing today. Are condoms illegal in your state? No main stream politician is advocating laws against contraceptives; that's defamation not fact.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#1764 Aug 18, 2013
I knew the religitards banned christmas for a few years in England but I never knew how long New England was affected! Mad bastards.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes and at one time Christians banned Christmas in Boston because the celebration was too worldly for their religious senses.
http://www.livescience.com/32891-why-was-chri...
Thinking

Royston, UK

#1765 Aug 18, 2013
Or male/male, female/female.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage is male/female, that's the choice.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1766 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There was a time in America when many black people were raised in white owned households.
<quoted text>
Indeed there was-- it was a horrid time in our history, and quite ugly.

My only hope is that we have put that sort of thing behind us...

.... but then I read about the efforts of the ReThuglican Teabillies attempts to disenfranchise People of Color?

And I am sickened once more.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1767 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>But people may make those judgments about their religious faith; that's the main premise of the First Amendment. They may vote against politicians and judges who don't share their values, religious or secular. The judgement that same sex marriage isn't licensed in our states is based on law, not religion.
The ugly LAW is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they are based on RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT.

100% of YOUR anti-gay arguments have been religious.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1768 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>When does life begin? Religion tries to answer this question, science holds no value to human life, that's unbiased.
Life began approximately 4 billion years ago-- at least on **earth** it did.

Life has been thriving ever since.

As for **human** life? A **living** sperm unites with a **living** egg-- there is no "life begins" at ANY step in the process.

That's just stupid.
Brian_G wrote:
Religion believes the unborn are human and precious at the moment of conception;
So what? RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Period.

Suck it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1769 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Abortifacients are illegal because murdering the unborn is a bad thing today.
Oh, BULLSH!T. Fetuses are not human--not YET, they aren't.

Not even your silly BIBLE agrees with you here!

Seriously! Your bible equates the ending of a pregnancy with a small price of a goat or a few sheep.

But the ending of the LIFE of the mother? DEATH to anyone who does that.

You don't even have a VALID RELIGIOUS argument here!
Thinking

Royston, UK

#1770 Aug 18, 2013
I believe enough of us will want to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors, not repeat them.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed there was-- it was a horrid time in our history, and quite ugly.
My only hope is that we have put that sort of thing behind us...
.... but then I read about the efforts of the ReThuglican Teabillies attempts to disenfranchise People of Color?
And I am sickened once more.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1771 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Are condoms illegal in your state?
It used to be illegal to sell them out in the open-- you used to have to ask, and be over 18.

That's the UGLY result of you RELIGIOUS BIGOTS' making hate-laws based on your ugly.
Brian_G wrote:
No main stream politician is advocating laws against contraceptives;
Lie. Most of your ReThuglicans are sympathetic to banning any and all contraceptives.

More: the current crop of ReThugs **FOUGHT** against forcing businesses to fund contraceptives in the health care packages.

THAT IS BANNING THEM. You lie.
Brian_G wrote:
that's defamation not fact.
It's not defamation if it is REAL.

Your lies are easy to refute, too.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1772 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage is male/female, that's the choice. For integration, diversity and the greater good for public welfare we define marriage as one man and one woman. Sex segregated marriage introduces disunity and separatism.
Other than that, I agree with DNF's post.
If you want to claim something you have to have a valid reason to claim it.

Why is marriage "male/female". It hasn't always been that way. Not even in your own Bible that you value so much. I know at least one male/female/female version in the Bible. And the Bible says nothing about how kinky in bed old Jake got. And you know that king Solomon must have really got his groove on. Didn't he have hundreds of wives? I am sure that he let some of his wives warm each other up before a night of fun. He was quite the perv you know. Read the song of Solomon some day, You might need a King James Version since some of the kiddie translations are not very accurate.

And how does same sex marriage "introduces disunity and separatism"?

Brain, you are thinking with your gonads. You are either a closet homosexual or is fighting his own inner urges, or you are trying to force your form of sexuality upon others. Neither one really works. Try to think with the big head instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1773 Aug 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
... Neither one really works. Try to think with the big head instead.
He was-- as small as it no doubt it?

The one below is far larger than what he utilizes for brains, up high...

... and that's the root of his difficulties.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1774 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Oh, BULLSH!T. Fetuses are not human--not YET, they aren't. Not even your silly BIBLE agrees with you here!
Seriously! Your bible equates the ending of a pregnancy with a small price of a goat or a few sheep. But the ending of the LIFE of the mother? DEATH to anyone who does that. You don't even have a VALID RELIGIOUS argument here!
How bizarre, Bobby uses more biblical arguments than I do. Looks like we've found the one basing legal arguments on the bible in this thread.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1775 Aug 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
If you want to claim something you have to have a valid reason to claim it.
Why is marriage "male/female". It hasn't always been that way. Not even in your own Bible that you value so much. I know at least one male/female/female version in the Bible. And the Bible says nothing about how kinky in bed old Jake got. And you know that king Solomon must have really got his groove on. Didn't he have hundreds of wives? I am sure that he let some of his wives warm each other up before a night of fun. He was quite the perv you know. Read the song of Solomon some day, You might need a King James Version since some of the kiddie translations are not very accurate. And how does same sex marriage "introduces disunity and separatism"? Brain, you are thinking with your gonads. You are either a closet homosexual or is fighting his own inner urges, or you are trying to force your form of sexuality upon others. Neither one really works. Try to think with the big head instead.
Bobby's not the only bible-quoter here; Sub Z likes to cite Christian holy texts too.

Looks like the folks claiming religious values can't be written into law are wrong. What are blue laws?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1776 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How bizarre, Bobby uses more biblical arguments than I do. Looks like we've found the one basing legal arguments on the bible in this thread.
I do not believe in it's shyt.

BUT YOU DO.

Making you the Supreme Hypocrite here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1777 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Bobby's not the only bible-quoter here; Sub Z likes to cite Christian holy texts too.
Looks like the folks claiming religious values can't be written into law are wrong. What are blue laws?
You are the complete azzhole who believes the BuyBull is magical.

We don't.

Mainly because UNLIKE YOU? We have read the damn thing-- and that's one of several reasons why we **are** atheists.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1778 Aug 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Bobby's not the only bible-quoter here; Sub Z likes to cite Christian holy texts too.
Looks like the folks claiming religious values can't be written into law are wrong. What are blue laws?
Those are the laws that will go away when my generation takes charge.

You have 2 ways of dealing with that.

Accept it or take the fast way out.

Either way is fine with me.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 33 min thetruth 20,068
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 37 min ChristineM 3,703
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 46 min Chimney1 34,945
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr thetruth 14,933
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr thetruth 5,605
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 1 hr thetruth 137
Majority of Scots now have no religion 1 hr thetruth 162
More from around the web