Twelve reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

[CellarDweller]

You are making a couple of leaps of logic that I did not (intentionally, anyway) imply. The CEREMONY means nothing. God ordains THE RELATIONSHIP! It's the mindset of the couple. The phrase "Till death do us part" is taken much to lightly by people. Back then, people actually MEANT IT! My wife and I had the same mindset, unlike a high percentage of the current generation. Divorce was rare and hard to get back then. Today, I think it's waaay to easy to get married OR divorced. I am of the belief, like many clergy are, that pre-marital counselling should be requiered. As a man of faith, I have rarely seen a marriage survive long term without (1) A concrete committment by the bride and groom as in "Divorce is not an option and the word will not be spoken) (2) A firm religious foundation, for God created and ordained marriage (and yes, I have seen couples of other faiths with long-term marraiges, but they were well versed in their faiths as well, but that's for a different dicussion than this) (3) A long term outlook on the relationship and life. God can ordain a full-blown, fill-the cathedral, wedding-cake with layers to the ceiling wedding as much as a quick elopement to the local JP.

Hawkeye, I agree with most of what you say. I don't believe that religious faith is required for a lasting marriage. I'm sure there are plenty of agnostics and atheists who have long, and happy marriages. I agree that "till death do us part" is taken too lightly, and that divorce is too easy to obtain. I was raised in the Catholic faith, and my parents (just celebrated their 42nd wedding anniversary in Feb.) used to counsel at "pre-cana" meetings for soon-to-be-married couples. I don't practice the religion I was raised in, but I have a firm belief in it. My boyfriend plays organ and is music director of his church. We are talking about making our relationship permanent. We have covered all three of the points you raise above. Neither of us believs in divorce, has a firm belief in our faith, and have "long term" outlooks. So why shouldn't we be able to get married, if we meet all of your criteria?

I am very skeptical about this push for 'gay marriage" because the prevailing motive I see promoted in the "drive-by" media for the past 5 years or more. The big push is not over 'the ordained relationship" but the right to get employer benefits, tax breaks, and the like. Now, I am NOT accusing Camel of this motive, but ever since this idea began to be promoted 5 or more years ago, THAT was the primary reason pushed in the press. This, combined with the flood that will hit the divorce courts as I mentioned above, makes me very skeptical of the many arguements I have heard from the other side of the arguement.

In the public eye, the "gay community" is not pushing the "ordained relationship" because that implies religion, and most religions/religious organizations have doctrine which denounces homosexuality. They discuss the fact that straight couples can get married without any religious aspects to their ceremonies, and get the economic and legal benefits of being married. We (well, we meaning me and my guy, we don't speak for all gay people) don't want any religious organization to feel we are forcing them to change their doctrine. That won't happen. But on the flipside, if we are having a ceremony that doesnt' involve any religious organizations, then they shouldn't be able to stop us from getting married, just because thier doctrine says "we" shouldn't be getting married.

Is it my belief? Yeah, you bet it is! Just because it is and I'm a religious conservative, it should be just as valid as any other, and not just waved off as "That's just your belief..." and automaticaly disvalued (as I took your comemnt to mean, if not, then I apologize for the interpretation).

It was not my intent to "devalue" your belief. It is just as valid as any other. My issue is why should your belief affect my life? I'm strong in my own faith, belief, and relationship with God. Why should Glenn and I be unable to marry legally, because your belief is we shouldn't? Our getting married has no affect on your life, or the lives of your family.

Unless, of course, as Orwell said, "some are more equal than others.." as people of my stance are usually treated...

Oh, seperate, but equal. That's the same feeling that some gay people have regarding "civil unions". It's almost like a marriage, but not quite.

 

[Dude'sonfire]

That's where people get it wrong, gay OR straight. Marriage, in it's original form, was created by God in order for man and woman to COMPLETE each other. It's not about a ceremony or civil union for people to celebrate, but to create a stable unit to nuture a family, to protect the woman, and make the male a true man.

I can understand the point of view. It's like the ying and yang; the world, and any microcosm of the world, like a marriage, needs a balance of opposing forces, and putting male and female together can accomplish this.

However, putting the 'male and female' together does not necessarily mean putting a man and a woman together. The terms masculine and feminine actually have very little to do with men and women, on the basis of physical makeup alone.

About a third is to do with biological differences, different balances of different hormones, different muscle mass etc. These are things which can, to a degree, be exchanged between gender; you get men with more and less testaterone, you get women who are naturally strong etc.

Another third comes from how a specific culture sees the two genders, for example some states are purdah states, and have very different defintions of the 'female' from us.

The last third has nothing to do with the behaviour of men and women at all, and comes from traditional, outdated or over-philosophical or over-institutionalised sources.

In light of this, a union between the 'male' and the 'female', the forces you speak of which are put together to "complete" each other, in reality does not necessarily require a union between a man and woman. It's about the energy and substance of the individuals, not their genitalia.

Rock on. :happy:

 

[Cbarton]

CD: We agree on some things, that is true, but as I've heard several pastors say (and others, including myself), He created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It all boils down to what you define as marriage. I belive marriage is the sacrd, solemn, holy union of a man and his wife. The gay community and the 'drive-by' media (who no longer have the right to call themselves 'mainsteam') seek, in my opinion to water down, or dilute this into a mere 'civil union' like they try to dilute down everything else in the church, like sin, salvation, etc. We Christians see devaition from the Lord's commands as sin, the rest of the world sees it as an 'alternative life style' or "being sophisticated" or "hip" or "progressive."

Dude: Genesis 2:22: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh (Modern King James Version)

Dude, we're not talking mere genitalia here. Becoming one flesh is not a sexual thing, but a spriitual, emotional bond that makes a man and woman one in the site of the Lord. Being a man of science as well, you have in a normal male the XY chromosome pair. That makes you a male. The XX pairing makes you female. Period. There are some rare genetic birth defects that can occur when there is just a single X or multiple X's, but they are rare and usually don't live long or suffer from severe retardation and other health problems. I'm not a believer in the "part male/part female" theory. By your genetic chromosomal make-up you are a guy or your a gal. So yes, when the "two shall become one" He is refering to male (man) and female (woman). A man may be or act "effeninate" (sp?) or a woman may act like a guy (tomboys for example in younger kids, or adult woman with facial hair or other masculine features). But, they are still equipped with the genes they were born with, making them male or female.

Nerrad: No, as Christians we are not to judge, and those you mentioned are not a part of the body of Chirst, for he that loves not does not know God, for God is love (1 John 7:8). And we will meet men like Jeffrey Dahmer up there since he found Christ while in prison, as an extreme example.

My opinions are based soley on my faith and His Word, and I know that will phase very few because of that. I just stand up for my side, like everyone for the most part has theirs. I may be a minority of one. That's fine. I've been watching this brew for many years, and it won't go away unless their is either revival in the land or those that cry for separation of church from state decide they don't believe in the separation of state from church and are successful in outlawing religious practice. The wheels are already turning on towards that reality.

 

[BigNorm]

here's a funny and true story that may or may not apply to the subject:

when i was born, my mother bought a new car, and at the same time, a new bumper sticker which she saw in a store that she liked. it was a bumper sticker of a rainbow, and her, liking rainbows and got it, and it was on our bumper for 10 years, until she sold the car. and people we'd see on the road we say that they were happy that she was supporting the cause and people like us, and other times, she would dirty looks or the occaisonal middle finger. it wasn't until 5 years ago that she figured out what it meant. she was rather surprised, and liked the idea of supporting an important cause, even though she didn't know it at the time.

anyways, a cute and funny story for all to enjoy.

 

[TheChameleon]

Of course I'm alone, sometimes. When has that ever bothered or stopped me? Others wouldn't validate me anyways. That is something only the individual can truely do for themselves anyway. To not rely on the help of friends or supporters to bail me out is something I have learned not to do, because to completely allow that would only serve to demonstrate that I cannot help myself.

It's something I don't want either. I wouldn't want to feel like I was saved, I can do that myself and I have many times.

I believe I can say something that will end this arguement. In Fact, I'll quote you on it.

That people can live and have wonderful lives and raise wonderful children outside of a traditional marriage was never in question, since we can all appriciate the symbolic gesture. It says very little however for the legitamacy of the current laws on civil unions, since the conclusion is the system is the way it is because it serves the majority and seeks to preserve it.

and... i'll make it slightly more compact, to the section I want to bring up...

since the conclusion is the system is the way it is because it serves the majority and seeks to preserve it.

Here, right here, the system. The System is the way it is because it serves the majority. Well, the majority here say that you were being a dick to Camel. Does that mean that according to "the system" you are in the wrong? My personal opinion is that the system, which caters to the majority, says you are wrong. (in this example, the majority are the people who actually posted here, I don't believe anybody has agreed with your statements entirely.)

Remember, Vlad...

The answer is simple. It's because we live in a society that services the majority, as I said. It's about conserving the rights of the majority by not allowing the definition to be editted.

It just so happens that this country was founded on Christian values, as well. No one is to really blame for that. If Buddhists got here first maybe things would be different.

Actually, as a history buff, I will call your bluff on this post.

Originally, the country believed in no God, had no "In God we Trust" or anything such as that.

These were brought on by the Quakers, and other christian groups, the government had no choice but to bend to they're will, or they wouldn't fight to protect the country. Imagine the revolution, without 3/4ths of the people, we would have lost, hence, the government, deciding to instead bend they're own rules, allowed certain religious doctrine to skew the original design of the constitution, the bill of rights, and other original goverment documents.

If you believe that our country was founded on Christian Values, instead of being "held at gunpoint" by Christian Values, than you learned from the public school system.


Oh, and my buddy Cellerdweller! I haven't heard from you in ages! Congrats on getting yourself A Man!

 

[Journia]

I believe I can say something that will end this arguement. In Fact, I'll quote you on it.



and... i'll make it slightly more compact, to the section I want to bring up...



Here, right here, the system. The System is the way it is because it serves the majority. Well, the majority here say that you were being a dick to Camel. Does that mean that according to "the system" you are in the wrong? My personal opinion is that the system, which caters to the majority, says you are wrong. (in this example, the majority are the people who actually posted here, I don't believe anybody has agreed with your statements entirely.)

Remember, Vlad...





Actually, as a history buff, I will call your bluff on this post.

Originally, the country believed in no God, had no "In God we Trust" or anything such as that.

These were brought on by the Quakers, and other christian groups, the government had no choice but to bend to they're will, or they wouldn't fight to protect the country. Imagine the revolution, without 3/4ths of the people, we would have lost, hence, the government, deciding to instead bend they're own rules, allowed certain religious doctrine to skew the original design of the constitution, the bill of rights, and other original goverment documents.

If you believe that our country was founded on Christian Values, instead of being "held at gunpoint" by Christian Values, than you learned from the public school system.


Oh, and my buddy Cellerdweller! I haven't heard from you in ages! Congrats on getting yourself A Man!

Looks on at the two on their pedestals, stares at XChameleon, then at Vlad.
Whoah....that was atomic ownage....with educational value!

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Dude: Genesis 2:22: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh (Modern King James Version)

Dude, we're not talking mere genitalia here. Becoming one flesh is not a sexual thing, but a spriitual, emotional bond that makes a man and woman one in the site of the Lord. Being a man of science as well, you have in a normal male the XY chromosome pair. That makes you a male. The XX pairing makes you female. Period. There are some rare genetic birth defects that can occur when there is just a single X or multiple X's, but they are rare and usually don't live long or suffer from severe retardation and other health problems. I'm not a believer in the "part male/part female" theory. By your genetic chromosomal make-up you are a guy or your a gal. So yes, when the "two shall become one" He is refering to male (man) and female (woman). A man may be or act "effeninate" (sp?) or a woman may act like a guy (tomboys for example in younger kids, or adult woman with facial hair or other masculine features). But, they are still equipped with the genes they were born with, making them male or female.

I understand that biologically you're either male or female. Lets just assume that biologically influenced behaviour (behaviour influence by hormones, body type etc) in men is entirely different from that in women, which I personally don't believe, but let's assume its the case.

As I said, this is only one third of where the social concept of what is male and what is female comes from, and will only have been one third of it during the various times when the bible was formulated, written and re-written. The cultural, traditional, historical and theoretical inputs to the concept of what 'male' and 'female' are make up the majority of how each gender is perceived in any culture, and in reality many of the opinions which these things establish do not actually hold true for all men and women.

Hence that even if the biological side of it is an absolute divide, there's still a huge amount of input going into what defines male and female energy that has nothing to with physicality. I agree that it's a spiritual and emotional bond, and that's part of my point; it doesn't have much to do with the body of the person, it has to with the spiritual and the emotional make up of the person.

Gender doesn't define a personality, and therefore shouldn't define whether or not two people can "complete" each other.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I believe I can say something that will end this arguement. In Fact, I'll quote you on it.



and... i'll make it slightly more compact, to the section I want to bring up...



Here, right here, the system. The System is the way it is because it serves the majority. Well, the majority here say that you were being a dick to Camel. Does that mean that according to "the system" you are in the wrong? My personal opinion is that the system, which caters to the majority, says you are wrong. (in this example, the majority are the people who actually posted here, I don't believe anybody has agreed with your statements entirely.)

Remember, Vlad...





Actually, as a history buff, I will call your bluff on this post.

Originally, the country believed in no God, had no "In God we Trust" or anything such as that.

These were brought on by the Quakers, and other christian groups, the government had no choice but to bend to they're will, or they wouldn't fight to protect the country. Imagine the revolution, without 3/4ths of the people, we would have lost, hence, the government, deciding to instead bend they're own rules, allowed certain religious doctrine to skew the original design of the constitution, the bill of rights, and other original goverment documents.

If you believe that our country was founded on Christian Values, instead of being "held at gunpoint" by Christian Values, than you learned from the public school system.


Oh, and my buddy Cellerdweller! I haven't heard from you in ages! Congrats on getting yourself A Man!

Well, if you're going to put it that way, then yes, in the eyes of the system I am wrong, provided 3 people count as a system or as the majority. It would be their right to think I'm wrong if they so wish, even if they were not a majority.

What's the point you're trying to make here?

As for quakers, I am not denying they had a heavy influence. What is your point with this?

The only point that matters is the one you're forgetting- that this is, regardless of how it came to be this way, a Christian nation. It is no less legitimate in this day and age because of the events of old, because this country has grown and evolved....albeit, not fast enough for gay people.

Gays and fringe groups would have to contend with this regardless. Traditionalist thinking is traditionalist thinking. Wrong or right, or BOTH, it is what it is, and it is the majority.

 

[Journia]

Keeps looking.
Touche Dear Vlad.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Keeps looking.
Touche Dear Vlad.

Thanks, I guess. It wasn't that hard to respond to, though. Tomatoe/tomato was how I saw it.

If you found out the caveman responsible for establishing the first society on the planet was evil and not pure of heart, and you fast forward to today, I don't see the difference, since he was responsible for there being a society period and it has grown and evolved without him.

How american christian values were brought into this country is next to irrelevant in the face that they are here and present in this day and age regardless, and that folks have to contend with them because they are being supported by a majority base.

When it comes time to vote, it's practically a foregone conclusion.

"Might makes right."

While that is sad and unfair for many, it is true.

 

[Journia]

Wise words from a wise prince.

 

[CellarDweller]

CD: We agree on some things, that is true, but as I've heard several pastors say (and others, including myself), He created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It all boils down to what you define as marriage. I belive marriage is the sacrd, solemn, holy union of a man and his wife. The gay community and the 'drive-by' media (who no longer have the right to call themselves 'mainsteam') seek, in my opinion to water down, or dilute this into a mere 'civil union' like they try to dilute down everything else in the church, like sin, salvation, etc. We Christians see devaition from the Lord's commands as sin, the rest of the world sees it as an 'alternative life style' or "being sophisticated" or "hip" or "progressive."

Dude: Genesis 2:22: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh (Modern King James Version)

Dude, we're not talking mere genitalia here. Becoming one flesh is not a sexual thing, but a spriitual, emotional bond that makes a man and woman one in the site of the Lord.

Hawk, I understand what you are saying, but once again, that is your belief, and I'm not saying that to discount it. It's fine that you have it, and that you hold it so strongly. However, you didn't answer my questions. Why can't Glenn and I achieve a spiritual and emotional bond, that is as strong as the one you have with your wife? Why should your belief affect my ability to marry Glenn?

As for Genesis, I'm familiar with that quote, as well as all the bible quote that supposedly condemn homosexuality. If anyone is going to use bible quotes to support an arguement, they can't "pick and choose" what parts of the bible they want to follow.

I'm not posting this to upset or insult anyone, but it kinda fits, and to be honest, I found it funny, and thought maybe others here would. It's been around for a while, and the legend is it was sent to Dr. Laura, after she made some anti gay comments on her radio show. It's made the rounds again in email, addressed to President Bush after his support of the marriage amendment.




Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

 

[Cbarton]

Hawk, I understand what you are saying, but once again, that is your belief, and I'm not saying that to discount it. It's fine that you have it, and that you hold it so strongly. However, you didn't answer my questions. Why can't Glenn and I achieve a spiritual and emotional bond, that is as strong as the one you have with your wife? Why should your belief affect my ability to marry Glenn?

As for Genesis, I'm familiar with that quote, as well as all the bible quote that supposedly condemn homosexuality. If anyone is going to use bible quotes to support an arguement, they can't "pick and choose" what parts of the bible they want to follow.

And again, I understand your point, but (from my spiritual and worldview), your premise starts wrong from the beginning. You're starting by putting the cart before the horse. In God's eyes, you start with a man and a woman, he brigns them together by His will, and a marriage forms. Do it any other way and the pieces of the puzzle will not lock together.

It's like mixing paint. You mix blue and yellow together and you get green. Always. Nothing you can do will change that basic fact. You can take your blue, take away the yelow, and pour in all the red you want, but the paint will be purple, never green. You can wish it and desire it all you want, but the laws of nature that God set in place will not create green paint form that combination. You can call it 'marriage," have all the devotion and 'warm fuzzies," etc. but it will never be what God ordains and created it to be.

As for that letter, it's fine. I've seen several like it in the past and to me it shows how totally ignorant people are of the Bible and what it actually says. I've never been a supporter of the "pick and choose' dartboard of suing 'proof texts" (picking out one or two verses to prove one's point). All it does is quote out of context, as the ignorant (of the Bible) do. The Bible is a flowing text of 66 books with one common theme and one Person who is a part fo each book. If you truly study His word, you find that all the stuff you quoted above is taken care of by this: Christ, by his sacrificial death FULFILLED all the requirements of the law of Moses. See Acts 10 for a geat example.

And besides, I rarely use Leviticus in my debates on homosexuality, I tend to lean more on Romans 1:22-28

We can keep on desieling with this debate as nauseam, but what the Lord created marriage for and what the courts 'deem it to be' are two totally separate things. Even if the courts or lawmakers legalize same-sex marriage, to a Christian as myself, I won't recognize it as a marriage in God's definition, which is what I go by. The only thing that would change my mind is a direct revelation from the Lord telling me so, which I doubt will happen anytime soon. The only thing that will change yoor mind is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Our concepts are 180 degrees apart. Plain and simple.

 

[Cbarton]

I understand that biologically you're either male or female. Lets just assume that biologically influenced behaviour (behaviour influence by hormones, body type etc) in men is entirely different from that in women, which I personally don't believe, but let's assume its the case.

Not to sound patronizing, but have you ever taken an anatomy and physiology class? Everythng about you is in your DNA. Even pesonality traits are passed on in your genes.

As I said, this is only one third of where the social concept of what is male and what is female comes from, and will only have been one third of it during the various times when the bible was formulated, written and re-written.

Have to cut you off at the pass here. The Bible was written by 40 different authors over a 1600 year period. It has not been 'written and rewritten'. That's the standard cop-out phrase for people who want to ignore it and bash believers like myself. I'm sure even you can do better than that lame stance.

The cultural, traditional, historical and theoretical inputs to the concept of what 'male' and 'female' are make up the majority of how each gender is perceived in any culture, and in reality many of the opinions which these things establish do not actually hold true for all men and women.

Oh really? Riddle me this Batman, show me a society on this planet that is purely matriarcal. Even if fashions, ways to earn a living and surive, and social orders change, one fact is a constant. Every soceity on earth is a patriarcal society. Socialologists have frustrated themselves forever trying to find one. If your premeise was true, there should be matriarcal societies all over the place. None exist.

Hence that even if the biological side of it is an absolute divide, there's still a huge amount of input going into what defines male and female energy that has nothing to with physicality. I agree that it's a spiritual and emotional bond, and that's part of my point; it doesn't have much to do with the body of the person, it has to with the spiritual and the emotional make up of the person.

Gender doesn't define a personality, and therefore shouldn't define whether or not two people can "complete" each other.

Male and female energy? Is this some new 'New Age' concept? Gender DOES influence and can define a person's personality. Men and woman are differenent, even TIME Magazine finally figured that out in a cover article (I was quite amused at how long it took them to figure out that men and womena are different because they are born that way...any parent could have told them that! 🙂 ) My daughter didn't start playing with dolls because I forced her to, she did it naturally on her own as part of the (nurturing) nature that GOd created women with. No blast of "male" or "female energy' is going to change that basic fact.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Male and female energy? Is this some new 'New Age' concept?

It's an ancient concept from China that predates Christianity by at least 400 years. The well-known Yin-Yang symbol represents the two types of energy.

 

[Janus4385]

Not to sound patronizing, but have you ever taken an anatomy and physiology class? Everythng about you is in your DNA. Even pesonality traits are passed on in your genes.

I have taken anatomy and physiology classes, and can very confidently tell you this is not true. But I'm not even gonna start getting into that, better yet, I'll just say that this is not a statement you should be making, 'cause if that were true, then nobody is responsible for the way they are, they were just born that way(hey, maybe god just put a woman's mind on a male body and viceversa to see if he could get a good laugh out of it on his great cosmic gagreel)... genes give you a lot of things, but they don't give you a mind or an opinion, those you get on your own.
If we are so ignorant about the bible then perhaps you could illustrate us, how were we suppossed to interpret all of those verses?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

The burden of proof in an argument or debate does not lie in one whom is representing the normal state (Hawkeye). It is up the challenger(everyone who is debating with him) to provide proof toward the deviation to the norm.

This is the same when theists and athiests get into it. Athiests feel the burden of proof lies on a theist to prove God exists simply because there is no scientifically verifiable evidence despite the fact testimonial evidence abounds in greater quantities than any proof that God does not exist (which athiests will not acknowledge and therefore feel the burden is not on them for simply not believing). However, the norm is represented by the majority of the world whom, despite having very little or no proof, believes in some kind of Supreme Being and has since the beginning of time for various religious, historical, and personal reasons. This is considered the norm- a belief in some kind of God and that there is one, several, or many. It is up to atheists, and not theists, to make their case for any deviation from the norm. To fall short of that does not mean they're completely wrong, or wrong at all, but that they cannot state their case and therefore have little to no grounds for an argument.

The burden of proof does not lie on the theist, but on the athiest, because the athiest is making claims to something that the majority do not accept or agree with.

In almost all situations, the burden of proof lies in the deviation from the norm. As I see this conversation unraveling, I see Hawkeye admirably quoting Scripture AND Science. As a Christian (the norm) he is providing his points. The burden of carrying the argument/debate lies on anyone else who does not see it his way if they would be representing something which is a deviation from the norm.

It is not an uphill battle for him, despite how it looks, so it is not his responsibility to answer any of you, though he is being kind enough to anyway.

It is up to everyone else to defute what he has said somehow, and so far I just see people disagreeing with him using similar speak and leaving at that. In a prospective debate, especially over a matter such as this, if one wants to feel they've matched their counterpart point for point they will have had to bring something to the table other than political conjecture that can match and challenge the norm. In this case, science would be the tool, yet science falls short of completely defining homosexuals in such a way that would force the conservative right into a new thought process.

Once more and again, this is a Christian nation. That makes this, whether you like it or not, an uphill war on Capitol Hill and the Christian Conservative Right, whom controls it.

They are the norm in the western hemisphere. If you're going to change their mind, it's probably only going to happen by the grace of God, ironically.

 

[juggernaut]

Not to sound patronizing, but have you ever taken an anatomy and physiology class? Everything about you is in your DNA. Even personality traits are passed on in your genes.

I have taken anatomy and physiology classes, and can very confidently tell you this is not true. But I'm not even gonna start getting into that, better yet, I'll just say that this is not a statement you should be making...

I enjoy people debating things and making an opinion known. How they feel about the topic of this thread, for example. What's even more interesting is how people try to dispute facts. And what kyhawkeye said above is a fact.

I didn't take a class to learn that, I learned it from my bio-chemist wife who's been in the DNA field with leading doctors for years. Maybe it's a little more open to say personality traits can be passed on, but not all are, obviously. And yes, your environment is also going to have a lot to do with development.

 

[Janus4385]

I enjoy people debating things and making an opinion known. How they feel about the topic of this thread, for example. What's even more interesting is how people try to dispute facts. And what kyhawkeye said above is a fact.

I didn't take a class to learn that, I learned it from my bio-chemist wife who's been in the DNA field with leading doctors for years. Maybe it's a little more open to say personality traits can be passed on, but not all are, obviously. And yes, your environment is also going to have a lot to do with development.

Hey, Nerrad is here! 😀
As I said before, a lot of things can be transmitted through genes, but personality is not one of those things. I never said genes do not influence you, I'll be the first to say you can not escape your genes, but while you may inherit traits from your parents in relation to your physiology, meaning that your body is similar to theirs and it may have a similar behavior of hormones and enzymes, it does not define who you are, there are too many factors that influence that, I don't know, maybe I just have a different notion from yours of what personality is.
I'm not a bio-chemist, but I'm a pharmacist and have a couple of friends who are bio-chemists, they may not be leading doctors, but they are pretty knowledgeable on the field of genetics...

I have realized one thing now that I've re-read both of your posts though and I think I know what you meant, I still stand on my position about it but I understand your point.

I would like to apologize to hawk for something, I just realized my previous post could be a little offensive, it really wasn't meant to be that way, I was just a little upset about something at the moment, and for that I apologize

 

[juggernaut]

Hey, Nerrad is here! 😀
As I said before, a lot of things can be transmitted through genes, but personality is not one of those things. I never said genes do not influence you, I'll be the first to say you can not escape your genes, but while you may inherit traits from your parents in relation to your physiology, meaning that your body is similar to theirs and it may have a similar behavior of hormones and enzymes, it does not define who you are, there are too many factors that influence that, I don't know, maybe I just have a different notion from yours of what personality is.
I'm not a bio-chemist, but I'm a pharmacist and have a couple of friends who are bio-chemists, they may not be leading doctors, but they are pretty knowledgeable on the field of genetics...

I have realized one thing now that I've re-read both of your posts though and I think I know what you meant, I still stand on my position about it but I understand your point.

I would like to apologize to hawk for something, I just realized my previous post could be a little offensive, it really wasn't meant to be that way, I was just a little upset about something at the moment, and for that I apologize

What's up there, mi amigo?...

I can agree with the wording of this one entirely. You sphere of influence and surroundings will determine alot of your development and characteristics, and it's also proven that the physiology and make up of the hormones and enzymes influence responses and chemical processes in the brain that control emotions and such. I'd say both you and kyhawkeye have points here.

And while I'm not sure if your other post was offensive, it was cool to apologize just in case. Very nice.

You must have gotten that from your parents. 😀

 

[waddleman1]

I've never really been much of a theologist, but just my 2 cents here. You should be allowed to mary whoever the hell you want. I'm a christian and all that, blah blah blah, but there are some things that you just know aren't right. It's a just plain asshole thing to not let gay people mary. What right does anyone have to stop them. I just don't understand how people can think they can tell other people how to live their lives. You have your sense of right and wrong, fine, but don't tell other people what they can and can't do because of what YOU think. If I see a giant rock smash into the earth that has "GAYS CAN'T MARY" on it, then I'll shut up, but untill then, I'll stick with what I think, which is that they're human, and that's about all that matters.

 

[TheChameleon]

The burden of proof in an argument or debate does not lie in one whom is representing the normal state (hawkeye). It is up the challenger(everyone who is debating with him) to provide proof toward the deviation to the norm.

I see Hawkeye admirably quoting Scripture AND Science. As a Christian (the norm) he is providing his points. The burden of carrying the argument/debate lies on anyone else who does not see it his way if they would be representing something which is a deviation from the norm.

Christianity is the norm?

Since when?

Here, I'll help you out.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha'i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand

That puts Christianity up there at 33%, of course, Christianity is defined as anybody who believes that Christ has already came, including, but not limited to Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jahova's Witness, ect.

So, that actually makes "The norm" unable to decide what they believe, at least, in conjunction. Now, make for the fact that figures show that only about 20% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week.

Does that make them less "Christian"?? I don't believe so, but, I do believe that many of them are like, "Yeah, jesus rocks, no, I don't no any scripture though" and THAT makes them less Christian.

Belief in any subject, without questioning or learning about said subject makes anybody gullible, and for the most part, not part of said group for the most part.

I wouldn't consider any one religious group "the norm", and I suggest you do the same, its downright offensive for someone to tell somebody else that they are not "the norm."

I'm not part of the world's 33% nor are most that I know. Not saying that I know alot of people, but I can say that when you actually look at the numbers, there's alot less Christians than you think. Not that I disagree with your religion at all, I actually am happy for those who can believe in a place after death, its a really positive way of looking at things.

All I am saying is, your "Social Norm" defense is faulty.



^_^

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Christianity is the norm?

Since when?

Here, I'll help you out.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha'i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand

That puts Christianity up there at 33%, of course, Christianity is defined as anybody who believes that Christ has already came, including, but not limited to Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jahova's Witness, ect.

So, that actually makes "The norm" unable to decide what they believe, at least, in conjunction. Now, make for the fact that figures show that only about 20% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week.

Does that make them less "Christian"?? I don't believe so, but, I do believe that many of them are like, "Yeah, jesus rocks, no, I don't no any scripture though" and THAT makes them less Christian.

Belief in any subject, without questioning or learning about said subject makes anybody gullible, and for the most part, not part of said group for the most part.

I wouldn't consider any one religious group "the norm", and I suggest you do the same, its downright offensive for someone to tell somebody else that they are not "the norm."

I'm not part of the world's 33% nor are most that I know. Not saying that I know alot of people, but I can say that when you actually look at the numbers, there's alot less Christians than you think. Not that I disagree with your religion at all, I actually am happy for those who can believe in a place after death, its a really positive way of looking at things.

All I am saying is, your "Social Norm" defense is faulty.



^_^

You would be completely correct if, again, this was not a Christian nation.

I did not say Christianity was the norm of the WORLD; I, more accurately said that THEISM is the NORM, and was using theism and athiesm as an example for this topic. Please pay closer attention.

To cite the order, date, or members of followers to a specific religion is admirable, my friend, but not contrary at all to the point I was making. In fact, it supports what I'm saying as it demostrates the influence Christianity has over the western hemisphere despite it's 'ranking' on your list there.

What I said is, therefore, not faulty. If you're going to tell me it is, then you're going to tell me gays can marry...which they cannot, not yet.

 

[Journia]

This is getting interesting. oon we'll be having blows to the ego in here.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

This is getting interesting. oon we'll be having blows to the ego in here.

My ego was never on the line as this is not personal. This is common sense according to history, the law, and how it works for americans today. I'm not saying it's not screwed up, but it is what it is, and stating that is just as valid as asking "why can't they marry", when thats more of a rhetorical question anyway. Most people know why they can't.

This thread is inevitably a broken record of well wishes, hopes, and realizations, as subjects like these tend to be.