Defining Marriage In The Constitution

[Zuruck]

Haha....the only reason that one man is around Testi is the 15 women

[Testiculese]

Normal is based on perspective. Natural is more absolute.

1) I think it's normal to have premarital sex.
2) I think it's natural to have premarital sex.

Which one is correct from all viewpoints?

[Bet51987]

Kilarin.... Mixed race is perfectly fine as long as it's male and female and if gays adopting children can't be legislated then how do you stop them from adopting.

Foil.... I don't believe I ever said \"teasing and bullying is worse than poor/absent parenting\" because it's not and although I don't have the experience you have, I will bet my money that the teasing related to having homosexual parents will be far worse than any other form and will perpetuate all through life. Do you really think that heterosexual parents would allow their children to sleep over a house parented by homosexual parents?

Kilarin, Foil, and Ford.... Thanks for the compliments. I always considered you good people even if I don't agree with you on... well,most everything. Now, with that said, correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I gather from your posts.

1. Although you would not be comfortable with it, you would allow responsible Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt children as normal parents and would not make any form of legislation to stop them.

2. Would consider the physcological problems the children would incur for having homosexual parents as being no different than any other form of teasing.

I would just like a yes or no... or a correction.

Bee

[Foil]

Foil.... I don't believe I ever said "teasing and bullying is worse than poor/absent parenting"

Then apparently I don't understand the reasons for your choice of irresponsible parents over homosexual parents in the "wand" scenario Ford posted. Didn't you say your choice was because you felt that children of homosexual parents needed the most protection because of teasing/bullying?

Now, with that said, correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I gather from your posts.

1. Although you would not be comfortable with it, you would allow responsible Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt children as normal parents and would not make any form of legislation to stop them.

Yes, because putting the government in control of enforcing moral questions is a bad idea.

I would, of course, be in favor of legislation which protects children. Even as teenagers, kids are vulnerable, and often suffer the worst of the consequences of adult mistakes.
(E.g. In war, more children often die than adults. In poverty, the children are often the ones to starve first. Prostitution, at its horrific worst when children are forced into it. Divorce, which often hurts the kids more than the parents.) So please don't take the above as me being uncaring.

2. Would consider the physcological problems the children would incur for having homosexual parents as being no different than any other form of teasing.

No. I believe it's certainly different, and socially probably more harmful than most types of teasing. But I wouldn't say that it's always the worst, either; it depends on the kid. For some kids, teasing about appearance or intelligence can do just as much harm.

[Kilarin]

Normal is based on perspective. Natural is more absolute.

Both are based on perspective and just as vulnerable to abuse.
For most of the history of mankind it has been argued that certain races had a "natural" superiority and that it is completely "unnatural" for a woman to be in a position of authority over a man.
You can find anthropologist, even today, who argue that man "naturally" forms polygamous family units.

From the other direction, it is pointed out that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in many species of animals, and thus it must be entirely "natural".

Using the term "natural" instead of "normal" doesn't really help us at ALL in trying to legislate moral standards.

I always considered you good people even if I don't agree with you on... well,most everything.

Yes, it's incredibly odd. Here I am arguing a position AGAINST the "moral majority", one that favors the stance of the average atheist or agnostic. And still we find ourselves on opposite sides. Well, at least it makes things interesting!

Mixed race is perfectly fine as long as it's male and female and if gays adopting children can't be legislated then how do you stop them from adopting.

What is the difference, logically, between the arguments made against a mixed race couple adopting, and a homosexual couple adopting? Or, for that matter, what would stop an athiest nation (France or the old USSR) from using the same standard to stop religious people from adopting?

putting the government in control of enforcing moral questions is a bad idea.

I'm in complete agreement with Foil, so my answer is also yes. See the above listed issues of what is "natural" for some of the reasons why. I don't believe the government should forbid anyone to adopt unless it can be proven they are doing something illegal or abusive. I don't want the government to forbid wiccans to adopt, because I don't want them to, at some point in the future, forbid MY religion to adopt. I defend homosexual's right to adopt, NOT because I approve of homosexuality, but because I fear a government that makes decisions based on what is "natural" or "normal" will, inevitably, disagree with ME about what is natural and normal.

By protecting the rights of ALL to believe and act as they wish, just so long as they do no harm to others, Conservative Christians are protecting their OWN rights.

[Ford Prefect]

Yes I would allow gay couples to adopt. Providing of course the meet the criteria of responsible, caring parents.
No. I don't think the teasing/abuse that children of gay parents would face is going to be significantly different than that faced by mixed race children. This is particularly true if you accept that we are moving toward a society where being gay is less of a stigma than it currently is in some places. Being gay in Vancouver B.C. for example is not as noteworthy as being gay in Sturgis S.D. might be.
How about the possible offspring of my daughter and friend? The first reaction of most people that see them is \"their poor children\"

[Bet51987]

Foil... I'm confused. Where in the \"wand\" scenario did Ford mention absent/abuse. My mind may not be focused on his meaning.

In any event, I'm shocked to think that you, Ford and Kilarin would allow Gays and Lesbians to adopt, or have natural, children like a normal family, without any regard to the child, all because you are worried about how legislation may affect YOU. I'm shaking my head as I type this.

I also think that bullying in school accounts for a good deal of kids going ballistic and doing horrible things and being the child of two truck drivers is going to add to this.

But, I will accept your comments like a good forum member.

Bee

[Testiculese]

Normal is based on perspective. Natural is more absolute.

Both are based on perspective and just as vulnerable to abuse.
For most of the history of mankind it has been argued that certain races had a "natural" superiority and that it is completely "unnatural" for a woman to be in a position of authority over a man.
You can find anthropologist, even today, who argue that man "naturally" forms polygamous family units.

From the other direction, it is pointed out that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in many species of animals, and thus it must be entirely "natural".

Some races do have natural superiority over others. For example, blacks have better natural physical build over whites.

Nature demonstrates in many species that it is not unnatural for a women to hold authority in a relationship or a society.

Polygamy is certainly natural (minus the whole religion thing). While not totally polygamous, Humans have no tendencies for monogamy. Otherwise, it wouldn't be in our very nature to stray. Very, very few species are monogamous, and there's no reason, given the male's drive and history, to think that we are that way. It's just social conditioning that makes us think we should be that way. By design, males can't go around and just impregnate everyone they can and run off. Human babies need a lot of time and resources. A family unit does exist by nature, but there's no reason for it to be singular.

The marriage ritual is not natural. But it is normal.

I know homosexuality occurs in many animals, so that makes it perfectly natural. Certainly not normal, though.

If you remove all bias and social stigmas and just judge it for what it is, then nature usually shows the reality. It's only vulnerability is bias..."What is normal".

[Ford Prefect]

I'm not opposed to gays raising children because I think that just as straight parents can raise a gay child, gay parents can raise a straight child. I don't think exposing a child to the reality of the existence of gays will influence their sexuality. At least not if the parents are loving responsible people. It goes back to my earlier statement that being gay is not a choice.
I wouldn't call a gay family the ideal environment for child rearing but neither is it impossible.
Oh and it also goes back to the fact that it is impossible to prevent lesbian couples from having children and raising them. Without that wand anyway.

[Foil]

Foil... I'm confused. Where in the "wand" scenario did Ford mention absent/abuse?

His question (below) was essentially: "Which would you choose to exclude: homosexual parents, or irresponsible parents?"

if you could just wave a wand and make it so would you prevent partnerships from having natural children? Or would you prefer to wave a wand and have those couples that are capable of raising children responsibly be revealed regardless of sexual orientation?

Your choice of excluding homosexual parents implies that irresponsible (which includes possibly abusive/neglectful) parents are preferable. That's what I don't understand about your answer.

-----------

In any event, I'm shocked to think that you, Ford and Kilarin would allow Gays and Lesbians to adopt, or have natural, children like a normal family, without any regard to the child, all because you are worried about how legislation may affect YOU. I'm shaking my head as I type this.

Then I think you misunderstand. It's not because I'm ignoring the hardship the child will go through. And it's certainly not that I'm worried about what that the legislation would do to me personally (it wouldn't apply at all, loi).

[Foil]

I also think that bullying in school accounts for a good deal of kids going ballistic and doing horrible things and being the child of two truck drivers is going to add to this.

Absolutely, it would. Any teasing and bullying has the potential to really screw up a kid.

So I'm wondering about the reason for your emphasis on this particular scenario. Do you believe that teasing/bullying because of homosexual parents is worse than all other forms of teasing/bullying?

Also, unless I misunderstand, by the same logic, would you support legislation to deny childbirth to little people, because their children would be badly teased and bullied?

[Bet51987]

His question (below) was essentially: "Which would you choose to exclude: homosexual parents, or irresponsible parents?"

if you could just wave a wand and make it so would you prevent partnerships from having natural children? Or would you prefer to wave a wand and have those couples that are capable of raising children responsibly be revealed regardless of sexual orientation?

Your choice of excluding homosexual parents implies that irresponsible (which includes possibly abusive/neglectful) parents are preferable. That's what I don't understand about your answer.

Ok, I really must be illiterate because I don't get that meaning from Ford's post, and this post has basically run it's course. You, and some others, support Gays and Lesbians adopting and I do not, will not, ever, support that.

In fact I'm getting to the point where I find that I have so little in common with the majority of posters here, that I think I need to take some time off and reflect on what my definition of right and wrong really are.

Oh, and little people? I wouldn't mind one bit if they were my parents.

Bee

[Kyouryuu]

You, and some others, support Gays and Lesbians adopting and I do not, will not, ever, support that.

Try telling that to the tens of thousands of kids in Foster care in need of loving homes.

[Foil]

His question... was essentially: "Which would you choose to exclude: homosexual parents, or irresponsible parents?"

...I don't get that meaning from Ford's post.

Looks like we need some clarification, then. Ford?

[Foil]

You, and some others, support Gays and Lesbians adopting...

Actually, I don't. But for religious reasons, not for the reasons you've posted (which don't make sense to me). Of course, I still think government legislation is inappropriate, because it's fundamentally a religious issue.

In fact ... I think I need to take some time off...

If you need some time away from this thread, I fully understand (we're up to eight pages now?!). But don't leave altogether.

[Spidey]

You, and some others, support Gays and Lesbians adopting and I do not, will not, ever, support that.

Try telling that to the tens of thousands of kids in Foster care in need of loving homes.

Do you really think gay marriage will solve that problem?

[Kilarin]

Actually, I don't. Smile But for religious reasons, not for the reasons you've posted (which don't make sense to me). Of course, I still think government legislation is inappropriate, because it's fundamentally a religious issue.

Yes, this explains it very well.

Ford and Kilarin would allow Gays and Lesbians to adopt, or have natural, children like a normal family, without any regard to the child, all because you are worried about how legislation may affect YOU.

It's not just that I'm afraid legislation may affect me, its that I'm afraid this KIND of legislation is bad for EVERYONE. The examples that have been listed, little people, deaf people, mixed race couples, we could come up with a thousand more. You've been able to give an answer in each case as to which ones are ok to raise children and which ones are not. But one important thing has been missing, the way a government that was NOT using religious criteria could distinguish between these cases. As soon as you start limiting who can raise children based on this kind of standard, it WILL spread to embrace other groups. They always do. Someone must decide, who will it be, and will they make the same decisions you would, or will they be different?

I think that ideally, children are best of raised in a Christian home with two loving parents, Mom and Dad. But the ideal is often missed. And even if *I* were making all of the decisions, I would rather see a child in a home with two loving and responsible homosexual parents than in foster care, or even worse, an institution.

In fact I'm getting to the point where I find that I have so little in common with the majority of posters here, that I think I need to take some time off and reflect on what my definition of right and wrong really are.

Take a break if you need to, by all means, but you WILL be missed, and please hurry back.

[Spidey]

I think that ideally, children are best of raised in a Christian home with two loving parents, Mom and Dad. But the ideal is often missed. And even if *I* were making all of the decisions, I would rather see a child in a home with two loving and responsible homosexual parents than in foster care, or even worse, an institution.

Most people who adopt want to adopt "babies" not older children, that is one of the very reasons we have the foster care situation in the first place, and I don’t see letting gays marry/adopt having very much effect on this.

[Ford Prefect]

For the requested clarification:
My choice to Bette was between being able to tell if a homosexual couple would be good parents so they could adopt and being able to prevent lesbian couples from conceiving and raising children.
It was not a question of avoiding abusive parents but of establishing a fairness where gay couples that did not include fertile females would be the same as those that did.
Bette eventually answered the question by saying

You, and some others, support Gays and Lesbians adopting and I do not, will not, ever, support that.

The ability to tell if heterosexual couples would be good adopters was secondary and unintended.

I note that Bette was the only one that would answer my scenario questions. What's the matter folks too tough for you?

Bette: I have taken a couple of long breaks from this board not because I didn't have much in common with the other posters (and I certainly don't) but because I lost my sense of humour about it and stopped enjoying the intelligent debate. Step back, take a break if you need to. Come back when you like, your contributions are always welcome.

[roid]

I note that Bette was the only one that would answer my scenario questions. What's the matter folks too tough for you?

My answers would have been rather predictable, i tend to wear my social progressive label on my sleeve.

To all of your cases: YES to civil union or marriage
(Civil union would be fine, but i want to add marriage to the cards just to tick off religious folk who think they own the term - coz they don't).

I've been meaning to start a thread on intersexual (or just plain genderqueer) conditions to see how people think it effects concepts of sexual morals such as homosexuality (eg: when there is no binary sex/gender, how do you define homosexual or heterosexual?). But i havn't yet been able to build up the motivation i'd doubtless need to explain it to laymen and to handle hostile posters... Procrastinate procrastinate... i'm glad someone else is bringing it up.

[Kilarin]

I note that Bette was the only one that would answer my scenario questions. What's the matter folks too tough for you? Wink

Depends on which way you mean. Legally, I'm clear. Every case should be able to get a civil contract the same as anyone else. And in each case, I think the governments only criteria for adoption should be the ability to provide a stable and loving home environment.

BUT, if you ask what I think the church should approve? Then I'm going to have to say the question DOES get too difficult for me on Case 5.
Case 1 through case 4, my church would not allow marriage in these cases. Although I admit that Case 1 is going to become more and more common as medical science advances and is going to confuse the issue. And Case 1 can get all tangled up in Case 5 type scenarios.

Case 5, I'm clueless. As I mentioned in my AIS post previously, the more we learn about genetics, the more complicated it gets. These issues are NOT simple and the answers are NOT black and white.

Homosexuality and gender issues don't happen to be one of my temptations. I'm male and I like females. A lot. That doesn't make me any better than anyone else, it just means this doesn't happen to be one of MY issues. I have OTHER issues. And I'm glad it's not a decision I have to make because while the Bible is clear on homosexuality, it has no answers at all on how to deal with cases where gender is not as well defined as everyone thought it was 2000 or more years ago.

And as we learn more and more about genetics, I think some of these cases that seemed simple before will start blurring into the confusing field where gender identity is no longer clear.

I'll add a case.

Take an AIS victim who is genetically male, but never knew that and was born and raised female.
Is this person a homosexual if they have sex with a male who shares the same XY genetic makeup?
Or are they a homosexual if they have sex with a woman who shares the same genital arrangement that they do?

Gender issues are complicated. And I don't pretend to know the answers at all.

[Tunnelcat]

Sorry guys, I'll have to admit to skimming this time. This topic has gotten SOOOO long and my time on the computer varies, so it's hard to catch up. Sorry Ford Perfect for misinterpreting your earlier posts concerning homosexuality not being a choice, we seem to agree. In fact, I like your argument about what is 'normal'.

The topics of 'normal' and 'gender roles' caught my eye. A lot of people seem to think that gender is fixed at two ends of a rigid scale and that 'normal' is defined as being on the two ENDS of this scale, while everything else in between is 'abnormal'. My point is that if nature uses this sliding scale to create a gender that depends on genetics and fetal development factors, why is anything in the middle of this scale 'abnormal'? This may a necessary way to program gender in a harsh and varying environment. It's called natural selection. Some lower animals can even change sex when the environment dictates.

So why do people call themselves 'normal' when we are all really part of a larger range of sexual types? It's true that this 'normal' spectrum of the scale seems bigger, but I'll bet that IF there wasn't such a stigma associated with gender variance and people were more open to discussion and less ridicule, they'd find that more of their friends and neighbors weren't as 'normal' as they appear.

In fact, you might want to read about Dr. John Money. He was famous for trying to define gender roles. He had the theory that it was ENVIRONMENT that determined whether you turned out male or female, regardless of genetic sex. This theory was tested on several male babies that had botched circumcisions. Since it was easier to create a female sex organ in surgery than a functioning male organ, these babies were then operated on to create girls with the parents permission. Then the parents were told to raise them as girls. Well, not all turned out very rosy. Two of the subjects began to realize that they were not right from a young age and began to act as their genetic sex, no matter how hard the parents tried to persuade them otherwise. Their brain sex didn't match the assigned body sex. They are finding that 'brain sex' can only be altered in the womb, not the environment. Read in more detail on the fallout that ensued, very sad. His 'environment theories on gender roles' have since been discarded. Gender isn't as rigid or malleable as we once thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

So why bias against the whole center of the gender scale with marriage? In fact, this whole idea of marriage being solely a religious invention is not really true. The origins of marriage originally dealt with family ties, male dominance over females, power and money. It wasn't until Medieval Europe that Christianity got involved, so marriage really predates modern Christianity and has been changing and evolving over time to fit society's needs. So why not change the role of marriage to accept new views of gender? Here's an interesting short history of marriage to peruse.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS ... stern.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

Christianity predates modern Christianity. But Christianity was not a new invention 2000 years ago (give or take), it was and is (inasmuch as it has survived) based firmly in Judaism, which goes back to Abraham.

I am adamantly opposed to the notion of a gender \"spectrum,\" and the reasons why are fairly obvious.
1) I was born because I had a mother (female) and a father (male). This is pretty common, as far as I know. [/sarcasm] The gender roles are clear.

2) The Bible says that God created them \"male and female.\"

3) The \"new understanding\" in science today is directly affected by and linked to a dismissal of the idea that \"God created.\" Incidentally it also runs contrary to evidence and reason, which is good to know. They've dismissed the idea, for no intrinsically scientific reason, and in it's place they hold to the notion that no one created--it was not a higher intelligence, it was a natural and more importantly impersonal force.

Using some of the same logic I've seen on this bulletin board, in using gender related birth defects (and particularly \"intersex\") to prove that \"male\" and \"female\" are not absolute, one could argue that it's incorrect to call people who are born with other birth defects abnormal. It's merely evidence of a different form of humanity... one with only one arm, for instance. Because remember that everything is constantly \"evolving.\" Who knows where we'll end up, right? A few years down the road, given the right amount of motivation and the work of special interest groups, anyone claiming that it is normal and healthy for a human being to have two arms is being a bigot and has fallen behind the \"scientific\" learning of the day. You may think this is a silly analogy, but it's only silly because there is no reason to want to believe that one-armed people are normal.

The idea that \"science\" disproves the Bible is really laughable if you understand that science has philosophy at it's core. What's really being stated is that the facts, as interpreted by people who's premise is the nonexistence of God, fail to support God. What a shock.

[Testiculese]

Using some of the same logic I've seen on this bulletin board, in using gender related birth defects (and particularly "intersex") to prove that "male" and "female" are not absolute, one could argue that it's incorrect to call people who are born with other birth defects abnormal. It's merely evidence of a different form of humanity... one with only one arm, for instance. Because remember that everything is constantly "evolving." Who knows where we'll end up, right? A few years down the road, given the right amount of motivation and the work of special interest groups, anyone claiming that it is normal and healthy for a human being to have two arms is being a bigot and has fallen behind the "scientific" learning of the day. You may think this is a silly analogy, but it's only silly because there is no reason to want to believe that one-armed people are normal.

If you really think that's how a scientific process works, then you've just demonstrated the most complete lack of knowledge about it's most basic concepts that I have ever seen. You've described nothing about science or scientific process. You've basically constructed a religious jab against your own religion-based scenario.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You must have missed the thread where I said that a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and anyone who gets anything about the two confused ain't right. Roid replied with a link to a wikipedia article on intersex, suggesting, I believe, that the male and female we see now are just a phase in the evolutionary process.

I know how science is supposed to work. Claiming that male and female genders are flexible and interchangeable isn't good science. It's incredibly stupid.

The science of our day is almost entirely based on the presupposition that there is no God. A presupposition that I firmly believe is wrong. What many people don't realize, and even I haven't fully grasped, perhaps, is the degree to which this effect the outcome--the findings--of \"science.\"

If this bull★■◆● about the flexibility or malleability of genders doesn't come from \"science,\" then I owe science an apology. But it certainly seems like that's what's being said, here.

This isn't a jab. The issue of origin is central to the topic of gender.

[Ford Prefect]

one could argue that it's incorrect to call people who are born with other birth defects abnormal. It's merely evidence of a different form of humanity...

Well that is not really as far fetched as some might think. Suppose that birth \"defect\" was higher intelligence. The offspring of that person, if they received the needed gene, would have an evolutionary advantage over their neighbours and so that gene ends up dominating the local gene pool. That is the way nature works. Unless of course you choose to ignore the evidence and make up weak scenarios involving supernatural deities messing with the physical make up of the creatures of the world. Or worse yet pretend that the world was only a few thousand years old so that evolution had no time to work.
In the real world not all creatures are born identical to their parents and it is that variation that makes it possible for creatures to evolve into more successful variations over millions of years.
You can accept that or not. It is up to you.

[Foil]

You must have missed the thread where I said that a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and anyone who gets anything about the two confused ain't right. Roid replied with a link to a wikipedia article on intersex, suggesting, I believe, that the male and female we see now are just a phase in the evolutionary process.

No, he wasn't trying to say anything about evolution; he didn't mention change at all; that wasn't the claim. The claim was "there are states of sex/gender which don't fit neatly into the usual states of male and female". There is nothing about evolution, and nothing about variable sexes in that statement.

The science of our day is almost entirely based on the presupposition that there is no God. A presupposition that I firmly believe is wrong.

Yes, that would be a bad presupposition. However, that's not at all representative of modern science's perspective.

Young-Earth creationist propaganda claims that scientists "have an agenda against God", but that's not the case with the vast majority of good scientists.

I used to believe that creationist material myself... until I actually started studying Physics, and meeting the very scientists who I had been told were "doing bad science because of their anti-God agenda". In fact, I found exactly the opposite: the scientists who did the best work were agnostics and Christians who approached their study objectively. Conversely, by far and away, the very worst agenda-filled psuedoscience came from the creationists.

Thorne, I know where you're coming from. I grew up with the perspective that "most scientists are pushing an anti-God agenda at the expense of truth". But that's just not true, and that's not the case here. There's no conspiracy of geneticists trying to "attack the Bible on issues of gender", sorry. That kind of idea is perpetuated by well-meaning Christians (including members of my own family), but it just isn't true.

So to get back to the original topic, I think this is a point worth expoloring. Since there are many cases where issues of gender aren't as clear as we might think they are, where does that fact leave us?

[Sergeant Thorne]

one could argue that it's incorrect to call people who are born with other birth defects abnormal. It's merely evidence of a different form of humanity...

Well that is not really as far fetched as some might think. Suppose that birth "defect" was higher intelligence. The offspring of that person, if they received the needed gene, would have an evolutionary advantage over their neighbours and so that gene ends up dominating the local gene pool. That is the way nature works. Unless of course you choose to ignore the evidence and make up weak scenarios involving supernatural deities messing with the physical make up of the creatures of the world. Or worse yet pretend that the world was only a few thousand years old so that evolution had no time to work.
In the real world not all creatures are born identical to their parents and it is that variation that makes it possible for creatures to evolve into more successful variations over millions of years.
You can accept that or not. It is up to you.

Higher intelligence is not a defect. I'm not ignoring evidence or making up weak scenarios. I think there's loads of evidence for micro-evolution. Gender evolution is certainly not micro-evolution. I don't know what term you would use to classify that. I call it insane.

No, he wasn't trying to say anything about evolution; he didn't mention change at all; that wasn't the claim. The claim was "there are states of sex/gender which don't fit neatly into the usual states of male and female". There is nothing about evolution, and nothing about variable sexes in that statement.

Whether or not it was written there, I'm almost sure that's his position (correct me if I'm wrong, Roid). But it doesn't matter, he was still trying to use it as evidence to undermine "male" and "female" as the sole, separate, and distinct/unique genders.

Thorne, I know where you're coming from.

Foil, I sincerely doubt it. If you want to be sure, watch the Ken Ham video I linked you to. I think he's got it spot-on.

As far as there not being an anti-theist agenda... Evolution is historically, at it's heart, admittedly, an anti-theist philosophy. But even if there weren't quotes available by some big names in the promotion of the evolutionary philosophy, it's obvious to anyone with sufficient reasoning (and honesty) to see that the acceptance of the theory of Evolution absolutely destroys the Bible as a creditable source.

Furthermore, do you suppose that I'm getting this stuff from my church or something? (I don't have a church) "That kind of idea is perpetuated by well-meaning Christians" -Foil All of my notions about the positions of science are derived from this BB, the media, the news, and anything else I may be exposed to. If I'm mistaken about specific positions of science in general, then I'd be much obliged to anyone kind enough to set me straight (preferably with some references). But no one told me that there is an anti-theist agenda in operation. To me that seems blatantly obvious.

Are they doing it with precise intent? Probably not all of them, no. Does that alter the effects of it? Not as long as the interpretations are based on naturalistic assumptions.

Are the effects the reason I'm arguing against it? No, I believe that by-and-large the science of our day operates under a naturalistic philosophy/world-view that shapes their interpretation of the evidence, and erroneously so. I think that people in general have the mistaken view that science=unbiased fact, and is therefore unopposable. I beg to differ. To me it's obvious when someone calls on "science" to destroy my convictions as a Christian, that they're not calling upon facts, but interpretations.

Tell me that my world-view is mistaken because I believe that the world is flat. Your position is based on fact. The earth is round. We can fly around it.

Tell me that my world-view is mistaken because I believe the world to be ~6000 years old and "science" says it's [insert some outrageously large number] years old? Unless you have a genealogy or written historical records old enough to prove it--you weren't there--you're dealing with interpretation.

This is kind of a side-topic, but it's pertinent. There is no gender "gradient." People who have their sex changed, even at birth, do not constitute a natural example, and instances of birth defects do not serve to prove a rule. There is, as there has always been, the inter-dependent yet unique genders, "male" and "female." Any questions? Ask your parents. Any idea to the contrary is the construct of a perspective that is effected more by philosophy than reality.

[Alter-Fox]

I am adamantly opposed to the notion of a gender "spectrum," and the reasons why are fairly obvious.
1) I was born because I had a mother (female) and a father (male). This is pretty common, as far as I know. [/sarcasm] The gender roles are clear.

2) The Bible says that God created them "male and female."

3) The "new understanding" in science today is directly affected by and linked to a dismissal of the idea that "God created." Incidentally it also runs contrary to evidence and reason, which is good to know. They've dismissed the idea, for no intrinsically scientific reason, and in it's place they hold to the notion that no one created--it was not a higher intelligence, it was a natural and more importantly impersonal force.

Using some of the same logic I've seen on this bulletin board, in using gender related birth defects (and particularly "intersex") to prove that "male" and "female" are not absolute, one could argue that it's incorrect to call people who are born with other birth defects abnormal. It's merely evidence of a different form of humanity... one with only one arm, for instance. Because remember that everything is constantly "evolving." Who knows where we'll end up, right? A few years down the road, given the right amount of motivation and the work of special interest groups, anyone claiming that it is normal and healthy for a human being to have two arms is being a bigot and has fallen behind the "scientific" learning of the day. You may think this is a silly analogy, but it's only silly because there is no reason to want to believe that one-armed people are normal.

The idea that "science" disproves the Bible is really laughable if you understand that science has philosophy at it's core. What's really being stated is that the facts, as interpreted by people who's premise is the nonexistence of God, fail to support God. What a shock.

Well, there are some lizard species that are entirely female. My opinion is that male and female might be just a phase, or it might not be. It's certainly worked well up to now.

[Foil]

Thorne, I know where you're coming from.

Foil, I sincerely doubt it. If you want to be sure, watch the Ken Ham video I linked you to. I think he's got it spot-on.

How did I know you were going to mention Ken Ham, lol? I've been to the creationist seminars, I've read Ham's stuff. Hell, I've even taken the side of young-universe creationism in a formal debate.

I know the material, and I firmly believed it... until, that is, I decided to look at it critically.

...it's obvious to anyone with sufficient reasoning (and honesty) to see that the acceptance of the theory of Evolution absolutely destroys the Bible as a creditable source.

No. It doesn't.

You've just described the reason it's still so popular among Christians ("if you don't believe in young-universe creationism, you're denying Biblical truth!"), but that doesn't make it true.

(Note: if you want to debate the validity of young-universe creationism, we ought to take it to a new thread.)

...no one told me that there is an anti-theist agenda in operation. To me that seems blatantly obvious.
...
To me it's obvious when someone calls on "science" to destroy my convictions as a Christian...

No, it's not "obvious" at all. Sure, I used to believe "there's always an ulterior motive", myself. But the statements about unusual instances of sex/gender here were making the point that "there are exceptions to the rule". There's no 'agenda againt God's creation of sex' here.

Don't believe me? Ask those who made the statements. In one case (Kilarin's post), the point was made by someone who believes in God as the ultimate creator of life as much as you and I.

...There is no gender "gradient." People who have their sex changed, even at birth, do not constitute a natural example, and instances of birth defects do not serve to prove a rule. There is, as there has always been, the inter-dependent yet unique genders, "male" and "female."

You're correct, and again, you're misunderstanding.

No one here is trying to say that male and female are not distinct. There's no one here arguing for a "rule" that denies that.

The points made above were that the exceptions to the rule have to be considered when we look at moral issues relating to gender.

Still don't believe me? Ask the people who posted.

[Spidey]

There are only two genders, Male & Female period! The human species uses sexual reproduction and two genders to accomplish it…comparing humans to other species is also nonsense.

[Ford Prefect]

(Note: if you want to debate the validity of young-universe creationism, we ought to take it to a new thread.)

Or dig up an old one and carry on from there. That topic has been done to death several times. As long as people deny that there is such a thing as a radioactive half life while lighting their home with power from a reactor it is a waste of time talking to them.

[Kilarin]

There is no gender "gradient." People who have their sex changed, even at birth, do not constitute a natural example, and instances of birth defects do not serve to prove a rule. There is, as there has always been, the inter-dependent yet unique genders, "male" and "female." Any questions? Ask your parents. Wink Any idea to the contrary is the construct of a perspective that is effected more by philosophy than reality.

There are only two genders, Male & Female period!

As Foil pointed out, I never implied that gender was a scale. And I agree that the exceptions are EXCEPTIONS, but those exceptions happen to be very real people and I don't have any answers for their complex situations.

Again, lets pop back to the Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) case. An individual victim of this birth defect can have XY chromosomes, but externally is otherwise completely female.

100 years ago the condition would never have been detected. It can even go undetected today. But lets go with 100 years ago just to be safe.

So in 1908, if this individual had been attracted to females, they would have been condemned as a homosexual. Would they have BEEN homosexual? I don't know. Would it be homosexual behavior for them to be attracted to men? And does their knowledge of the condition affect the question? (Kind of a Schrodinger's Lesbian)

This doesn't really have a lot to do with a general discussion on Homosexuality, since AIS is, thank goodness, a pretty rare condition (about 1 in 20,000). But even at that low rate, that gives us about 15,000 victims in the USA alone. 15,000 real people who would like real answers. I'm honest enough to admit that I have no CLUE what the Biblical answer is in their situation. And AIS is only one of the medical conditions that can create confused gender.

The Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I'm not denying that in any way shape or form. BUT, gender issues are not always as simple as we would like them to be. And that is something we need to recognize as well.

[Foil]

The Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I'm not denying that in any way shape or form. BUT, gender issues are not always as simple as we would like them to be. And that is something we need to recognize as well.

Thank you, Kilarin. I think you said it better and more concisely than I could have.

[roid]

Whether or not it was written there, I'm almost sure that's his position (correct me if I'm wrong, Roid). But it doesn't matter, he was still trying to use it as evidence to undermine "male" and "female" as the sole, separate, and distinct/unique genders.

Kilarin seems to have a good idea of where i was going with it: Yes, i was undermining your simplistic definitions of male and female. This is because to have a solid definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality - you first have to have a solid definition of gender.
Since men with men is wrong, and women with women is wrong, you'd better be able to tell them apart before you judge them.

Like Kilarin has been sayin', there are people born with AIS (a mere ONE of the many intersex conditions in existance). AIS is only one intersex condition, and there are many subtypes to AIS.
How do you determine a person's gender? Is it their visible body, and genitals? Or is it in their chromosomes? Or is it in their mind? Their soul?
(You might not have pondered these questions too hard. But i assure you, the scientists and other thinkers you seem to hate so much DO ponder such questions.)

My point in this is to ask you "how would you judge these people?". Who's homosexual? Who's not?

And don't tell me it's upto God to judge - YOU are judging these people, they make YOU sick as you've said.

So as we confuse the issue for you, i hope you have fun now trying to work out anew the complex specifics of what you actually do and don't HATE. When the dust clears i wonder who you'll target next.

What i'm doing here is showing you that you have a very limited understanding of gender, it's more complicated than you think - and you've probably never even stopped to ponder this before you started hating. And thus your entire hatred of homosexuality and other things you label as deviances, is ignorant. You are hating things you know nothing about. Wonderful.

[Kilarin]

I think you said it better and more concisely than I could have

Ha! Nope. I was just restating what you said to make it clear that you had correctly pinned down my position.

[Spidey]

LOL Watch out Roid…Pseudo Intellectuals might be next on the list.

[Tunnelcat]

Thank you Roid. A true left brain thinker here.

There seem to be too many right brain thinkers around. They only see things in black or white. They can't see that this world is far more complex and varied and no hard answers can be found for everything. They use emotion to see and control the things around themselves, then make assumptions when something is not understood and thus become judgmental and dogmatic.

Left brain thinkers can use logic and reasoning to question things, learn and grow their perspectives. We can't just rely on our emotional brain. We were given two different sides to our brains and we should use them both in life.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Since men with men is wrong, and women with women is wrong, you'd better be able to tell them apart before you judge them.

How do you determine a person's gender? Is it their visible body, and genitals? Or is it in their chromosomes? Or is it in their mind? Their soul? ...

My point in this is to ask you "how would you judge these people?". Who's homosexual? Who's not?

So now homosexuals might not really be homosexuals, they might just look like the same gender? That is profoundly idiotic. You're really reaching.

Something that occurs to me: in the cases you speak of, if they exist, one must ask why these people are born that way. What went wrong? Were the parents using some kind of drug(s)? Was it inbreeding? You talk like these are naturally occurring anomalies. It's a very good bet they're not.

i hope you have fun now trying to work out anew the complex specifics of what you actually do and don't HATE.

You have a lot of fun throwing the word "hate" around concerning me. There are a lot of things that I hate. But they are almost always things--ideas. For me, to hate someone is pretty extreme, and I'm not redefining "hate". You seem to have a KKKish picture of me hating these various groups. Nothing is further from the truth.

And don't tell me it's upto God to judge - YOU are judging these people, they make YOU sick as you've said.

No need to accuse me of dishonesty before I even answer.

"It's up to God to judge" is one of the most common "Christian" cop-outs that I hear. It's certainly true, in that God is the judge, but God has given us his judgments on a wide range of topics through the Bible. But you're talking about identification. And my answer is that a homosexual is one who has relations with someone of the same sex. The only time that identification even starts to look difficult is when I'm wading through your posts. Once the identification is made, I make the judgment on two basis: 1) The Bible damns that kind of behavior, 2) That behavior is clearly perverted.

[Kilarin]

they might just look like the same gender? That is profoundly idiotic. You're really reaching. ... in the cases you speak of, if they exist

It would be worth your time to do some research on the topic. Genetic conditions that lead to confused gender are well documented in the medical and scientific literature. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of debate. It's a documented, indisputable fact. There is certainly a lot of completely legitimate debate around such issues as what causes homosexuality. But the existence of people born with confused genitalia, or who's genitalia does not match there genetic makeup, or even Chimeras who's body is made up of BOTH XY and XX cells, is not in dispute. As I said before, there are around 15,000 people in the USA with AIS. That's rare, but certainly a large enough population to confirm its existence beyond any doubt.

Questioning whether conditions such as hermaphrodism and AIS exist seriously undermines your position.

Something that occurs to me: in the cases you speak of, if they exist, one must ask why these people are born that way. What went wrong? Were the parents using some kind of drug(s)? Was it inbreeding? You talk like these are naturally occurring anomalies. It's a very good bet they're not.

I'm not certain what you mean by a "naturally occurring anomaly".
Birth defects can come from a number of causes. Genetic damage can happen due to Cosmic radiation, normal background radiation, or exposure to mutagens. You also have to deal with copying errors and unfavorable combinations of recessive traits. Those are just the first few that pop to mind, I'm certain there are many many other ways to mess up the genetic code. Are you arguing that there something more "natural" about a birth defect that occurs because of cosmic radiation or bad copying than one that occurs because of a mutagenic or because drug use damaged the parents gonads?

I suppose that could be a defensible position, but I fail to see what it has to do with the issue. Whether someone has AIS because of cosmic radiation or cocaine, it wasn't anything the victim did that caused it. Why would it make any difference? Whatever happened before birth to cause the problem is irrelevant to how we deal with the unfortunate souls who are born with these unusual conditions.

Unless you are just saying that these unusual cases ARE anomalies, and don't relate directly to how we deal with homosexuality in the common population.

Again, I agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. And in the majority of cases, it's pretty clear what is homosexual behavior and what is not. But we do NOT help things by pretending that it never gets complicated. Rather we encourage the other side to dismiss our arguments entirely, since they can tell that one part of our argument is patently false.

Are you willing to address the AIS case I brought up? *I'M NOT*. I admit that I don't have any idea what the proper Biblical answer is for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and female genitalia. ESPECIALLY considering that they might never have known of their condition in any previous age.

<edit>
I want to add a <link> here. Just to make the issue concrete.
Is Katie Baratz male or female? Read the brief interview. Gender issues can be complicated.