If homosexuality is proven to be biological . . .

[OphidiaPhile]

It depends on what you're calling Founding Fathers. Historically speaking, we were taught about the Founding Fathers with the first settlers and then the Founding Fathers who established the United States as a union.

So if you're referring to the latter, yes. I realize they weren't alive. But they weren't the Founding Fathers to whom I was referring.

The founding fathers are those that wrote and signed the Constitution.

Marriage being between one man and one woman has pretty much been static in the United States since the time of its founding.

History does not back you up and history is also not a valid means of justifying anything.

Biblical accounts say otherwise.

The bible is incorrect then.

Biblical accounts disagree with you.

Mankind as we know it today is a hybrid , and yes we no know for a fact that multiple species of Homo Sapiens existed, we are only the nominate form.

Genesis 2:24 disagrees with you. 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Gen. 2:24

Has no bearing on law.

There were certificates of divorce, so why not marriage?

There are certificates of divorce in the United States.

No it doesn't. That's why Congress can pray before each session. That's why the President takes the Oath of Office on the Bible. That's why our money says "In God we Trust."

In God We Trust was added later, it would not have been accepted by the Founding Fathers.

The 'Wall of Separation,' Again:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)
Individual members can practice their religion all they want but cannot use it to influence law.

It keeps the government from establishing a national religion. It does NOT keep religious beliefs out of government.

Yeah actually it does, read the above wrote from Thomas Jefferson who created the Establishment Clause, he trumps your opinion.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You honestly don't see the arrogance in thinking that all beliefs have to be equal or on par with God's?

Prove that god even exists.

 

[Zaac]

The founding fathers are those that wrote and signed the Constitution.

That's why I said it depends on who you're talking about. Again, I've always, from a history standpoint, been taught of two sets of founding fathers: those who established the 13 colonies and those who established the Union. For the sake of our discussions, I'll just start distinguishing between the two.

History does not back you up and

Then show in the history of the United States where marriage has legally been between anyone but one man and one woman?

history is also not a valid means of justifying anything.

Neither is current day secular humanism.

The bible is incorrect then.

Naah. That says God is right and YOU are wrong.

Mankind as we know it today is a hybrid , and yes we no know for a fact that multiple species of Homo Sapiens existed, we are only the nominate form.

You're speaking of your own species then.

Has no bearing on law.

Sure it does. And the point for quoting is that you said that the Bible didn't define it. well there you have it. The Bible DOES define it starting with the first man and the first woman.

There are certificates of divorce in the United States.

That's what I said. There are certificates of divorce all over the world too.

In God We Trust was added later, it would not have been accepted by the Founding Fathers.

The 'Wall of Separation,' Again:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

You said the Establishment Clause keeps religious beliefs out of government. And the examples given show that it clearly does not. If it did, Congress would have stopped praying before each session and the President wouldn't take the oath of office on the Bible.

The Establishment clause is just that. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion. It does not prohibit religion from influencing the government.

Individual members can practice their religion all they want but cannot use it to influence law.

They vote in accordance with their beliefs because they are elected by people who believe likewise and who elected them because of their similar views. So yes, it can influence the law.

Yeah actually it does, read the above wrote from Thomas Jefferson who created the Establishment Clause, he trumps your opinion.

All that says just like the others is that there can be no state support of an established religion. It says NOTHING about religion influencing the government or its laws.

If yall can use your secular humanism religion to influence government and laws then those with religious beliefs can use their beliefs to do likewise.

 

[Zaac]

Prove that god even exists.

Right after you prove He doesn't exist.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

That's why I said it depends on who you're talking about. Again, I've always, from a history standpoint, been taught of two sets of founding fathers: those who established the 13 colonies and those who established the Union. For the sake of our discussions, I'll just start distinguishing between the two.

The Founding Fathers only refers to those that established the Constitution.

Naah. That says God is right and YOU are wrong.

there is no evidence for the existence of god so the burden of proof is on you.

You're speaking of your own species then.

It is a fact that all humans are hybrids, you choosing to disbelieve fact is your choice.

Sure it does. And the point for quoting is that you said that the Bible didn't define it. well there you have it. The Bible DOES define it starting with the first man and the first woman.

The bible does not nor has ever defined law whether you wish it were true or not.

That's what I said. There are certificates of divorce all over the world too.

There are certificates of marriage, without one the government does not acknowledge the marriage.

You said the Establishment Clause keeps religious beliefs out of government. And the examples given show that it clearly does not. If it did, Congress would have stopped praying before each session and the President wouldn't take the oath of office on the Bible.

people praying is not using religion to define law or control anything of government.

The Establishment clause is just that. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion. It does not prohibit religion from influencing the government.

Again you choose to believe what you will but it still makes you wrong.

They vote in accordance with their beliefs because they are elected by people who believe likewise and who elected them because of their similar views. So yes, it can influence the law.

If it is found to influence law it is the duty of SCOTUS to overturn it.

All that says just like the others is that there can be no state support of an established religion. It says NOTHING about religion influencing the government or its laws.

You cannot have one without the other, it is a complete separation of church and state, not a one way separation.

If yall can use your secular humanism religion to influence government and laws then those with religious beliefs can use their beliefs to do likewise.

You have major comprehension issues.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Right after you prove He doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on you since there is no evidence at all of his existence. Provide one example of proof that he/she/it exists, it cannot be sone.

 

[corvus_corax]

The burden of proof is on you since there is no evidence at all of his existence. Provide one example of EVIDENCE that he/she/it exists, it cannot be sone.

Change/bold mine
Hate to do it, but you know (as a scientist) it had to be done.

Now if he can provide objective empirical evidence for HIS SPECIFIC deity (as opposed to the "intelligence" of ID), I might be willing to listen.
Of course, he can't and won't.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Change/bold mine
Hate to do it, but you know (as a scientist) it had to be done.

Now if he can provide objective empirical evidence for HIS SPECIFIC deity (as opposed to the "intelligence" of ID), I might be willing to listen.
Of course, he can't and won't.

I usually expect people to understand things far more than they do obviously. I really need to get out of that habit and spell things out, but thanks for clarifying what I should have.

 

[corvus_corax]

I usually expect people to understand things far more than they do obviously. I really need to get out of that habit and spell things out, but thanks for clarifying what I should have.

No prob snake lover.
Just gotta remember, if you ask for "proof" then anyone else has the same right to ask for the same thing
That's why I always state "evidence" or (more often) "objective empirical evidence" (heck a creationist YEC actually nailed me for saying only "empirical evidence" once)

Don't expect understanding from anyone (even me).
Make your posts as clear as you can (a huge failing of mine I'll admit)

Spelling things out is tedious, but often a good thing (witness ANY discussion with a AV1611VET, dad, and/or Polycarp_Fan), although even then it doesn't always work -insert crying emoticon here-

 

[WhatThe]

You honestly don't see the arrogance in thinking that all beliefs have to be equal or on par with God's?

Note: I know what an agnostic is.

Seriously, how old are you? Twelve? Try to make at least some sense.

 

[Garyzenuf]

You have a Question Mark up for your faith, yet the ones who know what they believe are perceived by you as deluded?

Still having doubts when all the facts are in is defendable...

Having belief with no evidence is delusion, clear enough?



PS- Like I suggested earlier, don't be using this; , unless you're saying something funny.

*

 

[roflcopter101]

Right after you prove He doesn't exist.

Prove to me that our almighty savior and creator of all, our Flying Spaghetti Monster, does not exist.
RAmen.

 

[Merlin]

Are you gay, Sk8joyful? No? Then how could you possibly know if it's a choice or not?

everything we do is a choice.
it may be outside of your awareness, but it's still a choice.

If you were put in a 'program', you could be turned gay. Quite easily, in fact. Except that you wouldn't really BE gay, you would just learn how to act that way. You would learn how to have a relationship with someone of the same gender, and you would learn to hide your "sick, unnatural attraction" to people of the opposite gender.

please define 'really be gay'

The majority of people who undergo 'therapy' DO NOT become straight. They simply learn to act that way. And the majority of them eventualy break free of the brainwashing.

that's a problem with that specific therapy then.

There is no psychological, psychiatric, or medical association that supports conversion therapy. In fact, they all state that it is HARMFUL to attempt to change a person's sexuality.

only 'cause they can't do it.

And btw, you can not change someone 'back' to straight if they weren't straight to begin with.

more nonsense.

 

[Merlin]

Then would you give up lobster and shrimp because your god said they were evil?

the bible doesn't say they are 'evil'

The bible must be read with skepticism.

how about you actually read it and thus know what it says?
your comments indicate you don't

 

[OphidiaPhile]

everything we do is a choice.
it may be outside of your awareness, but it's still a choice.
please define 'really be gay'

That is beyond ridiculous so for sake of discussion define really be straight.

that's a problem with that specific therapy then.only 'cause they can't do it.

And neither can you.

more nonsense.

Without any peer reviewed empirical evidence everything you have asserted is nonsense, irony thy name is Merlin.

 

[cantata]

OphidiaPhile, I love you and everything, but seriously - punctuation is your friend, dude.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

OphidiaPhile, I love you and everything, but seriously - punctuation is your friend, dude.

I often forget to use it, its that whole lack of sleep thing pared with the fact I am always working on something else when I am posting on here.

 

[Merlin]

Facts would need undisputed empirical evidence so therefore they are merely conjecture and poor conjecture at that.

so, the Earth's rotation was not a fact until undisputed empirical evidence and so was merely conjecture and poor conjecture at that?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

so, the Earth's rotation was not a fact until undisputed empirical evidence and so was merely conjecture and poor conjecture at that?

The Earth's rotation would not have been able to be listed as a fact until just that. But we had evidence of rotation which you do not have at all for your assertions.


Of course if we just used the bible for our facts the world would be flat and the Sun would orbit Earth

 

[roflcopter101]

the bible doesn't say they are 'evil'

[SIZE=-1]"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Emphasis added.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

how about you actually read it and thus know what it says?
your comments indicate you don't

Which of my comments?