The Burden of Proof

Who's court is the "burden ball" in? Is it in the court of pro or con homosexuality? In other words, is it up to the anti-homosexuality club to prove the immorality of homosexuality , or is it up to the pro homosexuality club to prove the amorality, if not the morality of homosexuality? Is it right for me to say that the ball is in the middle of the court; that both sides must determine to build their own case, to understand the objections of the other side and to deal with them. In order for there to be progress in this, neither side can be dismissed out of hand. The pro-homosexuality cat must not dismiss the anti-homosexuality position as too religiously motivated to be considered. The anti-homosexuality dog must not dismiss the pro homosexuality position as outside of biblical teaching, as if that seals the deal. I am assuming that anti-homosexuality dogs generally disagree with pro homosexuality cats because of their firm beliefs in the literalness of the Bible. Likewise, I am assuming that the cats generally oppose the dogs because of their presuppositoins about reason and it's foundation, assuming that belief in Scripture as authoritative is unreasonable. So with these upcoming discussions, and forgoing debates, I want to show why "the bible says so" is a frivolous way to argue against homosexualiy. But I also would like to esatblish that a biblical worldview is indeed reasonable. Of course, this would take volumes. A volumous work of this magnitude, I am of course not prepared to take on, but I believe that if I can clearly set up what I see as the true battleground of this debate, then true progress can be made. With that said, I do not seek to actually establish anything in the strictest sense of the word establish in the upcoming posts. In short, if one side is yelling; "Homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so!" and the other side retorts with a shout; "The Bible is full of contradictions and untrustworthy", then this is a debate destined to be debating's version of Vietnam, with the pro homosexuality cats winning by default.

In my next post, I will try to articulate and define a "biblical worldview". From there I will attempt to argue that a biblical worldview is both unscientific, yet reasonable enough that it cannot be flippantly tossed aside as it seems it often is. I will then discuss the passages that discuss homosexuality and see if we can come up with a reason why the biblical authors opposed it.

In the post after that I will play devil's advocate, and attempt to dismantle the biblical worldview as articulated in the previous post. And establish a position that morality cannot be based upon ancient writings.

My hope is that this exercise will show clearly the debate battleground, and also that there cannot be a clear winner, if the debaters are equal in skill. The only way to change your mind, no matter which side you're on, is to change your presuppositions. At this point the only reasonable thing to do is to actively love your opponent, or change your mind. The most unreasonable thing to do is to actively oppose and ostracize your fellow man. Christians, this is unbecoming of your leader, whose ways you follow, who spent time with prostitutes, and ate with traitors. Homosexuals, we Christians in our ongoing struggle with Scripture and how it affects our lives, reserve the right to be wrong, but also if we become convinced that your lifestyle is sinful, reserve the right to respectfully side with truth, which is not the same thing as opposing you. We are on your side. You don't have to believe it. I speak for real Christians, not the bigots and ignorant who are always hijacking the name.