Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Rubystars]

By endorsing one thing over the other, that's disagreeing with the other. That is not a debatable point.

I was clarifying my position not trying to start a new debate.

[Rubystars]

So it's basically come down to this: you consider homosexuality harmful, no ifs ands or buts. Simply being gay harms both the gay person and the community at large. By calling them perverse, deviant and sinful, you've made this abundantly clear. And yet you have no method of proving this. And you want the law to reflect this groundless belief (groundless because religion has no place in the law) by not allowing gays to marry.

It is impossible to debate against your belief that homosexuality is harmful. So essentially, that's the argument ended right there. There is no way to convince you that homosexuality is not harmful. And there is no way to convince you that, by the government not allowing gays to marry, that it is a bigoted and unequal advocacy.

Being gay as in having same sex attractions isn't the problem, but acting on it does harm the person. Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful. I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

[the_std]

I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I just don't understand how you could justify basing legislature (or lack thereof) on something that is not provable. That's why I keep bringing it up. And you haven't explained how you can do this well enough for it not to still be a valid point.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

Yes, I realize that, but it has gotten to the point where you are repeating yourself and that hardly makes for a good debate. I'm not blaming you, I'm just wondering if we've reached the end of this road.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Meh, I'm a libertarian, always have been. Maybe it's just my schools but there were as many conservatives are liberals and not one of them altered the curriculum to show their views, itself not being particularly liberal.

The only instance in which morality was ever broached was with personal questions asked of the teachers about their opinions. Most refused to talk politics during class time and the rest kept it to 'I think this'.

Let me reiterate something I fear you may not be getting from what I've been saying that I've meant to be there. I'm not talking about "Hey being gay is great it's the greatest thing in the world" I'm saying that outside the morality of the issue that religions or social perspectives create there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, it's just something you ARE.

If you want to teach people that being gay is immoral, that's fine. But to teach anything other than the fact that there's nothing wrong with you if you are gay in public schools is nothing short of the worst type of bigotry. It's basically reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with gays that makes them evil, diseased, inferior human beings.

Let me put it this way, there are 4 options:
1: Don't mention homosexuality ever, which is just plain impossible because the subject is important.
2: Teach that being gay is inherently good which would infringe on your morals, something I don't want
3: Teach that being gay is inherently bad something which is not only dangerous, but infringing on my and many other people's morals
4: Teach that homosexuality is just another thing that people are. Not better or worse than being heterosexual, it just is.

Which one would you choose, Ruby?

I do believe that people are born the way they are when it comes to sexual orientation. That sort of thing is wired into our brains in a way that modern science has yet to grasp or even really look into successfully. My point is that gay people don't have 12% smaller brains, 8% smaller cheeks etc.

[Rubystars]

I just don't understand how you could justify basing legislature (or lack thereof) on something that is not provable. That's why I keep bringing it up. And you haven't explained how you can do this well enough for it not to still be a valid point.

I think the real problem is that things I would see as being detrimental you would see as being progressive. That's why I'm having a hard time with this question. I don't think I could demonstrate something that you or other pro-homosexual people on this board would consider to be harmful.

Yes, I realize that, but it has gotten to the point where you are repeating yourself and that hardly makes for a good debate. I'm not blaming you, I'm just wondering if we've reached the end of this road.

I was repeating myself a lot because I felt I was being asked a lot of similar questions. This thread and the other one did go on for several pages so maybe there really isn't that much more to say. I'll still try to answer everything if anyone has anything else to add though.

[Rubystars]

Meh, I'm a libertarian, always have been. Maybe it's just my schools but there were as many conservatives are liberals and not one of them altered the curriculum to show their views, itself not being particularly liberal.

The only instance in which morality was ever broached was with personal questions asked of the teachers about their opinions. Most refused to talk politics during class time and the rest kept it to 'I think this'.

That's good.

Let me reiterate something I fear you may not be getting from what I've been saying that I've meant to be there. I'm not talking about "Hey being gay is great it's the greatest thing in the world" I'm saying that outside the morality of the issue that religions or social perspectives create there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, it's just something you ARE.

Without morality being a factor, or social perspectives just about any action someone can take could be justified.

If you want to teach people that being gay is immoral, that's fine. But to teach anything other than the fact that there's nothing wrong with you if you are gay in public schools is nothing short of the worst type of bigotry. It's basically reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with gays that makes them evil, diseased, inferior human beings.

I think there is something wrong if someone is sexually attracted to their own sex.

Let me put it this way, there are 4 options:
1: Don't mention homosexuality ever, which is just plain impossible because the subject is important.
2: Teach that being gay is inherently good which would infringe on your morals, something I don't want
3: Teach that being gay is inherently bad something which is not only dangerous, but infringing on my and many other people's morals
4: Teach that homosexuality is just another thing that people are. Not better or worse than being heterosexual, it just is.

Which one would you choose, Ruby?

It is worse than being heterosexual. Why can't it just be said that it's a controversial topic and leave it at that? Saying it's no better or worse than being heterosexual is automatically giving it a nod of approval.

I do believe that people are born the way they are when it comes to sexual orientation. That sort of thing is wired into our brains in a way that modern science has yet to grasp or even really look into successfully. My point is that gay people don't have 12% smaller brains, 8% smaller cheeks etc.

If there are differences in the structure of the brain or in hormones, etc. then how is that really different from having other physical differences?

[Pedersen]

I don't have a problem with what Paul taught and I don't consider it to be negative.

I have two issues with your statement here.

1: Re-read what I stated for the experiment (quoted here for your convenience):

You're right. However, here's something for you to try as an experiment. Categorize what you have been taught. Put it all into two categories: Came from Paul, and Did not come from Paul.

You're going to find some major disparities there. And in a number of ways, you're going to find Paul as the source of many of the negative teachings in the New Testament.

I did not ask how you felt about Paul and his teachings. I did state that you would find major disparities between Paul's teachings and the rest of the NT. I also stated my feeling that many of the negative teachings in the NT came from Paul.

2. I'm surprised you have no problem with his teachings. I assume, then, that you are in agreement with these verses from Paul?

8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This verse claims that all people are predestined to Heaven or to Hell.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

This verse claims that Christ is the end of the law. And yet, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And thus, we see Paul teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Perhaps you get along very well with these verses:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I do hope that, since you agree with his teachings, you are silent on the occasions that you attend church, and only ask questions of your husband when you have gotten home.

And those quotes only took me a few minutes. I can find lots more for you. Shall I? Or will you now actually look at what Paul teaches, and ask if maybe Paul wasn't quite as wonderful as he's made out to be?

I just don't see the basis for a conspiracy theory here. It's possible that more was written down but lost.

And now you're deciding to add unknown texts to the debate to uphold your position? That's pretty impressive. We've gone from "Jesus never said one word that was written down about homosexuality" to "No, somebody wrote them down, then left it in their grandmother's attic and the house burned down, so we have forever lost these notes that we should have had to tell us more details of how to live our lives."

I dunno, sounds pretty preposterous to me. Especially since this, ya know, the word of God, you'd think that maybe he'd try to make sure we had a copy of it for more than a few decades after Jesus left. Guess we just pissed him off or something.

I think the books we have now were actually written a good deal after Jesus had died. I forget how many years.

Wait, I didn't think Jesus died? I thought he ascended to Heaven, to sit at the right hand of his father? Yes, a minor nitpick, but still had to be pointed out.

I don't see any indication that Jesus ever condoned immoral behavior.

Oh, really? You must read more of the Bible then, I think. Even me, someone who has read very little of it, has found Jesus okay with immoral behavior. Here, let me show you:

2 A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
4 They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, "He deserves to have you do this for him,
5 for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us."
6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.
7 Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed.
8 For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it."
9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."
10 When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Check it out: Jesus is okay with slavery!

22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.
23Whatever your task, work heartily

Again, slavery, but this time it comes from Paul, someone else whose teachings are a good thing. Oh, look here, more slavery according to Paul:

9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory,
10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.

I've got a clear example of Jesus being okay with slavery. Right there, we see Jesus condoning immoral behavior. If he condoned one, he might well have condoned others. Add in that so little of his life is actually chronicled, and we have no idea if he ever said anything (positive or negative) about homosexuality.

I've got multiple examples of Paul being a particularly negative influence within the NT, and I didn't even have to look hard. Are you absolutely certain you want to continue spouting a religious basis as the source of your belief that the homosexual lifestyle is "immoral" or "deviant"? I've barely gotten started. I can start taking apart the Bible for you in a lot more detail, if you like.

[BroomJockey]

I was clarifying my position not trying to start a new debate.

I didn't say you were trying to start a new debate. I said that by endorsing hetero marriages but not same-sex marriages, the government would be giving preference to one group over another, even if they never said a word about gay people. Actively promoting one IS actively disagreeing with the other, which you said you didn't want the government to do.

[Nyoibo]

I'm probably not completely innocent of it, but I try to be consistent for the most part. I don't think that Gentiles are under the restrictions of halacha (Jewish law). I explained some of this in another reply I did on this thread with a scripture. I think it was my reply to Rapscallion.

But then why bring up that the Jewish bibll explicitly forbids homosexual behaviour, you could have chosen to believe in not eating pork, instead you chose the option to discriminate agains a group of people?

It does say to honor your mother and father, not your mother and mother, or father and father. However you're right that it doesn't mention homosexuals in those 10 in any direct fashion.

Yes, you honour the people who were responsible for your entrance into this world, which kinda has to be a man and a woman at the moment, although not necesarily any more. But does that mean that a child should honour the person who left him in a dumpster and not the people who raised him?

I believe homosexuality is immoral, or sinful. Of course I don't want to grant them official acknowledgement or approval for engaging in it.

I can tolerate them but that doesn't mean I think the government should officially recognize their behaviors.

It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

[Flyndaran]

...
It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

Right on! Keep your religion out of my government!

[Rubystars]

I have two issues with your statement here.

1: Re-read what I stated for the experiment (quoted here for your convenience):



I did not ask how you felt about Paul and his teachings. I did state that you would find major disparities between Paul's teachings and the rest of the NT. I also stated my feeling that many of the negative teachings in the NT came from Paul.

I've had a lot of people try to draw a distinction between the two or to try to say they contradict each other, and I've read many of these so-called discrepancies. I just don't really feel that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, regarding the legal recognition of homosexual marriage. That may have been why I didn't really answer that part as well as you thought I should have. You're trying to make a claim that Jesus might have been pro-gay, but without any words of Jesus either way on the matter. People keep asking me to prove things but then you have absolutely no proof to demonstrate anything pro-homosexual in the Bible, especially when there are verses against homosexuality in the OT and NT.

2. I'm surprised you have no problem with his teachings. I assume, then, that you are in agreement with these verses from Paul?

This verse claims that all people are predestined to Heaven or to Hell.



This verse claims that Christ is the end of the law. And yet, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

I don't have any problem with Paul's teachings at all. The first one if I tried to explain it would get into a huge multi-page debate about free will vs. predestination, so I really don't want to get into that right now. I believe that just because God knows what you will choose beforehand doesn't take away your choice. It's really as simple as that, even though it could be debated for a long time about how exactly this could be possible.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He didn't destroy it, he fulfilled it. I don't see how this is in contradiction to what Paul taught about salvation being based on faith and not on following all aspects of the law that applied to Jewish people.

And thus, we see Paul teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Perhaps you get along very well with these verses:


I do hope that, since you agree with his teachings, you are silent on the occasions that you attend church, and only ask questions of your husband when you have gotten home.

There are different ways people today look at these verses. Some say that it was meant for the time period they were in. In that case, it wouldn't apply today anyway.

Others believe it applies today. If it does apply today there are legitimate reasons for it. Men and women have different roles in a church setting, but that doesn't mean one sex is inferior to the other.

I'm not sure which way it's supposed to be viewed, personally. I'm not really a church type of person anyway.

And those quotes only took me a few minutes. I can find lots more for you. Shall I? Or will you now actually look at what Paul teaches, and ask if maybe Paul wasn't quite as wonderful as he's made out to be?

You haven't found anything I've had a problem with.

And now you're deciding to add unknown texts to the debate to uphold your position? That's pretty impressive. We've gone from "Jesus never said one word that was written down about homosexuality" to "No, somebody wrote them down, then left it in their grandmother's attic and the house burned down, so we have forever lost these notes that we should have had to tell us more details of how to live our lives."

I dunno, sounds pretty preposterous to me. Especially since this, ya know, the word of God, you'd think that maybe he'd try to make sure we had a copy of it for more than a few decades after Jesus left. Guess we just pissed him off or something.

Honestly you need to go back and reread the post. I said it's possible, not that it actually occurred. I think without evidence that Jesus contradicted the traditional teachings on homosexuality, it's more reasonable to assume that he likely agreed with other Jewish teachers about that topic than to say he disagreed with them. However as you said we don't have the documentation.

Wait, I didn't think Jesus died? I thought he ascended to Heaven, to sit at the right hand of his father? Yes, a minor nitpick, but still had to be pointed out.

Yes that was a minor nitpick. He did die, but wasn't supposed to have stayed that way.

Oh, really? You must read more of the Bible then, I think. Even me, someone who has read very little of it, has found Jesus okay with immoral behavior. Here, let me show you:

Check it out: Jesus is okay with slavery!

I don't want to start a 16+ page debate on this issue, but I will say that the slavery being discussed is not what you think it is. Jesus never promoted immorality or cruelty.

Again, slavery, but this time it comes from Paul, someone else whose teachings are a good thing. Oh, look here, more slavery according to Paul:

I've got a clear example of Jesus being okay with slavery. Right there, we see Jesus condoning immoral behavior. If he condoned one, he might well have condoned others. Add in that so little of his life is actually chronicled, and we have no idea if he ever said anything (positive or negative) about homosexuality.

What do you think of when you hear of slavery? The slavery they were discussing did not fit the brutal, murderous image that we've come to associate with the term. The excesses of slavery that we have learned about all too well would have been against Biblical morality.

I've got multiple examples of Paul being a particularly negative influence within the NT, and I didn't even have to look hard. Are you absolutely certain you want to continue spouting a religious basis as the source of your belief that the homosexual lifestyle is "immoral" or "deviant"? I've barely gotten started. I can start taking apart the Bible for you in a lot more detail, if you like.

I don't see what good that's going to do you because I don't have a problem with what the Bible teaches.

I can almost predict how you had this set up. You were going to throw out the slavery issue. If I said I was against it too, you were going to call me a pick n mix Christian, and/or a hypocrite, and say I should be pro-gay to be consistent.

If I said I was for it, I'm just curious, were you planning to call me a horrible, evil, pro-slavery person and go for all the shock value you could?

Were you going to say something like this: "Wait a minute, you didn't! Yes you did! How could you say that! You hater evil horrible person!"

Please... let's try to keep this logical.

[Rubystars]

I didn't say you were trying to start a new debate. I said that by endorsing hetero marriages but not same-sex marriages, the government would be giving preference to one group over another, even if they never said a word about gay people. Actively promoting one IS actively disagreeing with the other, which you said you didn't want the government to do.

I don't want the government to ban homosexual sex or effeminate/butch behavior. I do think that there is a huge difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual "marriage". It may be stablizing for society if more people get married before they have kids (fewer single mothers needing welfare, etc.). Promoting marriage might be beneficial to society. However if it's a choice between the government not acknowledging marriage at all, and acknowledging homosexual marriage, I'd rather have it not acknowledge marriage at all.

[Flyndaran]

If others get to enjoy what I do, then no one should?

[Rubystars]

But then why bring up that the Jewish bibll explicitly forbids homosexual behaviour, you could have chosen to believe in not eating pork, instead you chose the option to discriminate agains a group of people?

I think that it's relevant to what Jesus was brought up in.

Yes, you honour the people who were responsible for your entrance into this world, which kinda has to be a man and a woman at the moment, although not necesarily any more. But does that mean that a child should honour the person who left him in a dumpster and not the people who raised him?

I think a child should honor anyone who cared for him or her. I think that commandment was referring however to the situation where a child grows up in a household with a mother and father. This is how this got started I think. Someone said not even the 10 commandments said anything about gays, and I just said well it does include a part about mother and father. It wasn't supposed to get into all this stuff about "honor this person and not that person".

It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

That's generally true.

[Flyndaran]

Ick. Why did this nice discussion devolve into a talk about religion?
That leaves me completely out of it as a born atheist.