Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Flyndaran]

Because that's not a marriage.

...

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.


That's not the only place it will be taught. You know better than that. It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

They are normal in every sense of the word.
Marriage has changed defintions throughout the english language history. There is no reason other than bigotry to stop it now.

I'm not sure you know what normal means. It occurs in every adult human population and harms no one. That sounds normal to me. Please debate against that defintion.

I would herald the giving back of human rights to any group as a victory.. yes even to those horrible sinners, oops you don't disagree with them because of religion, or do you.
I don't know if you've ever come up with a non-religious reason to hate gays... that stands up to rational scrutiny that is.

[Rubystars]

Well, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Anytime a group of priests sits around a document and decides which parts get left in and which parts get taken out, I have a serious problem with that document's accuracy. Not to mention the various translations it's gone through over the years. But perhaps that should be a different thread.

There are still a lot of the books around that got rejected, if people want to read them for their own knowledge.

As far as children go...yes, parents these days have more to explain to their children. So? I'm really tired of the "we shouldn't have X thing because it might confuse the children...or corrupt the children....or influence the chiiilllldreeeeennnnn" Sorry, don't care. You have kids, you have to teach them stuff. End of story. Quit asking society to do your job as a parent. It may take a village, but I never signed up to be part of that village.

I just get annoyed by the fact that kids these days can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.

I agree with Blas, this has been a good, fair debate, even though I vehemently disagree with Rubystars.

thank you and that's ok. I actually decided to enter the thread to do this board a little bit of a favor. I didn't see anyone who disagreed with homosexuality, so the thread was a little boring. I thought I'd step in and get a real debate started. I don't expect to change anyone's minds. I just wanted to spice up the thread a little.

But it's important to know the opposition's mindset, so that those of us fighting for equal rights for everyone* can develop a plan of attack against it. At this point, I want nothing less than sexual orientation to be included in the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Hey, a girl can dream, right?

The way things are going now, you will most likely get your way.

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

But it doesn't really matter, right?

[Flyndaran]

... can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.
...

Why is ignorance about reality automatically good?
How about teach them at the age many will ask about it?

Also I hope no one, even you takes offense at my other posts of this thread.
I just can't think of your opinions without coming back to bigotry. Please tell me your views and how they don't mean that.

[Flyndaran]

...

They might 'get along' but they're still engaged in something that's perverting what marriage is really supposed to be.
....

Perversion is a religious view and as such has not right to be in laws.
It is far to indivual of an opinion to serve any function.
I find some of your views perverse. See did that solve anything?
No, only rational evidence based beliefs should be enshrined in law.

[Nyoibo]

I can't imagine why someone would be sexually aroused by not being able to breathe!

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Maybe the government should get out of marriage altogether. That would help to solve some of these problems.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well.

[Rubystars]

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Thanks for explaining that. It still sounds pretty scary though.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well.

lol

[Flyndaran]

...
I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

lol

How do you define legitimate?
Two people decide to form a semi-permanent bond seems like a legitimate marriage to me.
How is two women wanting to get married for love less legitimate than my brother that initially married to help finance a house?
If you say it isn't, then why do you want only the first to not be legal?

[Rapscallion]

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

Ever worn cloth made from more than one fabric? Husband ever cut his hair? Eaten pork or shrimp? The laws that Jesus came to fulfill the law include those aspects (I may be paraphrasing).

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.

Who says it's a moral situation? Ah, a bronze-age tribal history translated many times and adhered to by people in another country as if it's fact. In short, the religious say that only they can define morals, that only their morals are correct, and therefore that they are the only authorities.

As you said, this should be a wider democratic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue. I don't believe that a religious text should be used to deny a segment of the population the same rights as everyone else.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike....

You must dislike all religions then. Every system of beliefs over five years old and held by more than two people goes through change and some followers ignoring what they dislike.
That's actually the only reason I don't loathe all the religious. Becuase they can change and reject the more hatefilled parts.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful ...

Funny. Though I don't think atheists can be created.
They are either born like me, or come to that conclusion after educations.

[Greenday]

Ok, so to sum it up, your religion says homosexuality is wrong. Right?

Now what about this question: are you ok with people forcing their religions on other people?

[linguist]

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality,

until this point, no you had not. the question was about jesus, you gave an answer from paul. twice. now you confirmed that jesus never condemned homosexuality, and you've answered the question.

but Paul does.

have you ever read paul, really? he was one misogynistic bastard. he didn't think anyone should get married, really. if you're going to use his words as justification, then i'd expect you're also going to remain silent in church, and live in a role of subservience to your husband?

Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

a single out of context quote doesn't reinforce anything. you didn't address my assertion that since he was asked a question about man/woman marriage, he of course answered in those same terms. if you ask someone a question about pizza, would you expect an answer about penguins?

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

I think I've done enough to demonstrate that Christianity (at least if it's following the Bible) forbids homosexuality. I've now answered this question 3 times.

have you ever read the bible? i mean, really read it? as in, read something that hasn't gone through millennia of translations, each one taking it further from its original meaning as translators either made mistakes or used the populace's ignorance of the original languages to translate it in such a way as to push their own agenda?

[Nyoibo]

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

Following all the laws laid down in Leviticus would get you arrested these days.

[JuniorMintz]

1. Jesus wanted us to love one another as we do ourselves, and that is the point I was trying to make. He shunned the Pharisees and broke bread with those that society shunned, which I'm sure included a homosexual or two (although as it's been said, Jesus never came out and was quoted *in the Bible* as mentioning the gays specifically).

2. Not even the 10 Commandments mention homosexuality. (Maybe Moses *did* drop the tablet with rules 11-15?)

3. The Old Testament Rules of Leveticus (among others) were voided after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. (Which is nice, because now I don't have to sacrifice doves or sheep to atone for my sins.)

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again here. It is up to my husband and I to uphold the sanctity of our *own* marriage, same as it is with everyone else's. I am not threatened by what my neighbors do in their bedrooms, gay OR straight, and you shouldn't be either.

There, I've said my piece, and now I'm going away for the weekend. Have fun, everybody.

[Peppergirl]

Ruby - I have to take a second to echo what Blas has said here.

While I STRONGLY disagree with your stance on gay marriage, I am in absolute awe of your ability to debate this issue to this extent, and your attempt to explain yourself on each issue, even if you're explanations (to me) don't hold water.

I, too, know how it feels to be in the minority on this board, and I truly wish I had the ability to stand up for myself and my beliefs as calmly as you have.

My hat is off to you, seriously.

[Flyndaran]

...

I, too, know how it feels to be in the minority on this board, and I truly wish I had the ability to stand up for myself and my beliefs as calmly as you have.
...

Tease. Now I'm going to wonder in what way you are in minority.

I'm in one for being a born atheist.