Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Wingates_Hellsing]

To start off, I too will salute you Ruby for sticking with it, most people would have given up a long time ago.

That said, teaching that there are no scientific facts proving that homosexuality is bad isn't a moral issue. Just because you don't like something doesn't change the fact that scientifically speaking, there's no difference whatsoever between people of different orientations. This doesn't in any way contradict a religious belief that said orientation is immoral except where people decide to put scientific facts before religion, a decision no one has the right to meddle with by preaching ignorance.

If/when the gay marriage issue is won, that event will be history. Again, the only lesson taught would be that the sexual orientations are all now scientifically (physiologically) and legally identical which again doesn't effect moral beliefs except for those who place science and law before religion, again something that no one has the right to meddle in by suppressing the facts.

To say nothing at all on the matter would be preaching ignorance which has only ever hurt people and is a giant step backwards in society.

To say that homosexuality is bad because some people think it's immoral would be a lie because homosexuality isn't bad from any facts-based angle, it's just immoral.

Therefore it's only right for the following sentence to be uttered by a teacher in public school to their students:

"While homosexuality and heterosexuality are no different from a scientific and legal perspective, (some/many, whichever) believe that it is immoral"

It's not like a bunch of people are going to suddenly decide to be gay because they know that it's not scientifically or legally bad.

[blas87]

Peppergirl was speaking of how posters like us are oftentimes in the minority on the other threads, specifically the ones regarding sex offenders, rapists, etc etc etc.

She even said it better. I couldn't even defend myself in another thread as well as Rubystars can. I didn't have the energy or the patience to keep dealing with it.

[Rubystars]

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.

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

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?

There's a lot of debate among conservative Christians about what those exactly mean. Some people say the being silent in church part applied to that time period but was valid then, and doesn't apply today. Others say that it has to do with women being there to learn Scripture, but not to lead. Most leadership roles are supposed to be for men in a church setting according to traditional Christianity. I'm not really sure what I think about this topic but I'd be willing to listen to different sides of it.

As far as subservience to the husband, the husband provides a spiritual covering for the household, and is supposed to love his wife like God loves the church. A woman is supposed to be supportive and comforting for her husband and isn't supposed to try to manipulate him in a devious manner. Ephesians 5:21 is a balance to that though, because it says the husband and wife should also submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

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 does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

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

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law. I think the only Christians who do that are Messianics. Most Christians believe that following Jesus and accepting him as Savior covers a lot of that. I think it's important to understand the Jewish parts of the Bible but I don't think every rule in that applies to Christians. I'm not a theologian so it would be difficult for me to get into a lot of details about it.

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?

I would love to learn the original languages. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read it in those languages because I haven't learned those languages.

It's interesting you bring this up though. That happens to be one of my pet peeves when it comes to preachers. You see when I was growing up, I thought all pastors of churches knew those languages. When I realized they didn't, I was angry, because they were basically making it their career to teach something they had never read in the original language. I think the majority of information was translated accurately, but some of the more finessed arguments need the original text to understand. I can't imagine why seminaries don't require those languages as part of their criteria for passing.

[Flyndaran]

...
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've got to say ditto. I couldn't have written it better... really I would have written something that came off offensive and not quite in the way I meant.

[BroomJockey]

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law.

So... you get... to pick and choose which to follow? So you've picked the parts which appeal to you, and discarded that which doesn't, since you don't need to follow every letter?

[Pedersen]

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

Actually, something to point out: The books of the bible are titled "The Gospel According To Mark" (for example). Every single book in there was written by someone. What's interesting to me is the lack of a book entitled "The Gospel According To Jesus".

Something else to consider: We have no idea if Jesus ever actually said anything about homosexuality. What we do know is that no one ever wrote down that he said anything about it. To me, that's a curious omission.

What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to write down what Jesus said? He spent about two decades talking about the love of his father, telling everybody to listen, arguing against the rulers of the time, etc. And never once did he address this question? I find that hard to believe.

I have to wonder if, maybe, the people who actually wrote the Bible were hiding something.

[Rubystars]

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?

I don't think it's right to get married for selfish reasons only. Both people should want to get married because they want to have a life-long bond with the other person.

So to answer your question (which is the point of this thread after all), I would consider both of those situations to be wrong.

Of course the second one has the potential to become a better marriage, because they could develop a stronger bond with one another after getting married. In societies with arranged marriages (which I don't think are fair, but that's a topic for another board), the people often say that they get married first and then fall in love with one another. Maybe the same thing could happen for your brother.

Legitimate in the sense of marriage would foremost mean that both partners are adults, and of opposite genders. Other factors play in as you pointed out, but those are the two most important.

[Rubystars]

Actually, something to point out: The books of the bible are titled "The Gospel According To Mark" (for example). Every single book in there was written by someone. What's interesting to me is the lack of a book entitled "The Gospel According To Jesus".

Something else to consider: We have no idea if Jesus ever actually said anything about homosexuality. What we do know is that no one ever wrote down that he said anything about it. To me, that's a curious omission.

What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to write down what Jesus said? He spent about two decades talking about the love of his father, telling everybody to listen, arguing against the rulers of the time, etc. And never once did he address this question? I find that hard to believe.

I have to wonder if, maybe, the people who actually wrote the Bible were hiding something.

That is interesting but even though we don't have Jesus' direct words on the matter, both the OT and NT have scriptures against it. We don't have a gospel according to Jesus, but we do have a lot of information about his life and many of the things he said as written by others.

[Flyndaran]

...
Legitimate in the sense of marriage would foremost mean that both partners are adults, and of opposite genders. Other factors play in as you pointed out, but those are the two most important.

But why is it important? If all you say is because god said so, then why do you keep trying to argue anything else?

[linguist]

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

i never said he was pro-gay. just that he never claimed to be anti-gay. it seems he didn't care one way or another.

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

covered above

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law. I think the only Christians who do that are Messianics. Most Christians believe that following Jesus and accepting him as Savior covers a lot of that. I think it's important to understand the Jewish parts of the Bible but I don't think every rule in that applies to Christians. I'm not a theologian so it would be difficult for me to get into a lot of details about it.

covered by broomjockey. although i will add that if you're going to insist on a literal interpretation, you really should go all or nothing. picking and choosing invalidates the whole system.

I would love to learn the original languages. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read it in those languages because I haven't learned those languages.

It's interesting you bring this up though. That happens to be one of my pet peeves when it comes to preachers. You see when I was growing up, I thought all pastors of churches knew those languages. When I realized they didn't, I was angry, because they were basically making it their career to teach something they had never read in the original language. I think the majority of information was translated accurately, but some of the more finessed arguments need the original text to understand. I can't imagine why seminaries don't require those languages as part of their criteria for passing.

some do study it. many of those i've met who've been through catholic seminary were required to study greek and hebrew in addition to latin. not too many required to study aramaic, though, oddly enough, since that was most likely the language jesus spoke.

i can't claim to have read the whole thing, but i have read bits in the original languages, and there is a fair amount of ambiguity that was capitalized on by later translators.

most modern english translations (at least the ones i've read) are based on the king james version, which while very pretty and poetic, is a horrible translation.

[Rubystars]

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.

If I think homosexuality is something bad, then you probably do consider that to just be bigotry. If so, then fair enough.

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.

A lot of disorders happen in every population. As for "harms no one", that may not be true if you're talking about the participants themselves. Of course a lot of what I might consider to be harmful you wouldn't consider to be harmful. I think it's harmful for things like homosexuality to be accepted as normal even if it doesn't cause other problems.

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.

People aren't horrible because they commit a sin. I don't consider homosexual marriage to be an undeniable human right, but you know that.

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.

Have I ever said I hated gays? I disagree with what they're involved in, and their lifestyle, and I do think it's sinful. Homosexuality itself is abnormal. I don't hate the people involved though or think that's their entire makeup as a person. I just think they have a problem (of course they won't see it that way, and will probably think I am the one who has a problem).

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

I didn't know about gays until I was around 13 and some silly kid used "lesbian" as an insult toward me. I had to go find out what that meant. They called me that because I didn't have a boyfriend at that time. Nowadays you'd have to teach kids younger because they would hear about it elsewhere. There would be no choice. It's all over tv. I think it's important for kids to understand how things normally are before they learn about the variations, if at all possible. It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc.

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.

I'm not offended because I know it seems like bigotry from your viewpoint. I hope you know that I don't want to hurt anybody though, but I can't change my viewpoint on this either. I don't really think that I'm a bigot because I have worked with homosexuals at my jobs and I would help someone I knew was homosexual if they were hurt, etc. I just disagree with the behavior they're involved in. I know that in itself is enough to get me labeled a bigot, but if that's how you feel about it, then I really can't change your mind.

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'm not looking for laws that target homosxuality for punishment. I think that would be wrong in a democratic society. All I want to prevent is the government giving the nod of approval to homosexuality.

I find some of your views perverse. See did that solve anything?

I understand why you do. If you think so then you have the same right I do to fight for your views. Saying something is perverse doesn't solve anything, but advocating for your viewpoint does.

No, only rational evidence based beliefs should be enshrined in law.

You can't legislate morality, but you can hold back from openly condoning immorality. That's the distinction that I make, but I'm having a hard time explaining it.

[Pedersen]

That is interesting but even though we don't have Jesus' direct words on the matter, both the OT and NT have scriptures against it.

The examples that I have seen brought forth from the NT come from Paul, who was formerly Saul, of Tarsus. A Mithra worshipper who brought many Mithraic traditions into Christianity. Quite frankly, when you learn a little bit about Paul/Saul, his whole testimony becomes suspect, and it begins to look like he was trying to subvert Christianity by turning it into Mithra worship.

Look into it, it's quite disturbing. I'd advise against using him as a source, since the people who have learned about him will tend to discount your arguments.

We don't have a gospel according to Jesus, but we do have a lot of information about his life and many of the things he said as written by others.

Quite frankly, that's a laughable statement. We don't even have 1% of what he said and taught in a written form. For my proof, I invite you to read the NT aloud. You will finish in less than a week (going slow, too). That's 7 days. Considering that the accepted age of Jesus at the time of his "Ascension" is about 32 years old, that would mean that he lived for 11688 days. Drop all time before he was 13 (since that was when he supposedly received his gifts from Dad), and we find he was teaching for 6939.75 days (with each year being 365.25 days long, according to our modern calendar).

In other words, you can read aloud everything that was written about Jesus's life in less then 0.1% of the time that he was teaching. You may not like it, but you might as well have zero information about what Jesus said.

Which brings us back to my original statement / question: What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to mention any of what Jesus said about homosexuality?

[Flyndaran]

If I think homosexuality is something bad, then you probably do consider that to just be bigotry. If so, then fair enough.
....

You have yet to give a real reason religious or otherwise why homosexuality is anything other than a non-issue.
You seem to imply religion as your motiviation for hating gays.
And however you phrase it, you are hating them by denying them rights you enjoy.

[Peppergirl]

Have I ever said I hated gays?

No, you didn't but (all due respect) much of what you say about them and their actions are intolerant, so I can understand why people would assume you hate them. Intolerance is just a hairs-breath from hatred, IMO.

[Flyndaran]

What about those of us that don't even believe your Jesus guy even existed? He was most likely a compilation of several people with miracle retroactively attributed to him in the style that was quite common at the time to give to famous figures.

...
I didn't know about gays until I was around 13 and some silly kid used "lesbian" as an insult toward me. I had to go find out what that meant. They called me that because I didn't have a boyfriend at that time. Nowadays you'd have to teach kids younger because they would hear about it elsewhere. There would be no choice. It's all over tv. I think it's important for kids to understand how things normally are before they learn about the variations, if at all possible. It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc..

Since gays are born that way you are espousing ignorance for them as well as about them. Why can't they hear about others like themselves early?
Since most kids come from hetero couples I would say that they learned about hetero couples from birth.

...I'm not offended because I know it seems like bigotry from your viewpoint. I hope you know that I don't want to hurt anybody though, but I can't change my viewpoint on this either. ....

You do want to hurt them by denying them rights that we enjoy. Bigotry isn't always direct violence. It is also about refusals to accept others as deserving to be different.