Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[AFPheonix]

I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I agree that homosexuality is likely an inherited instinct from earlier ancestors that engaged in it. I still consider it to be disordered though in humans.

So, wait. I don't really understand your reasoning here. You fully realize that there's an evolutionary reason for it being here, you've been shown the physiological reasons it manifests, I've even posted an article in the other thread that lists a lot of morphological differences that show up, and you still consider it to be disordered or abnormal? If it's been coming up for millions of years in a lot of different organisms without harming either the organism or the group it belongs to, how is it anymore of a abnormality than, say, people with blue eyes instead of brown?

Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality. I also think your premise that I should be stoning people to death every day to be consistent is absurd.

Yet you are using religious texts to justify your disapproval. If you want to follow that religion, that's fine. But realize that people will think that holding on to tenets from a book and not others is simply justifying your own bigotry. If you're going to keep one tenet, then it most certainly is not absurd for others to wonder why that particular tenet and not another that is just a chapters away.
If you think homosexuality is wrong DESPITE your religion, then you need to use non-religious arguments. I realize you have in previous posts and also have noticed you've abandoned them as they've been disproven.

When I was in left wing college classes, they told me sex is your physical sex and gender is your sexual self-identity. I always thought they had those terms backwards, but I've tried to stick to using them in that way.



Typical left wing thought.

What's with the "left-wing" hate? You of course realize Jesus was pretty socialist, and the first Acts church was a commune, yes? Typically "sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me" are not conservative ideals.
And no, that would be Naibo's thought, not a "typical left wing" thought.

[AFPheonix]

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard of an atheist hombophobe.

I have, there were interviews with quite a few during the measure 8 aftermath. Bigotry doesn't necessarily need religious justification.

[Flyndaran]

I have, there were interviews with quite a few during the measure 8 aftermath. Bigotry doesn't necessarily need religious justification.

Really. What was their supposed motivation for thier bigotry? I just can't imagine any reason other than god said it's icky.

[Nyoibo]

Come on, you're better than that. Don't sink to her level no matter how tempting it is.

Well mine was meant to be sarcastic.

[BroomJockey]

Really. What was their supposed motivation for thier bigotry? I just can't imagine any reason other than god said it's icky.

They personally find it icky? Or how about they're afraid of being hit on, thus upsetting their self-image. After all, if a guy is hit on, why him? Is he giving off "gay" signals? Does he look feminine? etc etc. There's a number of justifications for homophobia.

[Flyndaran]

...There's a number of justifications for homophobia.

None that make any bit of sense from a logical stand point.
Love is never wrong, and I think it sickly funny that it's the supposed followers of loving gods that hate love the most.

[BroomJockey]

None that make any bit of sense from a logical stand point.

I knew as soon as I hit post I chose the wrong word. Not "justifications." "Rationalizations." There's a number of different rationalizations that people use on themselves, or that society uses to excuse the behaviour, or at least mitigate it, but really, you're right. Most of it is just people's own hang ups that they can't logically defend.

[Flyndaran]

I knew as soon as I hit post I chose the wrong word. Not "justifications." "Rationalizations." There's a number of different rationalizations that people use on themselves, or that society uses to excuse the behaviour, or at least mitigate it, but really, you're right. Most of it is just people's own hang ups that they can't logically defend.

Then again I've read a study somewhere that showed self-delusions are necessary for mental health. Thinking yourself a little smarter, better looking, etc. than you really are is healthy.

But yeah, when it gets out to others is when that self defense mechanism needs to be clipped.

[iradney]

You know what I find funny? Jesus said "love thy neighbour." He also said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." He accepted a prostitute into his followers - I'm pretty sure that says something.

I don't want the government to condone something that's completely immoral. Homosexual couples aren't eligible for marriage anyway because they're not a man and a woman.

I looked up the definition of marrige:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

It's not just about a man and a woman.

[BroomJockey]

Then again I've read a study somewhere that showed self-delusions are necessary for mental health. Thinking yourself a little smarter, better looking, etc. than you really are is healthy.

I think there's a difference between not having a perfect view of your self vis-a-vis thinking you're smarter than you are, and wilful self-deception on a point of how the world works. Sort of like the difference between thinking you're a good basketball player because you can dunk the 9 foot net in your driveway, and thinking gravity doesn't apply to you and jumping off a roof because of it.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - yes, I'm pulling quotes from the other thread... I'm late!

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

Q: Do you believe that your God himself actually did the Sodom and Gomorrah thing? Or, (since you've indicated a belief in evolution, for one thing) that it was natural disasters that destroyed those cities...and had absolutely nothing to do with 'sin' or 'immorality'?

An individual gay couple or a few gay couples probably aren't going to impact society all that negatively. However, I'm concerned about what ramifactions redefining marriage and family will have for society in the future. I'm not sure what those would be, and I don't think evidence would be easy to come by to prove those outcomes because it hasn't happened yet. I wonder what kind of societies would result from family structures that aren't based on blood and man-woman marriage. I guess my main argument is this. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Ah, well now, Rubes, you've got yourself into a bit of a bind there. You would like to say it will have a negative impact on society, but can't prove it. BUT...I can provide evidence that gay marriagedoesn't lead to a detrimental society. It's called 'Greece'. You may have heard of it. At the height of it's power, it was the controlling nation of most of the entire known world. As a specific example, Alexander the Great... pretty impressive history... ended up causing a bit of strife here and there... had a gay lover... So, no, gay marriages won't destroy society... we have the proof... what's your next argument?

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Please, let me rephrase the question...

"Should any personal opinion, shaped by any religious upbringing, be codified into law to restrict rights for any group of people?"

Now, taking this rephrasing into account, what is your opinion of Shari'a law? How do you feel about punishments such as stoning, canings, and the cutting off of hands that still continue in various Muslim countries? Obviously, the exact opinions and beliefs are different, but the principle is precisely the same. I presume, as you are still advocating that your beliefs dictate that a homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalised, that you in fact have absolutely no issues with any other country or government that bases it's laws on religion... at least, that would be logically consistent... (unless, all you are really advocating is that the whole planet should come under the rule of Christian laws... and all else should be thrown out... which would be the only other logical consistency).

[Flyndaran]

No one really knows how the world works. It's complexity is far beyond what any group let alone one person can comprehend.
But certain basics are definitely knowable.
People are flawed limited screw ups. Everyone is. There is no justice or kindness in this world that is not enforced by mankind.
We must all strive to increase the understanding and kindness in this world no matter how much individuals, and we each are part of that group at some time, try to screw things up.

[Slytovhand]

WOOT!!! Hey everybody.. WE WON!! :d

Rubystars chose to post this:

In a monogamous marriage, two people are married to each other and to no one else.

back on p31 of the Miss Cali thread. See - it says "two people", not "a man and a woman".



(yes, Ruby, I had to )

[BroomJockey]

We must all strive to increase the understanding and kindness in this world no matter how much individuals, and we each are part of that group at some time, try to screw things up.

Yep, and the fact that atheists and agnostics can be moral people means that kindness can exist outside of religious enforcement, and I trust someone a lot further when they choose to be good and kind for kindness's sake, rather either because they were told to do it, or because they fear retribution in the afterlife.

[Slytovhand]

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than expecting a Christian to reject the writings of Paul. Paul's writings have been canonized, and they are part of the Christian Bible. I'm a Christian and therefore I believe what Paul wrote about homosexuality. The whole attempt to divide Paul and Jesus seems silly to me because obviously Christians believe Paul was inspired.

Ah, well, now you see, I'm going to have to call you as others have done, on bypassing the actual question. The response you gave flagrantly disregards the actual question, which was: Why? And to provide Biblical citations. Your response was about Paul... my referencing to Paul (as anyone can clearly see) was to say that others on here will easily counter anything from Paul...

As you've asked elsewhere, I'm now pointing out where you haven't answered a question. (Remember, my question isn't about Paul...)