Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Greenday]

I'm still pretty sure my question of "Do you think it's ok to force your religion on other people?" was never answered either.

[Flyndaran]

I'm still pretty sure my question of "Do you think it's ok to force your religion on other people?" was never answered either.

In a way, of course it is. That's what democracy is, forcing your beliefs no matter where they come from, onto other people.
That's why I prefer proper regulations on demcracy to prevent mob rules.

[BroomJockey]

In a way, of course it is. That's what democracy is, forcing your beliefs no matter where they come from, onto other people.

Yeah. There's a fine line to walk between "Tyranny of the Majority" and "Tyranny of the Minority." That's why "blue laws" (morality-based legislation) so often turns out to be a bad idea. You're either forcing the minority's beliefs on the majority, or the majority's on the minority. It's usually best when laws are kept to ensuring those heavily disruptive to the lives of others or to the betterment of society are curtailed, and society as a group determines social mores which can be changed over time without an act of Parliament.

[Slytovhand]

Biblical regulations on it helped to keep it more humane than it would have been.

Actually, Hammarabi did it first, so I don't think you can effectively go to the Bible for that one. Especially since, the Jews were very much an outcast group of the main Roman society for quite a while, and the Romans had slaves and slavery laws (such as not being too nasty to them...). You might make a case against the slave trade in Africa - such as Egypt - but that's not really going to have much intersection with the Hebraic laws...

Oh - and theological nitpick (but, it's actually relevant...), If Jesus was the Son of God (or possibly, an aspect of God himself anyway), then Jesus would be incapable of sin, or anything immoral by his very nature. Thus, if Jesus chose not to condemn slavery, and to condone it, then by his nature, slavery must perforce be moral... and trying to free slaves would, by counter, be immoral.

Similarly, if perchance Pedersen's extrapolations do indeed indicate that Jesus was homosexual, then it would, by definition, mean that homosexuality is indeed moral and right as well.


Now, Jesus hung out with society's outcasts, the lame, the sick, the undesirables, and He said to them "I love you, and I accept you. If you give me your love and your acceptance, you will gain entrance into Heaven and God's kingdom".... I don't immediately recall, other than a prayer, anywhere else where he said "Oh, also, you've got to change all these bits of your life as well to fit in". Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, acceptance and tolerance. That was Jesus' message... not intolerance, rejection and fear. Sorry, the case against homosexuality is thinning... (well, wasn't really there...)

[Rubystars]

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 looked up the definition of marrige:

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

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

First definition in your link:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

[BroomJockey]

First definition in your link:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Psst. The words "not just" sorta make that the equivalent of my saying "Not all ice cream is vanilla." And then you reply "Ice cream comes in vanilla!"

Also, did you look at #10? Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

First word in that definition. Obsolete. As in "No longer used in such a fashion."

[Rubystars]

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?

Disorders also have a genetic basis most of the time and run in families.

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.

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.

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.

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.

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.

Besides it being sinful I also believe it's a sickness. It fits all the criteria of a paraphilia, but it's not politically correct to think that way anymore.

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.

Christians are supposed to take care of the poor people in their communities, but this is something they do as private citizens to help each other and the community around them.

[Rubystars]

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

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'?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. God's wrath could be poured out in the form of a natural disaster. I think most acts of God are done within the laws of nature.

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?

I think gay marriage being accepted is detrimental in itself. There was one teacher who took her students on a field trip to her lesbian marriage. She tried to make the claim that this had educational merit. I say that's a bunch of bullcrap. Kids will be forced to accept the sickness of homosexuality as if it were normal in school. It'll be taught as some great triumph of the civil rights movement. All of these things are detrimental in their own right. Gays and lesbians take to the streets and do all kinds of shocking sex acts in the open during pride parades and the police do nothing about it. Parents can't even take their kids to Disney World without having to worry about the gay days that they aren't even warned about, when homosexual doms and submissives are walking around with leashes on.

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?"

If it's shaped by religious upbringing it's not exactly a personal opinion, especially when that religion is shared by a very large portion of society.

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?

I don't like it, but it's up to the people who live in those countries to overturn it, not us to approve or disapprove of it. I think the best we can hope for is to keep it from spreading outside where it already is.

Obviously, the exact opinions and beliefs are different, but the principle is precisely the same.

It's not the same at all. Sharia law is brutal and savage. I don't want to murder people for being raped, torture them with caning, or maim them by cutting off body parts. I just don't want gays to marry. Can't you at ALL see a difference there? Come on now you've got to see a difference there.

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).

It would be great if everybody in the world was Christian, but if Rapscallion is right and I'm making more atheists, then that probably won't happen any time soon anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian laws" though. I'm not interested in setting up a theocratic state, but I do want the government to reflect moral values of the people to an extent.

[Rubystars]

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

Rubystars chose to post this: back on p31 of the Miss Cali thread. See - it says "two people", not "a man and a woman".



(yes, Ruby, I had to )

That was pretty funny.

[Rubystars]

Psst. The words "not just" sorta make that the equivalent of my saying "Not all ice cream is vanilla." And then you reply "Ice cream comes in vanilla!"

Also, did you look at #10? Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

First word in that definition. Obsolete. As in "No longer used in such a fashion."

Obviously I don't agree that it's obsolete, especially when most of the sources that list marriage as between a man and a woman being a valid deifnition don't mention its being obsolete.

[Rubystars]

I think I'm caught up now. I've made a good effort to try to get to everyone's posts, but I seem to be repeating myself and repeating myself, so I think there's not a whole lot more I need to say. Just to make sure that I got to everyone though, I will take one more post from each person. If I've missed one, point out the post number and then ask your last question.

I've spent way too many hours on this thread already over the past week and I'm going back to work tomorrow, so that's why I'm trying to wrap things up.

[Boozy]

Well, thank you for providing us with a very spirited debate this week! I hope you still have some time to post even after you return to work.

[linguist]

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.
.

since you never answered me the first time i asked (back in the miss california thread), i'll ask again: what exactly are your clinical psychology credentials?

[Rubystars]

Well, thank you for providing us with a very spirited debate this week! I hope you still have some time to post even after you return to work.

Thank you Boozy. I will probably get into some other threads when I have time to.

since you never answered me the first time i asked (back in the miss california thread), i'll ask again: what exactly are your clinical psychology credentials?

Sorry about that. I missed a lot of posts in that thread because I was one person replying to a lot of different people. That's why I started this thread though, so I could try to answer all the stuff I missed. I have zero psychology credentials, unless you count the psychology class I took earning my associate's degree, but that's not enough to be a mental health professional. All I can say is from a layman's point of view, homosexuality resembles paraphilias. In the past, it was considered to be one of them. Now, it's not, but I wonder if it was wise to take it off the list. I think the main reason it was taken off the list was that it involved consenting adults.

[Rapscallion]

It's not the same at all. Sharia law is brutal and savage. I don't want to murder people for being raped, torture them with caning, or maim them by cutting off body parts. I just don't want gays to marry. Can't you at ALL see a difference there? Come on now you've got to see a difference there.

Only in extent. The basis of it is that it's allegedly the will of an infallible, omnipotent divine being who hasn't bothered to speak to anyone in millennia, let alone update it.

In fact, many of the punishments demanded in Sharia are very similar to the stuff in the christian bible.

Rapscallion