Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Rubystars]

You missed one. #62. How do you justify having your religion being made into law?

My spreadsheet says #62 was answered by #91. I don't remember advocating for a theocracy. I think I've been pretty clear that I just don't want official recognition of the gay lifestyle by the government as a legitimate or normal thing.

Now, how do I justify that? I think there are two competing ideas. There is the idea that homosexuality is not normal and that homosexual marriages are not real marriages, and shouldn't be recognized as such. Then there is the left-wing ideas of the homosexual activists. Which one do you think I would rather see be reflected in official life?

[the_std]

You missed one. #62. How do you justify having your religion being made into law?

[Rubystars]

I'll continue everything after #68 later.

[Rubystars]

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.

If you believe that then I won't stop you from it.

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 think gays may be born with a tendency toward homosexuality but I don't think people are necessarily born gay.

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.

If they want me to accept their lifestyle as normal, then they will be waiting a very long time. If that's bigotry in your opinion, then in your eyes I will always be a bigot. I guess I think of bigots as being the kinds of people that would go around shooting gays or beating them up though, or hurling insults like "fag" and "queer" at them. To me that's real bigotry, so I guess we see that word a little differently.

I'm sorry but that sounds too much like the old separate but equal nonsense told by those who don't hate blacks, but simply don't want to condone things like interracial marriage.
Again, religiously defined morality has no place in law.

I don't believe that homosexual "marriage" is equal to heterosexual marriage, so it's not exactly separate but equal.

That's belittling thier beliefs.
To most of us atheists ALL those religious beliefs are wacky.

I was a born atheist born to two loving liberal christians. My atheism has nothing to do with what I was told about religion. It comes from a complete inability to believe those fanciful stories. I was six when I realized that adults actually believed all the stuff they told me in sunday school. It wasn't just a game of make up silly stuff.

That actually made me grin, believe it or not, because I can picture that. lol

[Rubystars]

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.

You think they have the right to legally marry. I don't, so I don't feel that I'm denying them any rights they should have. I don't hate people for being gay though.

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

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.

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

or those of us who may accept his existence, even believing that he was a great teacher with a lot of important things to say, a man of love and of peace, but still just a man.

to quote a song, "what a man was 2000 years ago means nothing at all to me today."

I believe in freedom of religion.

I don't know why Jesus or any kind of religion was brought up here. Your religion has no place in the law. Period. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. If your religion is your motivation for your feelings against gays, it has no place in the law whatsoever.

It was brought up because people wanted to know why I was against homosexuality. I'm not in favor of banning homosexuality (not that it would work, anyway) because this is a democratic society. However I don't want to give them special acknowledgement in an official manner.

[Pedersen]

I've heard about that before and read into it some. Probably not as much as you have. If I threw out Paul though, I would be throwing out a large chunk of Christian teachings, so then I really would be guilty of pick n mix.

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.

Maybe they felt they didn't need to mention it because it was standard Jewish teaching. Maybe they thought that they should focus more on how Jesus was different from other teachers and that's one reason it's so short.

Or they chose not to mention it because they didn't like the idea. Of course, I've already shown that what is written in the bible doesn't even manage to cover 0.1% of his life. What happened to the other 99.9%? Why is none of it mentioned? This man is the reason for your faith being the way it is. By any account, he spent a significant chunk of his time teaching. Far more than one measly little percent of his time.

And yet, even if only 1% of his time was spent teaching, we have less then 0.1% of his total time alive. That leaves out over 90% of his teachings. Are you seriously claiming that God came down, got a virgin pregnant, had his son grow up, go around teaching what he wanted people to know, and over 90% of what he taught was "Oh, yeah, same as the Old Testament"?

Really? Is that the best you can say? That he spent 90% of his teaching time focusing on reinforcing what everybody already knew?

Because, to me, that seems somewhat suspicious. I kinda think stuff got left out by his biographers. And I have to wonder how much of it was left out because they disagreed with what was being taught.

[Rubystars]

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.

I've heard about that before and read into it some. Probably not as much as you have. If I threw out Paul though, I would be throwing out a large chunk of Christian teachings, so then I really would be guilty of pick n mix.

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?

Maybe they felt they didn't need to mention it because it was standard Jewish teaching. Maybe they thought that they should focus more on how Jesus was different from other teachers and that's one reason it's so short.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Uh yeah, that's what I was saying too. Science doesn't have any bearing on morality except for people who specifically choose to base their own morality on science. So if you're only beef about homosexual mention in public school is that it would be a mention of something immoral, that doesn't matter because schools don't teach morality.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the science showed that the average differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals to be statistically of no consequence outside what is to be expected from the sheer individuality of the human species as a whole.


The point I'm getting at is that there aren't 'gay diseases' that effect only homosexuals or people who pursue homosexual behavior and there aren't 'gay' physical defects that only effect gays. Science tells us that there is nothing scientifically negative to being gay as opposed to being straight. So it's only right that the fact that there's nothing intrinsically scientifically positive or negative in being gay.

If you don't teach that in public schools you are failing to undo the very real ignorance that can result if children are left to think that gays might just be physiologically inferior.

Everyone needs to remember that their moral codes need to be kept separate from scientific fact. If teaching scientific fact means mentioning homosexuality without condemning it, then tough. I don't think it's moral to get stoned all day every day, but the scientific fact is that cannabis is healthier than alcoholic and tobacco products.

P.S. To clarify myself please treat each of my own uses of the word 'bad' in the post of my own above to mean 'scientifically negative' which is the wording I will use from now on.

[Rubystars]

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.

It might seem that way to you but if you look at the context of his life and his religious background I could just about guarantee you that Jesus would be against homosexual behavior.

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 don't think that all the rules that were meant for the nation of Israel apply to Gentiles, and I've already posted the relevant Scripture to back that up.

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.

Greek and Hebrew covers most of it though. I'd be thrilled if most preachers would just know those two.

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.

I've heard of some different translation errors that were made before. A lot of people say it's best to read from different translations if you can't read the originals to get a better idea of what it said. The good thing is that you can find a lot of different ones online now.

When I post verses I usually do it from the KJV just because that's the one I'm used to, but I don't think that's necessarily the best version. I'm not sure what the best one is.

[BroomJockey]

I might be wrong, but how am I ignorant?

Well, preaching ignorance is different from actually being ignorant. I believe you stated at one point that homosexuality should not be part of education, and that it should be left until a child is older before it is explained. That's saying to withhold information from people, when it would be better to get everything upfront.

Would it be better for a parent to be put on the spot when he/she sees something while out and about?

Would it be better for the views of those less level-headed than you to be the first introduction to homosexuality, where instead of telling them it is against your moral code, the children are told "Hey, that's evil. They're in league with Satan, and should be shunned at the least, and reviled if possible." While I may not agree with your views, they're light-years beyond the open gay-bashing of previous decades.

[Rubystars]

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

I think the fact that both partners in a marriage need to be adults is self-explanatory, unless we have anyone who advocates adult/minor sex on here, and I don't even think I'd have the stomach to debate someone who thought that way. That's just too gross. Even most atheists would be against that if they're moral people, which most of them are.

As for the fact that the partners in a marriage need to be of opposite genders, yes I do base that mostly in religious teachings, but I know people here don't believe the way I do. That's why I was sometimes bringing up other points.

[Rubystars]

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

Thanks

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.

Science doesn't speak to whether something is moral or immoral. Science studies the observable universe, and is amoral, not moral or immoral.

As for differences, I thought that some studies had been done showing brain differences. I think there was an article I read one time saying that a transsexual man had the physical shape of his brain being more like that of a woman, so that could have been what led to his feeling like a woman trapped in a male body. There might be hormonal or other differences. A tendency toward homosexuality could very well be partly genetic.

If/when the gay marriage issue is won, that event will be history.

I don't think it'll be long now. I don't have to agree with it though.

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.

I'm not interested in supressing any facts. Some anti-gay speakers are, but I'm not.

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.

I might be wrong, but how am I ignorant?

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.

Maybe I should just stick to calling it immoral then, if you want to get that specific with defining the words like that. I might have used bad and immoral as synonyms at some point in one of my posts.

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.

I don't think most people would suddenly be gay anyway despite what they're exposed to, unless they already had that tendency.

[BroomJockey]

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.

<snip>
If only they would keep it in the bedroom!

Referring to your biological parents, supposedly. So in effect, I can go tell my aunt to fuck herself when she asks me to not slide down the bannister? After all, she's neither my mother nor father.

That last part, are you referring to only gays keeping it in the bedroom, or straights as well? Because I gotta tell you, if you mean both, I'm right there with you. I'm sick of these teenaged girls playing tosil-hockey with grope-fest intermissions while they're out in public with their boyfriends.

I assume I'd feel the same way about a gay couple. If I'd ever actually seen one do anything like that...

[Rubystars]

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.

Thank you for your nice post. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I did want to give an opposing viewpoint, which seemed to be lacking in the Miss California thread.

[BroomJockey]

I just don't want official recognition of them. I don't see how that's forcing anyone to follow my moral codes. It's just saying that I don't want my government to reflect the moral codes of the homosexual lobby.

This is where there's a disconnect, I think. You're asserting your moral code to be superior to the "homosexual lobby," but with nothing to actually back that up. Further, it is forcing your moral code by imposing a double-standard on society. Either you've got "separate but equal" in same-sex marriage, only not called that, with government bonuses for heterosexual marriages being applied to the same-sex marriages, or you have unequal in that same-sex couples don't have analogous rights in that there's no government recognition at all. If your only basis for disagreeing with homosexuality is religion, and you want the government to disagree with homosexuality, you want the government to disagree with homosexuality based on religion. It's officially codifying a religious point of view, with the force of law behind it. That is *exactly* forcing people to have your moral code.