Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[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...)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...)

[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]

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 )

[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]

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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

...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]

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.