Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Meh, I'm a libertarian, always have been. Maybe it's just my schools but there were as many conservatives are liberals and not one of them altered the curriculum to show their views, itself not being particularly liberal.

The only instance in which morality was ever broached was with personal questions asked of the teachers about their opinions. Most refused to talk politics during class time and the rest kept it to 'I think this'.

Let me reiterate something I fear you may not be getting from what I've been saying that I've meant to be there. I'm not talking about "Hey being gay is great it's the greatest thing in the world" I'm saying that outside the morality of the issue that religions or social perspectives create there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, it's just something you ARE.

If you want to teach people that being gay is immoral, that's fine. But to teach anything other than the fact that there's nothing wrong with you if you are gay in public schools is nothing short of the worst type of bigotry. It's basically reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with gays that makes them evil, diseased, inferior human beings.

Let me put it this way, there are 4 options:
1: Don't mention homosexuality ever, which is just plain impossible because the subject is important.
2: Teach that being gay is inherently good which would infringe on your morals, something I don't want
3: Teach that being gay is inherently bad something which is not only dangerous, but infringing on my and many other people's morals
4: Teach that homosexuality is just another thing that people are. Not better or worse than being heterosexual, it just is.

Which one would you choose, Ruby?

I do believe that people are born the way they are when it comes to sexual orientation. That sort of thing is wired into our brains in a way that modern science has yet to grasp or even really look into successfully. My point is that gay people don't have 12% smaller brains, 8% smaller cheeks etc.

[the_std]

I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I just don't understand how you could justify basing legislature (or lack thereof) on something that is not provable. That's why I keep bringing it up. And you haven't explained how you can do this well enough for it not to still be a valid point.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

Yes, I realize that, but it has gotten to the point where you are repeating yourself and that hardly makes for a good debate. I'm not blaming you, I'm just wondering if we've reached the end of this road.

[Rubystars]

So it's basically come down to this: you consider homosexuality harmful, no ifs ands or buts. Simply being gay harms both the gay person and the community at large. By calling them perverse, deviant and sinful, you've made this abundantly clear. And yet you have no method of proving this. And you want the law to reflect this groundless belief (groundless because religion has no place in the law) by not allowing gays to marry.

It is impossible to debate against your belief that homosexuality is harmful. So essentially, that's the argument ended right there. There is no way to convince you that homosexuality is not harmful. And there is no way to convince you that, by the government not allowing gays to marry, that it is a bigoted and unequal advocacy.

Being gay as in having same sex attractions isn't the problem, but acting on it does harm the person. Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful. I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

[Rubystars]

By endorsing one thing over the other, that's disagreeing with the other. That is not a debatable point.

I was clarifying my position not trying to start a new debate.

[Rubystars]

Random hypothetical question: Imagine a homosexual couple. They follow Christianity exactly as you do, except they're gay. That is exactly the only difference. To make this even better, they display absolutely no affection towards each other except when they're completely alone. This means that there's no influence they have on anyone towards homosexuality. For all anyone can tell, they're simply roommates.

Now, they want to adopt a child. Except single people rarely are approved for adoption. This household would fit your ideal, except for the lack of one gender. Do you think it's right to deny a child a healthy, happy home simply because they're not married? Remember, these two wouldn't do a single thing in front of the child to indicate they were gay. They would raise the child as a Christian. They'd love the child very much. But because they're not married, they're rejected, and they can't get married because you believe it's immoral. Isn't providing a secure, happy, healthy home to a child better than to get caught up on an issue of plumbing?

If they were moral, they would be single. I also wouldn't consider a gay couple, even heavily repressed, to be a healthy couple. I don't blame people for their feelings but they shouldn't act on them by being in a homosexual relationship. They should just be single. Would you place a child into a home with so much pent up sexual frustration as you described?

Second random question: There's many pointers that homosexuality is genetic. That's predestined from birth. That means, following a religious argument, God made them that way. Why would God predestine someone to be immoral? They're genetically incapable of being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. To enter in to a heterosexual marriage would be an affront to marriage itself by basing it on a lie. How is that even remotely fair?

There are other people who can explain this a lot better than I can. I think everyone has certain challenges they need to face though. They have the choice to remain single.

[Rubystars]

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.

I don't have a problem with what Paul taught and I don't consider it to be negative.

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.

I just don't see the basis for a conspiracy theory here. It's possible that more was written down but lost. I think the books we have now were actually written a good deal after Jesus had died. I forget how many years. I don't see any indication that Jesus ever condoned immoral behavior.

[Rubystars]

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.

They're not supposed to, but they did try to push left wing stuff on us when I was in school. You might not have noticed it as much if you lean that way anyway.

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.

I thought gay activists were trying to say they were all born that way and couldn't help it a few years ago.

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.

I think they are at higher risk for some diseases than the general population, but you're right that there aren't exclusively gay diseases.

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.

They're at higher risk for some things because of behavior, not because of a different physiology.

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.

I don't want homosexuality promoted as acceptable in schools. That goes beyond the facts and into promoting a particular moral stance.

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.

Ok

[Rubystars]

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.

I've been thinking about this and I think that you're right that a parent should teach their kids about this stuff being out there a lot earlier now than they used to have to. Otherwise they'll find out about it anyway.

I do think it's unfortunate that this has become such a prominent issue, but I suppose there's no going back now.

I wouldn't want someone truly hateful and abusive to try to teach kids that homosexuals are all a bunch of devil spawn or something, because I don't feel that way.

[the_std]

So it's basically come down to this: you consider homosexuality harmful, no ifs ands or buts. Simply being gay harms both the gay person and the community at large. By calling them perverse, deviant and sinful, you've made this abundantly clear. And yet you have no method of proving this. And you want the law to reflect this groundless belief (groundless because religion has no place in the law) by not allowing gays to marry.

It is impossible to debate against your belief that homosexuality is harmful. So essentially, that's the argument ended right there. There is no way to convince you that homosexuality is not harmful. And there is no way to convince you that, by the government not allowing gays to marry, that it is a bigoted and unequal advocacy.

[Rubystars]

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.

It didn't say "honor your father and mother AND NOBODY ELSE". That would just be probably the most silly way I've ever heard of for someone to read it.

Imagine a kid going to school, walking up to their teacher, and saying "Mr. Smith", the Bible says to honor my mother and my father, and you're not either, so I'm not going to do anything you tell me anymore, and you can shove this homework where the sun doesn't shine!" Yeah I dont' think that would go over too well.

I think in this sense it could be a mother and a father that were adoptive parents. I do think it's interesting however that it specifies a mother and a father, and not two fathers or two mothers. It acknowledges that children will generally have a mother and a 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...

I think more modesty would be better all around. I don't like to see people playing tonsil hockey regardless of their orientation.

[BroomJockey]

I didn't ask the government to actively disagree with homosexuality. I'm not out to ban homosexuality. I just don't want it to condone homosexuality by giving out marriage certificates to gays.

By endorsing one thing over the other, that's disagreeing with the other. That is not a debatable point.

[BroomJockey]

Random hypothetical question: Imagine a homosexual couple. They follow Christianity exactly as you do, except they're gay. That is exactly the only difference. To make this even better, they display absolutely no affection towards each other except when they're completely alone. This means that there's no influence they have on anyone towards homosexuality. For all anyone can tell, they're simply roommates.

Now, they want to adopt a child. Except single people rarely are approved for adoption. This household would fit your ideal, except for the lack of one gender. Do you think it's right to deny a child a healthy, happy home simply because they're not married? Remember, these two wouldn't do a single thing in front of the child to indicate they were gay. They would raise the child as a Christian. They'd love the child very much. But because they're not married, they're rejected, and they can't get married because you believe it's immoral. Isn't providing a secure, happy, healthy home to a child better than to get caught up on an issue of plumbing?


Second random question: There's many pointers that homosexuality is genetic. That's predestined from birth. That means, following a religious argument, God made them that way. Why would God predestine someone to be immoral? They're genetically incapable of being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. To enter in to a heterosexual marriage would be an affront to marriage itself by basing it on a lie. How is that even remotely fair?

[Rubystars]

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.

The morals of both groups are in opposition. I consider mine to be right and they consider theirs to be right. I don't see what there is to back up. I've already explained why I feel the way I do.

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.

I think homosexual "marriage" is unequal by its very nature.

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.

I didn't ask the government to actively disagree with homosexuality. I'm not out to ban homosexuality. I just don't want it to condone homosexuality by giving out marriage certificates to gays.

[Rubystars]

The bit that interests me is that you say you're not completely innocent of the first bit - the pick'n'mix religion part I mentioned. You said that elsewhere in this thread as well.

Why should you choose the gay-prohibition laws instead of the non-shrimp-eating laws (or whichever ones you don't follow)? What's the difference?

Rapscallion

I don't know exactly where I'm guilty of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I found out later I'd been inconsistent on something. I don't believe that Christians are under the law of Moses and I posted the relevant Scripture earlier in the thread.

[Rubystars]

You missed a word. I said "prove". You offer no proof.

I can't demonstrate potential harm that hasn't yet occurred. How do you want me to prove that? I don't think I can.

I do believe that it is harmful that homosexuality is accepted as normal. To conservatives, that is the harm, along with this idea being taught to children. These things are considered harmful by conservatives regardless of whatever other harm could potentially happen.

The distinction between the two sides which I think is quite important is that Ruby sees gay marriage as a condoning of homosexual behavior and therefore an immoral thing to do.

The fact of the matter is that not only have politicians and other influential people already weighed in on the matter by both condemning and condoning homosexuality, but Ruby and the rest of us don't see the current situation the same way.

Ruby sees it as neutral because Ruby doesn't believe there is inequality.

We see the deprivation of the, while not essential per-se, perfectly justified right for people to marry whomever they love enough to wish to. The current system oppresses and condemns gays by placing them at a legal disadvantage.

What we seek is a system that neither condemns nor condones anything, but rather allows for people to live their lives as they see fit on equal footing.

One solution that might make both of us happy is if marriage weren't given government recognition at all.

I'm going to go back to semantics for a moment, to point out that should we use the 'different phrase or word' for gay marriage, there would need to be a massive overhaul of any an all laws that take marriage into account so that they also take homosexual unions into account. And since separation is inherently unequal, it only makes sense to redefine legal marriages as being between two consenting adults and not necessarily two opposite genders.

You have every right to refer to homosexual unions differently, and to teach other people to follow your example. But using a definition-based argument to justify depriving homosexuals is incredibly nonsensical. Definitions change just as culture has changed which must in the natural course of history has brought religion to change with it.

I don't think they should have the right to get "married" officially anyway, so I don't feel that I'm depriving them of something they have a right to.
I do think the definition of marriage is important to keep between a man and a woman because I believe that anything else is perverted.

IMO most Christians feel deprived lately not because they're losing equality, but because the judeo/christian belief system is losing absolute dominance, something that is incredibly bad for equality (the dominance, that is)

You're right that Christians are losing dominance.

This country needs to be from a legal standpoint totally blind to as many arbitrary things like race, and sexual orientation as possible. There's no reason to stop gays from marrying unless you think that they, either inherently or through their actions are less human than heterosexuals. The kind of persecution and bigotry this country has waged wars to end.

They're not less human, but homosexuality is abnormal and I don't want the government to recognize it as if it were just the same as heterosexual marriage.

I believe it was a supreme court justice that said marriage is a civil right. He may have been talking about old laws forbidding interractial marriage, but it is perfectly aplicable to gay marriage.

I understand that you think it's the same, but interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman, and therefore fits the criteria of a marriage.