Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Flyndaran]

...
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've got to say ditto. I couldn't have written it better... really I would have written something that came off offensive and not quite in the way I meant.

[Rubystars]

until this point, no you had not. the question was about jesus, you gave an answer from paul. twice. now you confirmed that jesus never condemned homosexuality, and you've answered the question.

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

have you ever read paul, really? he was one misogynistic bastard. he didn't think anyone should get married, really. if you're going to use his words as justification, then i'd expect you're also going to remain silent in church, and live in a role of subservience to your husband?

There's a lot of debate among conservative Christians about what those exactly mean. Some people say the being silent in church part applied to that time period but was valid then, and doesn't apply today. Others say that it has to do with women being there to learn Scripture, but not to lead. Most leadership roles are supposed to be for men in a church setting according to traditional Christianity. I'm not really sure what I think about this topic but I'd be willing to listen to different sides of it.

As far as subservience to the husband, the husband provides a spiritual covering for the household, and is supposed to love his wife like God loves the church. A woman is supposed to be supportive and comforting for her husband and isn't supposed to try to manipulate him in a devious manner. Ephesians 5:21 is a balance to that though, because it says the husband and wife should also submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

a single out of context quote doesn't reinforce anything. you didn't address my assertion that since he was asked a question about man/woman marriage, he of course answered in those same terms. if you ask someone a question about pizza, would you expect an answer about penguins?

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law. I think the only Christians who do that are Messianics. Most Christians believe that following Jesus and accepting him as Savior covers a lot of that. I think it's important to understand the Jewish parts of the Bible but I don't think every rule in that applies to Christians. I'm not a theologian so it would be difficult for me to get into a lot of details about it.

have you ever read the bible? i mean, really read it? as in, read something that hasn't gone through millennia of translations, each one taking it further from its original meaning as translators either made mistakes or used the populace's ignorance of the original languages to translate it in such a way as to push their own agenda?

I would love to learn the original languages. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read it in those languages because I haven't learned those languages.

It's interesting you bring this up though. That happens to be one of my pet peeves when it comes to preachers. You see when I was growing up, I thought all pastors of churches knew those languages. When I realized they didn't, I was angry, because they were basically making it their career to teach something they had never read in the original language. I think the majority of information was translated accurately, but some of the more finessed arguments need the original text to understand. I can't imagine why seminaries don't require those languages as part of their criteria for passing.

[blas87]

Peppergirl was speaking of how posters like us are oftentimes in the minority on the other threads, specifically the ones regarding sex offenders, rapists, etc etc etc.

She even said it better. I couldn't even defend myself in another thread as well as Rubystars can. I didn't have the energy or the patience to keep dealing with it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Flyndaran]

...

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.
...

Tease. Now I'm going to wonder in what way you are in minority.

I'm in one for being a born atheist.

[Peppergirl]

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.

[JuniorMintz]

1. Jesus wanted us to love one another as we do ourselves, and that is the point I was trying to make. He shunned the Pharisees and broke bread with those that society shunned, which I'm sure included a homosexual or two (although as it's been said, Jesus never came out and was quoted *in the Bible* as mentioning the gays specifically).

2. Not even the 10 Commandments mention homosexuality. (Maybe Moses *did* drop the tablet with rules 11-15?)

3. The Old Testament Rules of Leveticus (among others) were voided after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. (Which is nice, because now I don't have to sacrifice doves or sheep to atone for my sins.)

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again here. It is up to my husband and I to uphold the sanctity of our *own* marriage, same as it is with everyone else's. I am not threatened by what my neighbors do in their bedrooms, gay OR straight, and you shouldn't be either.

There, I've said my piece, and now I'm going away for the weekend. Have fun, everybody.

[Nyoibo]

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

Following all the laws laid down in Leviticus would get you arrested these days.

[linguist]

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality,

until this point, no you had not. the question was about jesus, you gave an answer from paul. twice. now you confirmed that jesus never condemned homosexuality, and you've answered the question.

but Paul does.

have you ever read paul, really? he was one misogynistic bastard. he didn't think anyone should get married, really. if you're going to use his words as justification, then i'd expect you're also going to remain silent in church, and live in a role of subservience to your husband?

Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

a single out of context quote doesn't reinforce anything. you didn't address my assertion that since he was asked a question about man/woman marriage, he of course answered in those same terms. if you ask someone a question about pizza, would you expect an answer about penguins?

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

I think I've done enough to demonstrate that Christianity (at least if it's following the Bible) forbids homosexuality. I've now answered this question 3 times.

have you ever read the bible? i mean, really read it? as in, read something that hasn't gone through millennia of translations, each one taking it further from its original meaning as translators either made mistakes or used the populace's ignorance of the original languages to translate it in such a way as to push their own agenda?

[Greenday]

Ok, so to sum it up, your religion says homosexuality is wrong. Right?

Now what about this question: are you ok with people forcing their religions on other people?

[Flyndaran]

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike....

You must dislike all religions then. Every system of beliefs over five years old and held by more than two people goes through change and some followers ignoring what they dislike.
That's actually the only reason I don't loathe all the religious. Becuase they can change and reject the more hatefilled parts.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful ...

Funny. Though I don't think atheists can be created.
They are either born like me, or come to that conclusion after educations.

[Rapscallion]

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

Ever worn cloth made from more than one fabric? Husband ever cut his hair? Eaten pork or shrimp? The laws that Jesus came to fulfill the law include those aspects (I may be paraphrasing).

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.

Who says it's a moral situation? Ah, a bronze-age tribal history translated many times and adhered to by people in another country as if it's fact. In short, the religious say that only they can define morals, that only their morals are correct, and therefore that they are the only authorities.

As you said, this should be a wider democratic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue. I don't believe that a religious text should be used to deny a segment of the population the same rights as everyone else.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

...
I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

lol

How do you define legitimate?
Two people decide to form a semi-permanent bond seems like a legitimate marriage to me.
How is two women wanting to get married for love less legitimate than my brother that initially married to help finance a house?
If you say it isn't, then why do you want only the first to not be legal?

[Rubystars]

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Thanks for explaining that. It still sounds pretty scary though.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well.

lol

[Nyoibo]

I can't imagine why someone would be sexually aroused by not being able to breathe!

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Maybe the government should get out of marriage altogether. That would help to solve some of these problems.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well.