Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Flyndaran]

...

They might 'get along' but they're still engaged in something that's perverting what marriage is really supposed to be.
....

Perversion is a religious view and as such has not right to be in laws.
It is far to indivual of an opinion to serve any function.
I find some of your views perverse. See did that solve anything?
No, only rational evidence based beliefs should be enshrined in law.

[Flyndaran]

... can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.
...

Why is ignorance about reality automatically good?
How about teach them at the age many will ask about it?

Also I hope no one, even you takes offense at my other posts of this thread.
I just can't think of your opinions without coming back to bigotry. Please tell me your views and how they don't mean that.

[Rubystars]

Well, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Anytime a group of priests sits around a document and decides which parts get left in and which parts get taken out, I have a serious problem with that document's accuracy. Not to mention the various translations it's gone through over the years. But perhaps that should be a different thread.

There are still a lot of the books around that got rejected, if people want to read them for their own knowledge.

As far as children go...yes, parents these days have more to explain to their children. So? I'm really tired of the "we shouldn't have X thing because it might confuse the children...or corrupt the children....or influence the chiiilllldreeeeennnnn" Sorry, don't care. You have kids, you have to teach them stuff. End of story. Quit asking society to do your job as a parent. It may take a village, but I never signed up to be part of that village.

I just get annoyed by the fact that kids these days can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.

I agree with Blas, this has been a good, fair debate, even though I vehemently disagree with Rubystars.

thank you and that's ok. I actually decided to enter the thread to do this board a little bit of a favor. I didn't see anyone who disagreed with homosexuality, so the thread was a little boring. I thought I'd step in and get a real debate started. I don't expect to change anyone's minds. I just wanted to spice up the thread a little.

But it's important to know the opposition's mindset, so that those of us fighting for equal rights for everyone* can develop a plan of attack against it. At this point, I want nothing less than sexual orientation to be included in the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Hey, a girl can dream, right?

The way things are going now, you will most likely get your way.

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

But it doesn't really matter, right?

[Flyndaran]

Because that's not a marriage.

...

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


That's not the only place it will be taught. You know better than that. It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

They are normal in every sense of the word.
Marriage has changed defintions throughout the english language history. There is no reason other than bigotry to stop it now.

I'm not sure you know what normal means. It occurs in every adult human population and harms no one. That sounds normal to me. Please debate against that defintion.

I would herald the giving back of human rights to any group as a victory.. yes even to those horrible sinners, oops you don't disagree with them because of religion, or do you.
I don't know if you've ever come up with a non-religious reason to hate gays... that stands up to rational scrutiny that is.

[Rubystars]

The Government doesn't really give bonuses for married couples, but rather treats a married couple as a combined entity which is advantageous for those involved and caries certain legal ramifications.

Personally, and, I think this goes for most everyone arguing for the pro-gay marriage side, I really don't care if it's called 'marriage' in the legal language used. As long as the Homosexual unions and Heterosexual unions are treated exactly the same from a legal and governmental perspective, I'm happy.

The only reason I myself continue to use the term 'marriage' to refer to such unions is that I don't see any intrinsic difference between the two that would warrant the fuss over nomenclature.

Because that's not a marriage.

Back to the debate for a moment, I would like to point out that the fall of the Romans was a purely militant affair.

I still think they were being judged for a variety of reasons regardless of what ultimately caused their demise.

It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest.

Of course.

A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

They might 'get along' but they're still engaged in something that's perverting what marriage is really supposed to be.

Public school does in most cases do only what it should do, which is to teach the scientific facts, which show no superiority whatsoever between races, sexual orientations etc. Teaching moral beliefs is a primary function of other organizations including churches, if you want your beliefs taught that's fine so long as it's outside of public school.

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

Never mind that the only possible place to actually teach that being homosexual is okay is a sex ed class, so it's not unreasonable for you to take comfort in that parents may opt their children out of those classes in most cases, and in the rest: it's likely only going to be something like 'there's no scientific reason for homosexuality to be bad' which is a scientific truth separate from morality and religion.

That's not the only place it will be taught. You know better than that. It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

[Rubystars]

Wait a minute, back up. Did you actually just say that you would rather the government stop acknowledging ALL marriages than give gay marriages any recognition?

...

Yes I did.

Yup, you did. You have said some SERIOUSLY whack stuff in the last few days but that just about takes the cake.

I can see why you would feel that way.

Kind of reminds me of when King Solomon was approached by the two women, each claiming that the baby in question was hers. When he announced he would cut the baby in half, one cried out in fear and the other didn't care.

He was so smart.

You may claim to be a Christian, but you don't appear to follow the same Christ that I do.

Obviously not, if you think gay is ok.

The Lord that I follow came to earth not only to die for it's sins but to show us how to love one another.

I don't believe that meant gays and lesbians forming relationships.

Did you miss that part, or did you cut straight to the fire and brimstone? Don't worry, if that's the case you're not alone, a lot of Christians make that mistake.

I don't think loving people includes being gay. lol

And stop quoting Paul already, I know his letters are an important part of the scriptures but we are talking about JESUS. What did JESUS have to say on the matter? Nothing, well, nothing you didn't take out of context anyway. Try again?

It's your opinion that things were taken out of context. I think it's a real shame that you try to say Jesus was pro-gay. You accuse me of twisting Scripture? That's rich. Jesus didn't specifically address the topic but did affirm man/woman marriage.

[Rubystars]

I would just like to chime in here and say I admire you very much for taking these debates seriously and going well above and beyond to answer questions and prove your points.

While I may not agree with you, I know all to well what it feels like to have the minority opinion, and to feel like everyone is ganged up on you.

Props to you for doing what you've done.

Thank you blas.

[Rubystars]

#1, you're still not answering the question. once again: where in the bible does jesus specifically condemn homosexuality, because it's not at all mentioned in those passages.

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, but Paul does. Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

#2, you're taking the passages out of context. the pharisees asked jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. of course jesus is going to answer in the same context as the question was asked.

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 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.

[Flyndaran]

..
It depends on how far you want to go back in time. Before then, the earliest European modern humans drove the Neanderthals to extinction. They were human too, just cold adapted.
....

That's getting to be a minority opinion. Genetics have shown the modern man shares very little in common with neanderthals. Their complete lack of symbolic representations and art suggests that they were fundamentally different and less sapient than us.

Also there's no evidence that we did anything actively to push them to exinction. It could have been the extreme climate change to which they couldn't adapt rather than the age old killer ape theory of human development.

[Flyndaran]

...

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

Ditto. Though I would say that I am pro-everyone's rights.

As to sexuality I'm the most hetero guy I know. I prefered to be around girls only when I was two. I even wanted to touch them then.
Even before my sex drive kicked in early I simply didn't like dudes in any way shape or form.
Maybe that's why I find the idea of guys liking guys silly rather than offensive. Women liking women seems like a really good idea that must be kept quiet before every chick realizes that we guys are icky.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Anytime a group of priests sits around a document and decides which parts get left in and which parts get taken out, I have a serious problem with that document's accuracy. Not to mention the various translations it's gone through over the years. But perhaps that should be a different thread.

As far as children go...yes, parents these days have more to explain to their children. So? I'm really tired of the "we shouldn't have X thing because it might confuse the children...or corrupt the children....or influence the chiiilllldreeeeennnnn" Sorry, don't care. You have kids, you have to teach them stuff. End of story. Quit asking society to do your job as a parent. It may take a village, but I never signed up to be part of that village.

I agree with Blas, this has been a good, fair debate, even though I vehemently disagree with Rubystars. But it's important to know the opposition's mindset, so that those of us fighting for equal rights for everyone* can develop a plan of attack against it. At this point, I want nothing less than sexual orientation to be included in the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Hey, a girl can dream, right?

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The Government doesn't really give bonuses for married couples, but rather treats a married couple as a combined entity which is advantageous for those involved and caries certain legal ramifications.

Personally, and, I think this goes for most everyone arguing for the pro-gay marriage side, I really don't care if it's called 'marriage' in the legal language used. As long as the Homosexual unions and Heterosexual unions are treated exactly the same from a legal and governmental perspective, I'm happy.

The only reason I myself continue to use the term 'marriage' to refer to such unions is that I don't see any intrinsic difference between the two that would warrant the fuss over nomenclature.

Back to the debate for a moment, I would like to point out that the fall of the Romans was a purely militant affair.
It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest. A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

Public school does in most cases do only what it should do, which is to teach the scientific facts, which show no superiority whatsoever between races, sexual orientations etc. Teaching moral beliefs is a primary function of other organizations including churches, if you want your beliefs taught that's fine so long as it's outside of public school. Never mind that the only possible place to actually teach that being homosexual is okay is a sex ed class, so it's not unreasonable for you to take comfort in that parents may opt their children out of those classes in most cases, and in the rest: it's likely only going to be something like 'there's no scientific reason for homosexuality to be bad' which is a scientific truth separate from morality and religion.

[JuniorMintz]

Wait a minute, back up. Did you actually just say that you would rather the government stop acknowledging ALL marriages than give gay marriages any recognition?

...

Yup, you did. You have said some SERIOUSLY whack stuff in the last few days but that just about takes the cake. Kind of reminds me of when King Solomon was approached by the two women, each claiming that the baby in question was hers. When he announced he would cut the baby in half, one cried out in fear and the other didn't care.

You may claim to be a Christian, but you don't appear to follow the same Christ that I do. The Lord that I follow came to earth not only to die for it's sins but to show us how to love one another. Did you miss that part, or did you cut straight to the fire and brimstone? Don't worry, if that's the case you're not alone, a lot of Christians make that mistake.

And stop quoting Paul already, I know his letters are an important part of the scriptures but we are talking about JESUS. What did JESUS have to say on the matter? Nothing, well, nothing you didn't take out of context anyway. Try again?

[blas87]

I would just like to chime in here and say I admire you very much for taking these debates seriously and going well above and beyond to answer questions and prove your points.

While I may not agree with you, I know all to well what it feels like to have the minority opinion, and to feel like everyone is ganged up on you.

Props to you for doing what you've done.

[linguist]

356



I already answered this in post 358. However let me try again as my answer apparently wasn't satisfactory.

Try Mark 10:6 to Mark 10:9

Jesus says marriage is between a male and a female.

#1, you're still not answering the question. once again: where in the bible does jesus specifically condemn homosexuality, because it's not at all mentioned in those passages.

#2, you're taking the passages out of context. the pharisees asked jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. of course jesus is going to answer in the same context as the question was asked.