Thread: Miss California causes waves!

The question was asked to turn a beauty pageant into a political forum, and it was completely out of place. Consider that in the past, questions were asked which required little thought or conviction to answer, and vapid meaningless responses were given. And everyone went home happy, except for the losers, but they still smiled for the camera and congratulated the winner and tried to be "good sports."

Ah, the good old days.

There are times and places to discuss the topic, but a beauty pageant isn't really one of them. Something intangible and sappy, like world peace, is more in order.

As far as I know, marriage has always been a religious thing. And Christianity, the nominal majority religion in the US defines it a specific way, and the definition does not include same sex, let alone sexually active same sex unions (and a marriage has to be consummated). Many other religions tend to define it pretty much the same way.

What I don't understand is this: If Christianity condemns same-sex sexual union as a sin, why do sexually active homosexuals want to be a part of that religion? Furthermore, why would sexually active homosexuals want to take part in a ritual that for years has been the domain of that religion? Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Words like sacrament, sanctity, etc. are religious terms. The religion accepts the people but not the activity. If they want to take part in the sexual activity as well, why would they want to take part in the ritual?

In general, the Church has put her foot down. If she refuses to budge, and she won't, then why not tell her to go to blazes and do your own thing, or else give in and conform?

The Church has been doing her thing for a long time, and she's not going to change. We all know how she operates. But we also know how the US government operates, and when it holds one thing up it crushes another down. Whether it's holding up war-mongering and crushing down pacifists, or holding up the PC opinion that same-sex marriage is okay and crushing down the conservative opinion that says it's not, someone always seems to suffer for someone else's rights to be recognized, and it's not always fair, nor is it always the people who should rightfully be suffering. So should we really trust them to do the right thing or to be fair or just? Remember that justice is vengeance tempered with mercy, and the US government doesn't always get the ratio perfect. So why would we trust our government to make the right decision when their pendulum of action swings the way of public opinion? Public opinion isn't always in the best interest of the public, nor does the pendulum always cease to swing at the moment of change.

I think the answer to the problem is diplomacy and negotiation, and not in grandstanding at beauty pageants. But of course, the other side has to be willing to show up at the table.

Originally Posted by JMS

So X, would you approve of the thought police? Maybe assigning different levels of punishment based on ones thoughts?

You're a sick man, Mark. I think they can help you though.

Originally Posted by JMS

To answer where the line is, well, that's when thought turns to action, at least that's how I see it.

I think that should include inciting hatred. You know, "Go lynch those s"!

Originally Posted by JMS

On the topic of bigotry I would say that Perez Hilton displays more bigotry by the strict definition than Miss California did!

Take a look and judge for yourself:
YouTube - Perez Hilton on why Miss California lost in Miss USA 2009