Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Now you get close to the making of laws that govern everybody based on a set of precepts followed by a segment. Yes, I know those parts, I'm also pretty sure there's something about judging not lest ye too, and something about plank in thine own eye before the spec in somebody elses......it's such a big book, so many things. I think it's best for people to try and remember that they aren't God. Cause there's a whole lot in there about love and kindness and other virtues I think Christians are supposed to try and have, and in debates like this a lot of them forget that really quick.

I mean really, if He consulted with me everybody that drove under the speed limit would at the least be spending some time in purgatory. It's best judgement be His deal, better for everybody probably.

Red

First off I want to say I don't think religious values should be applied to the rights of others. I wasn't for Prop 8 here in California. If we are going to make law solely on the bible, then I want to be able to start work on my concubine. I'm not picking a fight with anyone who has an opposing point of view. I am merely stating this to give context to my opinion.

She was asked a question. She answered it truthfully. I am for educating and promoting the idea that Gay and Lesbian marriage should be legal. He was fishing for an answer that he felt a reasonable assurance he would get. He got an answer he didn't like. Don't ask it if you don't want to hear it.

She has a right to her opinion. He asked for that opinion. What it has to do with a beauty competition is beyond my abilities to reason.

Originally Posted by Big Red

Now you get close to the making of laws that govern everybody based on a set of precepts followed by a segment. Yes, I know those parts, I'm also pretty sure there's something about judging not lest ye too, and something about plank in thine own eye before the spec in somebody elses......it's such a big book, so many things. I think it's best for people to try and remember that they aren't God. Cause there's a whole lot in there about love and kindness and other virtues I think Christians are supposed to try and have, and in debates like this a lot of them forget that really quick.

I mean really, if He consulted with me everybody that drove under the speed limit would at the least be spending some time in purgatory. It's best judgement be His deal, better for everybody probably.

Red

First off, you do realise that purgatory is purely a Catholic concept don't you? It doesn't apply to any other christians (that I know of).

Secondly, kindness and love have nothing to do with opinion about what's wrong and right.

The debate about gay mariage is about the definition of mariage, not about people disliking gay people. The people who are opposed to gay mariage see mariage as a union between a man and a woman.

The people who are pro see it as a union between two people.

One side sees gender as an essential part of that union and the other side doesn't.

I don't agree with gay mariage either, is that because I dislike gay people? (why it really is I'm not going to get into now. If you honestly want to know you can PM, don't bother if you're going to try and convince me of my being wrong though.)
Offcourse not. I might dislike what they do though. Just like I dislike cigarette smoke. Doesn't mean I dislike smokers though.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

One side sees gender as an essential part of that union and the other side doesn't.

Well, to me it seems that the problem stems mostly from one side wanting to enforce their view on the other side. It seems reasonable to me that everybody can decide on their own marriage and likewise leave others decide on theirs.

That's what I thought was the problem with her answer, but of course she's there because she's pretty. Of course there's nothing wrong with being intolerant, but that tends to irk the people your actions you do not approve and there's some speculation it has cost her the crown. Beauty as we all know is in addition to being in the eye of the beholder is also fleeting.
I don't see anything special, just the business as usual, some people feel they need to extract political dividends from everything.

Even is she is a lesbian, why shouldn't she believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman? There's no contradiction in that. After all, that was the very definition of marriage just a few years ago. Not everybody felt the need to redefine this tradition / aspect of our culture. Not even all gay people.

The real question is why the hell do some gay people feel the need to emulate straight behaviour in this way? Is it just to gain the legal rights that were only given to married people in the first place to assist them in creating families? That's just bizarre.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Even is she is a lesbian, why shouldn't she believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman? There's no contradiction in that. After all, that was the very definition of marriage just a few years ago. Not everybody felt the need to redefine this tradition / aspect of our culture. Not even all gay people.

That part I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

The real question is why the hell do some gay people feel the need to emulate straight behaviour in this way? Is it just to gain the legal rights that were only given to married people in the first place to assist them in creating families? That's just bizarre.

Marriage rights are not just to assist in creating families.
A major part of it has to do with inheritance, ownership, medical power of decision, and a whole slew of other issues that are legally defined in terms of a) blood or adopted lineage b) marriage.

There are dozens of perfectly good reasons for gay people to marry.
Even with straight people, the majority of the reasons for marriage (other than love) are administrative, and not for the purpose of creating a family.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Even is she is a lesbian, why shouldn't she believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman? There's no contradiction in that. After all, that was the very definition of marriage just a few years ago. Not everybody felt the need to redefine this tradition / aspect of our culture. Not even all gay people.

But why would someone place such a ridiculous limitation on themselves? That would be like a black man saying he agrees with segregation.

Originally Posted by icedog

But why would someone place such a ridiculous limitation on themselves? That would be like a black man saying he agrees with segregation.

YUCK! Share a drinking fountain with whitey? NO THANK YOU!


Besides the laws assisting in the generation of families, besides the rights having to do with property, medical decision making and being otherwise recognized by the state, the gays I know and love have spent a bit of time talking about the issue. I think I can sum up my opinions pretty clearly.
They want to be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Whether they have a "need" for those rights should be inconsequential. They love each other, many have children, they are FAMILIES whether the law so agrees or not. WHy should they not be treated the same.
How does calling THEIR relationship a MARRIAGE in ANY WAY redefine YOURS? My marriage is still defined as a man (me) and a woman (my wife). This so-called redefinition does not, in any way, make MINE a gay-marriage. If it did, I would probably dress better and throw WAY cooler parties.
Giving other people rights does not make the world a worse place. If you believe gay behavior is wrong, that's your business. I believe that you are wrong in that opinion. If you believe that way because of religion, that's your business, and I believe you are as wrong as those who believe that infidels and those who act in ways insulting to Allah should die. You hopefully don't kill people because of your beliefs, (I HOPE!!) but I believe that you are just as wrong...and we are both entitled to our beliefs...you believe I am wrong, too, I imagine.
How, though, does giving them the legal protections that the rest of us enjoy HURT YOU?

I've written and deleted a number of paragraphs a number of times here....I'll just stop writing. Love your brothers and sisters, no matter if you disagree with them. Equal rights for all.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and my opinion is worth approximately the same amount as Ms. California. Well, maybe less because she's pretty cute. Or, maybe more because of the legal education and practice that has not in any way impacted the purely emotional response above.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

YUCK! Share a drinking fountain with whitey? NO THANK YOU!


Besides the laws assisting in the generation of families, besides the rights having to do with property, medical decision making and being otherwise recognized by the state, the gays I know and love have spent a bit of time talking about the issue. I think I can sum up my opinions pretty clearly.
They want to be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Whether they have a "need" for those rights should be inconsequential. They love each other, many have children, they are FAMILIES whether the law so agrees or not. WHy should they not be treated the same.
How does calling THEIR relationship a MARRIAGE in ANY WAY redefine YOURS? My marriage is still defined as a man (me) and a woman (my wife). This so-called redefinition does not, in any way, make MINE a gay-marriage. If it did, I would probably dress better and throw WAY cooler parties.
Giving other people rights does not make the world a worse place. If you believe gay behavior is wrong, that's your business. I believe that you are wrong in that opinion. If you believe that way because of religion, that's your business, and I believe you are as wrong as those who believe that infidels and those who act in ways insulting to Allah should die. You hopefully don't kill people because of your beliefs, (I HOPE!!) but I believe that you are just as wrong...and we are both entitled to our beliefs...you believe I am wrong, too, I imagine.
How, though, does giving them the legal protections that the rest of us enjoy HURT YOU?

I've written and deleted a number of paragraphs a number of times here....I'll just stop writing. Love your brothers and sisters, no matter if you disagree with them. Equal rights for all.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and my opinion is worth approximately the same amount as Ms. California. Well, maybe less because she's pretty cute. Or, maybe more because of the legal education and practice that has not in any way impacted the purely emotional response above.

You seem to be making many unjustified assumptions about how I think. Maybe you should calm down and re-read exactly what I wrote.

I'm all in favour of homosexuals having the various rights (other than financial ones relevant to procreation.) I just don't see why those rights should be tied to marriage.

Would it not have been more sensible to separate the rights from the institution of marriage, and assign them to a nominated relationship, rather than extend the concept of marriage?

To a large extent, wasn't that being done already before they legalised same-sex marriages?

Redefining the concept of marriage was an unnecessary change. And I can't help but feel that gay people getting married are missing the point. It doesn't make them any more "normal", and it won't stop them being discriminated against by bigots.

(Before anyone gets all worked up, I put quotes around "normal" for a reason, I'm not calling gay people abnormal.)

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, to me it seems that the problem stems mostly from one side wanting to enforce their view on the other side. It seems reasonable to me that everybody can decide on their own marriage and likewise leave others decide on theirs.

That's what I thought was the problem with her answer, but of course she's there because she's pretty. Of course there's nothing wrong with being intolerant, but that tends to irk the people your actions you do not approve and there's some speculation it has cost her the crown. Beauty as we all know is in addition to being in the eye of the beholder is also fleeting.
I don't see anything special, just the business as usual, some people feel they need to extract political dividends from everything.

Actually it seems to come from BOTH sides wanting to force their view on the other side.

Over here if a civil servant refuses to marry a same sex couple because of religious convictions they can be fired.

How's that for not forcing your beliefs on the other party?