You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: The Miss California controversy
If she stated that she "didn't believe white people should marry blacks" she would still be entitled to her opinion, however this would certainly cast her in a different light. The color of your skin has NOTHING to do with a natural act, therefore she would be basing her opinion on nothing more than race.
The fact is she was talking about being against legalizing gay marriage, not crusading to persecute the gay community.
Well some people would feel that she is persecuting the gay community by being against them having equal rights.
If a person can't defend their religious beliefs when ASKED, what is the point of freedom of religion and free speach?
No one took her right to say what she did, but at the same time people have the right to speak out against what she said. I think too much was made out of what she said, but she hasn't been denied her rights.
Also if the state legalizes gay marriage under the very religion that condemns homosexuality then don't we have a HUGE problem in the seperation of church and state?
Could you clarify what you mean with the statement "if the state legalizes gay marriage under the very religion that condemns homosexuality?" I don't understand what you mean. I'm a little slow. 
Absolutely, things are very rarely black and white. The more I have grown the more I have seen life is most often "grey". In the end sexuality is STILL a choice however. There are many children who grow up under parents who smoke for instance. Many of these children are "genetically predisposed" to smoke. Still yet many choose not to. It's a CHOICE.
Sorry I don't believe that.
Noone is born sexual, period.
Really this isn't the argument I am trying to get in however. I'm simply saying I do NOT support gay MARRIAGE. Simple as that. Outside of this I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with those who choose this lifestyle. It's not my choice. Just don't try to "validate" the choice by having the state force the church to bend their beliefs in order to do so. Simple as that.
I don't support bashing nor discrimination. I simply think a person's choice is nothing more than that...a choice. This does not give that group of people the right to make it "acceptable" to a religion that denounces the act, by having a law enforce it. I mean no harm nor disrespect to any person of gay orientation...I am just very fearful toward the idea of giving the state this much power. That is my reasoning. It's not to hurt anyone in the gay community it's to protect the seperation that still exists between church and state.
I think the seperation can still exist. I am not sure how they do it in the states that have been legalizing it, but I don't think they would force churches to bend their beliefs when they legalize gay marriage. I think churches would have the chpice whether they choose to marry gay couples or not, but gays would have the freedom to get married at places like city hall which is not connected to the church.
Re: The Miss California controversy
If she stated that she "didn't believe white people should marry blacks" she would still be entitled to her opinion, however this would certainly cast her in a different light. The color of your skin has NOTHING to do with a natural act, therefore she would be basing her opinion on nothing more than race.
That's assuming it's a choice.
If a person can't defend their religious beliefs when ASKED, what is the point of freedom of religion and free speach?
True, and I totally agree with you that she has a right to her opinion. But freedom of speech and freedom of religion does not give you freedom of judgment. The court of public opinion is still open 24/7, and they are going to dissect every word you say, some will agree, some will disagree. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
She gave her opinion, and alot of people didn't like what they heard. That's life.
Also if the state legalizes gay marriage under the very religion that condemns homosexuality then don't we have a HUGE problem in the seperation of church and state?
Interesting point, but marriage I think is a union that has kind of transcended the church and a Christian tradition, and kind of become a cultural thing in alot of places in the world, seperated from religion. And that's where the problem lies. There's alot of atheists that want to be married with kids one day.
But if you have a problem with seperation of church and state, that's fine. They need to make all marriage null and void in the U.S., because it's a religious thing, and we need to support seperation of church and state.
It seems these rules and ideas only seem to pop up with gays. No one really had an issue before that.
Absolutely, things are very rarely black and white. The more I have grown the more I have seen life is most often "grey". In the end sexuality is STILL a choice however. There are many children who grow up under parents who smoke for instance. Many of these children are "genetically predisposed" to smoke. Still yet many choose not to. It's a CHOICE.
Once again, that argument falls flat, because sexuality is a built-in ANIMAL thing, that all creatures have either for reproductive purposes, sexual arousal or both.
Smoking tobacco is simply a man-made idea and vice. All creatures have sex, and at least humans and dolphins to my knowledge, have sex for fun. It's a natural built in thing from birth.
Noone is born sexual, period.
That's your opinion.
Here's another opinion.
In 1905, Freud proposed that there is a normal sequence of development through a series of what he called 'psychosexual stages'. Each stage focuses on a different sexually excitable zone of the body. The way the child learns to fulfill the sexual desires associated with each stage becomes an important component of the child's sexual development.
During the 'oral stage' (0 to 18 months) the main source of pleasure for the infant is the stimulation of the mouth and lips. This stage is divided into two phases. The first is the oral-passive, in which pleasurable feelings come from nursing or eating. In the second phase, called oral-aggressive, pleasure is derived from gumming and biting anything in the infant can get into it's mouth.
Granted it's a theory, and doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality. But to say no one is born sexual... well, some disagree with you.
Really this isn't the argument I am trying to get in however. I'm simply saying I do NOT support gay MARRIAGE. Simple as that. Outside of this I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with those who choose this lifestyle. It's not my choice. Just don't try to "validate" the choice by having the state force the church to bend their beliefs in order to do so. Simple as that.
Problem is, marriage has transcended church and religion, and have become a legal and financial matter in the U.S. Last time I checked, the church doesn't have an exclusivity doctrine saying "marriage is ours sayeth the Lord". You don't support gay marriage, you don't support it. That's fine, that's your choice.
But at the same time, you can't say you don't have anything against gays, and you don't interfere with their lives. If you don't vote or picket against them, then cool. But everytime you or anyone else walks into a voting booth, and votes 'yes' on some amendment or proposition in a state to "keep marriage and/or civil unions between a man and woman".
You're interfering with their lives. Period.
I don't support bashing nor discrimination. I simply think a person's choice is nothing more than that...a choice. This does not give that group of people the right to make it "acceptable" to a religion that denounces the act, by having a law enforce it.
Like I said earlier, freedom of religion ends when it impedes or interferes with the law.
That's my opinion. Just like polygomists. If you're fucking your 11 year old daughter, because your religion is cool with it... that's when your religion ends, and a couple buddies named Smith & Wesson step in to disagree with a religion, gravely.
I mean no harm nor disrespect to any person of gay orientation...I am just very fearful toward the idea of giving the state this much power.
They already have that much power. Already. Just because "the people" make it so, doesn't make it right. The people also voted slavery to be right, as well as forcing Indians off their land, putting them on a reservation, then kicking them off the reservation (that's what Jackson did initially, and everyone was fine with it).
So just because "the people" decide doesn't make it right. States already have the power to deny people civil rights. My state (FL) has banned same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and also gays can't adopt either.
In other words, just stay down in Key West, and away from us.
That is my reasoning. It's not to hurt anyone in the gay community it's to protect the seperation that still exists between church and state.
Like I said earlier, then all heterosexual marriages need to be nulled and voided to achieve that.
Your picking and choosing.
