Miss California

[Duke{CLR}]

I love how there was an attempt to smear this lady and she still comes out swinging and in the end average people can plainly see the lack of tolerance from leftist elitist. This reminds me of the saying "don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer".


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

[Skud]

Well, if she still believes marriage is between a man and a woman, I guess I'll marry her. :D

[Duke{CLR}]

Well, if she still believes marriage is between a man and a woman, I guess I'll marry her. :D

Get in line Skud if this Triad marriage thing takes off I may have a shot. :D

[BigTwinky]

Why do we even care what a beauty pageant contestant thinks? I guess we should just as much as anyone else, but really, no more than that.

The whole Miss USA, Miss World, Miss Whatever is just a load of BS. I still can't believe that in this day and age, with major issues like bulemia and anorexia affecting kids as young as 5, we have contests like this.

So I repeat, why do we even care what she thinks?

[Hammy]

Why do we even care what a beauty pageant contestant thinks? I guess we should just as much as anyone else, but really, no more than that.

The whole Miss USA, Miss World, Miss Whatever is just a load of BS. I still can't believe that in this day and age, with major issues like bulemia and anorexia affecting kids as young as 5, we have contests like this.

So I repeat, why do we even care what she thinks?

Not directed at BT, but his post inadvertantly provides an indirect example re: the Intolerant tolerants!

Seriously- if it's okay for someone to discuss same sex marriage, something I find offensive, then it should be okay for someone to discuss not supporting same sex marriage.

I'm sorry but the reality in conflict is that there is an equality torch being carried by openly gay people that attacks people who will not agree with the notion (Perez Hilton and Rosie Odonnell being the two most prominent examples).

Don't tell me you want equal rights if that means you want to classify my objection as hate speech. That is just a defensive tactic that supresses free speech and guarantees that the rights of one are more important than the rights of another -- an idea that SUPPOSEDLY the people who are furiously pursuing the topic want to remedy- (inequality).

[Duke{CLR}]

BT it's been in the news down here and one of the judges asked her about marriage and she gave an honest answer. When they didn't like the answer the intolerant left tried to bring her down but today Trump stood up for her and she keeps her position.

[Hammy]

BT it's been in the news down here and one of the judges asked her about marriage and she gave an honest answer. When they didn't like the answer the intolerant left tried to bring her down but today Trump stood up for her and she keeps her position.


Mr Trump and Mr President stood up and said that she gave an "honest and honorable answer".

[Duke{CLR}]

Mr Trump and Mr President stood up and said that she gave an "honest and honorable answer".

Did the messiah really say that?

[BigTwinky]

BT it's been in the news down here and one of the judges asked her about marriage and she gave an honest answer. When they didn't like the answer the intolerant left tried to bring her down but today Trump stood up for her and she keeps her position.


Ah, thanks for that Duke. I tried the link but works seems to not like it.

My rant was totally directed at the need to have a beauty pageant, not really at what she said. :)

[Storm_Shadow]

Did the messiah really say that?
Why would a Head of State bother to comment on something like this? :scratch:
edit: something along the lines of what BT was saying.

[BigTwinky]

Not directed at BT, but his post inadvertantly provides an indirect example re: the Intolerant tolerants!

Seriously- if it's okay for someone to discuss same sex marriage, something I find offensive, then it should be okay for someone to discuss not supporting same sex marriage.

I'm sorry but the reality in conflict is that there is an equality torch being carried by openly gay people that attacks people who will not agree with the notion (Perez Hilton and Rosie Odonnell being the two most prominent examples).

Don't tell me you want equal rights if that means you want to classify my objection as hate speech. That is just a defensive tactic that supresses free speech and guarantees that the rights of one are more important than the rights of another -- an idea that SUPPOSEDLY the people who are furiously pursuing the topic want to remedy- (inequality).

My point was not about what she said, but more about the situation she was in...ie a beautry pageant and why these things are still going on today. I could care less what she says, she is just a stick figure looking pretty trying to get some fame, money and launch a modelling career. Sure, some winners turn out to actually do good for their communities and all, but I don't see this as being a driving factor for most contestants being there,

I agree with you Hammy, its ok to have view points on either side of a discussion, no flaw there. Where the flaw lies...where the words "hate speech" come into effect are usually with the intent behind the words. There is a difference being against something on a economical basis or any other basis that is somehow based in fact and an argument that is done on pure hate. I don't consider religion as being something based in fact.

I have seen intolorence from the other side of the fence where some gay people simply hate straight people because they are straight.

Telling gay people they don't have rights because they are a biblical abonimation is similar to telling black people they are an inferior race and thus don't have any rights. Or women having the right to vote. They are pretty much the same thing in my eyes.

[BigTwinky]

Why would a Head of State bother to comment on something like this? :scratch:
edit: something along the lines of what BT was saying.

I guess because still today, a beauty pageant is a popular thing and brings in enough money and gets enough exposure that the "bigger" people take notice.

Still boggles my mind though. You would think he has more pressing business than this.

[Duke{CLR}]

Telling gay people they don't have rights because they are a biblical abonimation is similar to telling black people they are an inferior race and thus don't have any rights. Or women having the right to vote. They are pretty much the same thing in my eyes.

Except that Blacks were considered less than a whole man3/8 I think. Blacks and women were not allowed to vote. It was in our laws and over the years those laws got changed. Homosexuals were never singled out to this extent so maybe there are some similarities but I think that they are on much different levels.

[Duke{CLR}]

Still boggles my mind though. You would think he has more pressing business than this.

It may have been a question asked buy a reporter to see if he would join in on the slam but as trump pointed out BHO has the same views on traditional marriage as she does.

[Storm_Shadow]

Telling gay people they don't have rights because they are a biblical abonimation is similar to telling black people they are an inferior race and thus don't have any rights.
From what I can tell, the situation in California was not really about 'rights', although it was presented that way. It has been more along the lines of legislating acceptance.

Lame analogy (purely hypothetical):
I define myself by how I view the earth. It is my deep held conviction that it really is FLAT, and not spherical like the folks of the day maintain. I have a right to believe what I believe, and to freely say what I believe.

You appear to disagree with me. Well, I don't have to circumnavigate the world if I don't want to, and you cannot make me. It's my innate right to stay at home if I so wish.

But that is not enough for me. You must accept me for what I believe regardless of what you think, and you must stop looking at me funny. If you don't stop looking at me funny and immediately accept my belief that the world is FLAT, I'm going to sue the pants off of you to MAKE you do so. And no, I don't CARE if you're an astronaut by profession
Folks have the right to live how they wish, and not be discriminated against. But you cannot make someone believe as you do by force of law. (nor should you)

[Hammy]

Telling gay people they don't have rights because they are a biblical abonimation is similar to telling black people they are an inferior race and thus don't have any rights. Or women having the right to vote. They are pretty much the same thing in my eyes.

I can understand your feelings on the topic in these terms when you inadvertantly substitute Legal with Faith. The Law is a man-made ideal, The Word, is a God giving ideal. The latter requires faith and acceptence. The Law does not.

If you don't understand the difference, then it is a difficult discussion, but it goes something like this: The law is made to keep civility through compromise. In Religion, there are rarely compromises in morality.

If you do not believe in the morality, then the rejection is mutual, because the Religious ideal rejects you as forcefully as you reject the ideal. Therefore, there is no conflict, it is an agreement to disagree- HOWEVER, it does exclude you from being considered a peer in mutual belief.

Probably not what people want to hear, but I can illustrate many examples of what substitution between Religion and Law causes in terms of confusion. It's a voluntary group, and you are invited to attend if you support the ideals, but if you reject them, then you are respectfully excluded- thats it.

[mapes]

First off

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. It's a free country and she can believe what ever she wants to....Even if I disagree with her

Second off


Hmmmm Hammy can you elaborate please..... I think I'm not getting your point and I don't want to leap to the wrong conclusion.

[Skud]

Get in line Skud if this Triad marriage thing takes off I may have a shot. :D

Fine, I'll get in line. I was hoping that simply telling her I respect her opinion would be enough to woo her, since she's getting so much heat from everyone...you know, the ally tactic...oh, I'm sure we'd argue at times...but isn't that half of marriage? Oh, she never voiced her opinion on open relationships, Duke!...could just skip the marriage...:2thumbs:

[Hammy]

First off

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. It's a free country and she can believe what ever she wants to....Even if I disagree with her

Second off


Hmmmm Hammy can you elaborate please..... I think I'm not getting your point and I don't want to leap to the wrong conclusion.

It's pretty clear. The people who have a faith reject those who are pursuing the lifestyle, just as those who pursue this way of life reject the faith.

You can jump all the way to the moon dude. Its all here in black and white.:D

[Duke{CLR}]

Fine, I'll get in line. I was hoping that simply telling her I respect her opinion would be enough to woo her, since she's getting so much heat from everyone...you know, the ally tactic...oh, I'm sure we'd argue at times...but isn't that half of marriage? Oh, she never voiced her opinion on open relationships, Duke!...could just skip the marriage...:2thumbs:

I would only do this without breaking my vows to wife #1. :D

[mapes]

It's pretty clear. The people who have a faith reject those who are pursuing the lifestyle, just as those who pursue this way of life reject the faith.

You can jump all the way to the moon dude. Its all here in black and white.:D


Well not to split hairs ok....to split hairs there are gay's that profess to be Christians

But thats beside the point I wanted elaborated. I was more intrested in this

I can understand your feelings on the topic in these terms when you inadvertantly substitute Legal with Faith. The Law is a man-made ideal, The Word, is a God giving ideal. The latter requires faith and acceptence. The Law does not.

and this

If you do not believe in the morality, then the rejection is mutual, because the Religious ideal rejects you as forcefully as you reject the ideal. Therefore, there is no conflict, it is an agreement to disagree- HOWEVER, it does exclude you from being considered a peer in mutual belief.


On the first my thought is that the law of the US of A trumps any religious law or belief

On the second are you saying that only religious people are moral? For the record I don't consider myself a moral person....I do consider myself an ethical one though

[BigTwinky]

Except that Blacks were considered less than a whole man3/8 I think. Blacks and women were not allowed to vote. It was in our laws and over the years those laws got changed. Homosexuals were never singled out to this extent so maybe there are some similarities but I think that they are on much different levels.

I agree that they are on different levels, but there are some very common points to the two. Laws can change, and I firmly believe laws should be adapted to a current society. I don't mean a yearly review of a law, but when there is such a shift in society such as women, blacks or gay gaining "social power", then the laws should be adapted.

[BigTwinky]

Well not to split hairs ok....to split hairs there are gay's that profess to be Christians


Not your main point, but I feel the need to comment on it.
I don't know any gays that profess to be christians. Mainly because of the catholic church's outcasting of gay rights, gay marriage, any gay person I can think of, while maybe having been baptized and done communion as a child, do not follow the christian faith. Doesn't mean they don't believe in A god, just not the christian god

[BigTwinky]

I would only do this without breaking my vows to wife #1. :D

Bah, move to Utah and become a polygamist... problem solved :D

[Skud]

I would only do this without breaking my vows to wife #1. :D

I know, Duke. Must be the spring air (or her strong, white teeth [remember Benny Hill?])...I got a little carried away!...as Skud's do. :oops: :twisted:

[Duke{CLR}]

LOL at Benny Hill I haven't seen that show for ages.

[mapes]

Bah, move to Utah and become a polygamist... problem solved :D


It illegal stilll.


Well not to split hairs ok....to split hairs there are gay's that profess to be Christians

Not your main point, but I feel the need to comment on it.
I don't know any gays that profess to be christians. Mainly because of the catholic church's outcasting of gay rights, gay marriage, any gay person I can think of, while maybe having been baptized and done communion as a child, do not follow the christian faith. Doesn't mean they don't believe in A god, just not the christian god


Yes there are tons in fact There is a episcopal diocese in southern CA that has gay worshipers and has no problem with it, However half of the dicoses wants to leave now ...

[Hammy]

Well not to split hairs ok....to split hairs there are gay's that profess to be Christians
That's between them and their own version of God, not me. I certainly dont condone it, which means that while I have friends and family who do this, I reject their actions and the way they live their lives.

I want them to live safe, happy lives all the same- including rights and equal benefits.

On the first my thought is that the law of the US of A trumps any religious law or belief. Great- glad you agree. Read up on some unbiased American History such as the Oxford History of the United States, and you will see that all foundations in Legality within the United States was based on the percieved universal belief in 1. A God and 2. A Moral Code in Standard based in part on Point #1. This includes the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.



On the second are you saying that only religious people are moral? For the record I don't consider myself a moral person....I do consider myself an ethical one though

I dont know what you mean by that in this discussion. If you dont believe in God, but you are moral, perhaps you believe more than you think you do and you just bought the entire Cow in terms of atheist points of view as a child because it was "cool". I cant speak for you or anyone else on that idea of morality.

You can live a good life without religion, but from what I have seen in the world today, you cant live a great life without it. There are more reasons than this that I can go into, but it's not really a conversation that I reccomend for anyone to have with people that just want to attack your ideas, so I'm certainly not going to go deep and long here. It's my view is all, and if you agree, great. If you dont, thats cool too.


Regarding this:

I can understand your feelings on the topic in these terms when you inadvertantly substitute Legal with Faith. The Law is a man-made ideal, The Word, is a God giving ideal. The latter requires faith and acceptence. The Law does not.


Laws are man made ideals that create civility through compromises. Some of those are uncomprable - such as murder and theft- others are compromises to keep the pease, such as adultry.

If you were to believe in God, which I dont think you do based on even posing the question, then you would believe that if he/she created the air we breathe and the land we walk on, then it would seem to be his/her world, and his/her rules- correct? No compromise- it is what it is.

Being that most laws are found at the inset to have fundamenal foundations in Christian law, WEstern Civilizations I am saying, there is an agreeable path that they walk- but at the same time, while it may be legal to visit a prostitute in Nevada, that doesnt mean that it is right in the eyes of my religion.

Make better sense?

One last thing to sum Law versus Religion-
Christianity only proposes punishments, but leaves it to the belief in God to mete out punishment.
Human Law includes a code and outcome via punishment that follows.
In Christianity we are judged at the end of life, if at all. That also makes the great point that the most sinful person may be judged differently than the most moral, and that it would be in the eyes of God to judge us as it will be.

[mapes]

Hmmm well I tend to disagree with your statement about living a great life. I think plenty of people who are not religious lead full and wonderful lives. In fact I would say because of religion a huge segment lead horrible lives but, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

As for the foundation of law in the western world. Most of that comes from the middle east as in the Steele of Hammurabi and the Greeks which have no connotation to Christianity ...although they do have connotations with god(s).


I do agree that our country was founded by many different religious sects and God does frequently appear in various legal and governmental documents. However there is a plethora of work that shows that the founders did not want to favor one religion over the other(mostly cause some of the christian sects were violent to each other).

I'm curious to see what you have to say about why religion makes a great life. Believe it or not I'm not attacking you I'm just curious


One more point

In Christianity we are judged at the end of life, if at all. That also makes the great point that the most sinful person may be judged differently than the most moral, and that it would be in the eyes of God to judge us as it will be.

Just on a personal note I think this just pisses me off about Christianity. You mean by that belief you could lead a sinful life and at the end fearing hell you can just recite some words and it's all better? Thats whacked...I geuss thats why I'm not religious.

[H0ly-H@nd-Gr3nade]

Just on a personal note I think this just pisses me off about Christianity. You mean by that belief you could lead a sinful life and at the end fearing hell you can just recite some words and it's all better? Thats whacked...I geuss thats why I'm not religious.


I am speaking the Catholic perspective, so I don't know about the other Christian denominations, but that is definitely not true.

After death, the majority of people enter purgatory. Unless you have lived a damn near perfect life, you aren't fit to enter the Kingdom of God yet. Purgatory is a time/place/idea where you can be purged of your sins, hopefully bringing you closer to God.

God is the ultimate judge here, and I don't find it our call (as humans) to guess where 'so and so' went after he died.

[Nomadicus]

Just on a personal note I think this just pisses me off about Christianity. You mean by that belief you could lead a sinful life and at the end fearing hell you can just recite some words and it's all better? Thats whacked...I geuss thats why I'm not religious.Fearing hell and reciting some words doesn't get it. This is my take on reading The Bible and God as I understand him: Being sincere with God, repenting, asking forgiveness, and placing Christ first above all else in life will, as you say, "make it all better." No one is required to be present (although that is fine); sincerity and honesty between that person and God are required. If that happens in the final moments of someone's life, so be it -- it is possible. I can't judge someone's salvation nor when that happens; that is between God and the person.

[Duke{CLR}]

Just on a personal note I think this just pisses me off about Christianity. You mean by that belief you could lead a sinful life and at the end fearing hell you can just recite some words and it's all better? Thats whacked...I geuss thats why I'm not religious.

Mapes I don't understand how you could be pissed because of someones beliefs, what does it matter to you what others believe? Forgiveness is a key part the being religious. If there were no forgiveness then once you screwed up then why should you stop that behavior? Forgiveness gives hope to those who have strayed.

I do agree that our country was founded by many different religious sects and God does frequently appear in various legal and governmental documents. However there is a plethora of work that shows that the founders did not want to favor one religion over the other(mostly cause some of the christian sects were violent to each other).

The book The 500 Year Leap is about how the founding documents of this country were brought about. There is no doubt that the founding fathers did not want any particular religion to be supported by the federal government. It needed to be that way because there were states that had already adopted religions and getting them all together would have been difficult. They wanted the federal government to stay out of religious matters. They did reference a Creator and "right and wrong" and they felt that there were several aspects of religion that were common to everyone. People on both sides like to cherry pick quotes from the founding fathers to try to prove things but if you look at the big picture they felt that an immoral people would end the freedoms that we all hold dear and the key to have a moral people is to have moral leaders. Read the 5000 year leap, it ties it all together. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0880801484/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=3243608517&ref=pd_sl_64cc3yc898_b

[Hammy]

I am speaking the Catholic perspective, so I don't know about the other Christian denominations, but that is definitely not true.

After death, the majority of people enter purgatory. Unless you have lived a damn near perfect life, you aren't fit to enter the Kingdom of God yet. Purgatory is a time/place/idea where you can be purged of your sins, hopefully bringing you closer to God.

God is the ultimate judge here, and I don't find it our call (as humans) to guess where 'so and so' went after he died.

Thanks Holy- thats where I was trying to go.
God determines if there is redemption, purgatory, etc., etc.

[Hammy]

Just on a personal note I think this just pisses me off about Christianity. You mean by that belief you could lead a sinful life and at the end fearing hell you can just recite some words and it's all better? Thats whacked...I geuss thats why I'm not religious.

Ever think about a person's place in life? Have you ever considered the story of Judas and his relationship with Jesus? Even if you dont have the faith, the story is remarkable.

Imagine a person's entire point in existence is to turn someone over to the Enemy, in a sense helping staple him to the cross.

Judas was paid for his actions by the Jews in the temple who led the Romans to Jesus.

Question: Does Judas go to Hell and Purgatory for his sin?

OR

Is his role commendable as purposed enablement?

This is a great example, one that we will never know the answer to, of how one man could be sinful but saved by God and forgiven for his sinful act because it was God's will and plan for the world we live in.

It's all supposition, but back to the point, God decides for me my fate, I only ask for forgiveness, repent my sins, and live the goodness of life that I can live.