Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how. - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:53 AM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

Its not so much that homosexuals want to get married, but here's the biggest deal for them: They want society, churches, and Johnny next door to be FORCED by law to recognize their deviant-sinful behaviour as legitimate, normal behaviour. Not just tolerate them, but be forced to embrace it and celebrate it as cute.

Progressive-thinking mommys and daddys might find themselves the parent of a little emo-homosexual, but have to put on a desparate housewives smile mask, and celebrate the reality that their little son-daughter can't grasp the most basic two-piece puzzle ever. After all, what would the other progressive-thinkers on Wysteria lane think if they ostracized their little homosexual offspring?









Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:15 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

bk3k wrote:

If marriage is exclusively a religious institutions, then why do Atheists get married? Why is there no outcry when they do? Why is there no outcry if I got married and divorced within HOURS of meeting a (opposite sex) hooker in Vegas?

Marriage is a matter of legal status always, and only sometimes a religious thing as well. If you want it religious only, then the government should remove all legal changes as opposed to people just dating - including tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc for all married people. THEN and only then is it a purely religious thing. No, marriage has existed in every culture since the dawn of mankind, despite the religion or lack thereof(USSR and China come to mind... they still marry). Get over that silly notion.

It was started as a religious institution. Just because it was adopted as a legal status by the government doesn't make it a legal institution.
Hey Quik, I'm interested to hear your response to this part...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:10 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

Sundownfire said "They arent ungodly immoral people. They probably have lived a more Christian life..." I'm assuming that you likely go to some unitarian-type church with a "pastor" named Janet.

As far as them not being ungodly and being such mora folks....well....read Romans chapter 1 and get back to me.


Why do we believe it is wrong to lie? Why do we believe it is wrong to cheat on your wife? Why do we believe it is wrong to be disrespectful to one's parents? Why do we believe it is wrong to steal?

Is it in our nature as human beings to be generous to each other, or is it natural to be greedy and selfish?

Does a child have to be taught to lie....or must he be taught to be honest?

Why should a husband love his wife and be devoted to her needs?

.


If you were to read my post again. I never said they were perfect Chirstians. I said they serve the community and give back more to the church than most people in my church. That is part of the Christian lifestyle.

And just to let you know I do not attend church anymore but its a United Church of Christ. I dont see how mocking anyones religion is going to help make youre point. But please continue to to make yourself look more ignorant. Theres many interpretations of the Bible and just because someone doesnt believe in yours doesnt mean its wrong.

I also dont understand where youre rant comes from really. Many gay people repsect their partner more than heteros respect their spouses. Being gay doesnt make you evil.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:12 PM on j-body.org
Didn't actually mock your religion....I merely hypothesised that it was a unitarian-type church (correct) with a "pastor" named Janet. (still up in the air)

No one's perfect..of course. But pastor Janet would be relegated to giving inspirational talks on being kind, and helping the poor......because actually teaching chapter by chapter would cause you to run into romans 1. And that would be inconvenient. UNLESS, you "interpret" it the way you'd like it to read, instead of what it actually says.....then you'd be in the clear. Nothing quite like a buffet style bible/church. "I'll have a little of this, a scoop of that, and little of.....whoah! That doesn't agree with me, no thanks....yes, here's a nice fuzzy story, I'll take that....
.



“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:31 PM on j-body.org
Scott, since you are so fond of quoting the bible, try Matthew 7.








“Please do not be cynical. I hate cynicism. Nobody gets in life exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard, and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.” Conan O'Brien

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:35 PM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:

bk3k wrote:

If marriage is exclusively a religious institutions, then why do Atheists get married? Why is there no outcry when they do? Why is there no outcry if I got married and divorced within HOURS of meeting a (opposite sex) hooker in Vegas?

Marriage is a matter of legal status always, and only sometimes a religious thing as well. If you want it religious only, then the government should remove all legal changes as opposed to people just dating - including tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc for all married people. THEN and only then is it a purely religious thing. No, marriage has existed in every culture since the dawn of mankind, despite the religion or lack thereof(USSR and China come to mind... they still marry). Get over that silly notion.

It was started as a religious institution. Just because it was adopted as a legal status by the government doesn't make it a legal institution.
Hey Quik, I'm interested to hear your response to this part...

Why is there no outcry? I can't answer that, but in my opinion, that should be considered a civil union as well.
The reason you probably will never hear a debate about this is because it is still following the original intent of the term.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:20 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

bk3k wrote:

If marriage is exclusively a religious institutions, then why do Atheists get married? Why is there no outcry when they do? Why is there no outcry if I got married and divorced within HOURS of meeting a (opposite sex) hooker in Vegas?

Marriage is a matter of legal status always, and only sometimes a religious thing as well. If you want it religious only, then the government should remove all legal changes as opposed to people just dating - including tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc for all married people. THEN and only then is it a purely religious thing. No, marriage has existed in every culture since the dawn of mankind, despite the religion or lack thereof(USSR and China come to mind... they still marry). Get over that silly notion.

It was started as a religious institution. Just because it was adopted as a legal status by the government doesn't make it a legal institution.
Marriage means different things to different people. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quiklilcav wrote:

bk3k wrote:

I'd like to know where we get into this "forcing churches to marry gay people" arguments in the first place? I think a church(much like a business) has full right to refuse any wedding for any reason at any time. They can tell Steve and Charles to go to the courthouse down the street and let the secular judge marry them. The problem with this is...what?! Seriously, you'd think someone was putting a gun to the pastor's head. Get real.

My point was that they are currently debating a ruling that will require all schools to teach same sex marriage as normal, including religious schools who do not agree with it. In other words, forcing their view on everyone.
That wasn't so much directed at your statements as much as anyone who thinks that their local pastor is gonna be forced into wedding a gay couple against his wishes. That comes up quite a bit in these discussions.

I think gay people ARE as normal as anyone... if anyone really truly qualifies as "normal" anyways. However, I'd agree with you on the point that no religious institution should be forced to teach as much. I don't think schools really should either. Schools should remain completely neutral on the subject... just stick to the facts and leave the opinions out of it. Its called education not indoctrination and all subject matter should be treated as accordingly. I don't think you'll argue much with me on that. Probably...

Quiklilcav wrote:

Your argument that the lower incomes spend more money than the upper incomes because they spend a higher percentage of their income is ludicrous, and a simple math lesson for you will spell it out:

Someone who is poor, and only has a household income of $30,000 a year, but spends all of it, spends $30,000 per year.

Someone who is "rich", and has a household income of $250,000, but only spends 20% of it, spends $50,000 per year.

This excludes the fact that the house they live in counts as spending money. The more expensive car they drive counts as spending money. The list is endless, but the basic example spells it out pretty clear. Your notion that a flat tax rate is unfair is so far off base it's laughable. The fact that so many people see an equal percentage as unfair is a tribute to the job of creating class envy and warfare from the left. You can't argue that when someone who makes $250,000 a year pays 20% of that, or $50,000, that they didn't pay enough, because the person who earned $30,000 had to pay $6,000. I'm tired of hearing that the people who make that much money still get to keep more in actual dollars, so it's unfair. That is the most socialist view ever. People should be allowed to keep most of the money that they earn. That is what drives people to make more money, which drives the economy.
I never quite said they spend more, my main point was that because they spend a greater percentage of their income, they would in fact be TAXED on a greater percentage of their income than would high income households under "fair tax." Lets see you argue me wrong on this one...

Also, I'll take your math lesson, and return it in kind, thank you. I'll even use your example. The $250,000 household likely DOES spend more on a per household basis(I never actually argued that they didn't), but when you are talking about either allocating stimulus dollars or setting tax rates, this affect all households... not just two example families. That $250,000 and up household is outnumbered in the US 50:1. The spending of the lower income household - although lower - is multiplied my the overwhelming number of them. Do I REALLY need to do that kind of overwhelming math for you? Lets do it anyways.

Lets use your 20% figure. The first group is the 2% of families that earned $250,000 or more. The second group is the other 98%. Lets give a 5% tax break/stimulus check to both groups. We'll go with your $250.000 families and your $30,000 families(100 families total to keep the math simple). I know its not completely accurate average of American families but this is an example - the one you used. The $250,000 families are gonna get $12,500 out of the deal and the $30,000 families are gonna get $1,500. Multiply the first by 2(2% of families) and the second by 98(98% of families). You get $25,000 and $147,000 respectively. And as you admit, the higher income family will not spend 100% of that, and the lower income family will. You tell me which bracket can get the stimulus check to have the greatest economic impact? This should be VERY obvious... even to you. Or perhaps somehow you think that much less than 100% of $25,000 is > about 100% of $147,000?

The very fact(which you acknowledged as true) that higher income families spend a lower percentage of their income - that basically runs contrary to your "trickle down" theories. Quite simply - It is less efficient. On the other hand, giving money to those who spend pretty much 100% of their income is much more efficient and in the end will find its way into the hands of the wealthy anyways(since they tend to own the businesses that the money is spent at). And if that money is out there to be spent, jobs must be created to collect it. A rising tide raises all ships.

No doubt you prefer your "fair tax" - it lifts a huge amount of the tax burden off of the wealthy only to place the burden down lower to those who can least afford additional taxes. That is what its really all about. You can call it "fair" or whatever you want, but the bottom line remains the same. No amount of calling me an idiot can change the truth. However, I suspect that won't stop you... Carry on.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:09 AM on j-body.org
TheSundownFire wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:

Sundownfire said "They arent ungodly immoral people. They probably have lived a more Christian life..." I'm assuming that you likely go to some unitarian-type church with a "pastor" named Janet.

As far as them not being ungodly and being such mora folks....well....read Romans chapter 1 and get back to me.


Why do we believe it is wrong to lie? Why do we believe it is wrong to cheat on your wife? Why do we believe it is wrong to be disrespectful to one's parents? Why do we believe it is wrong to steal?

Is it in our nature as human beings to be generous to each other, or is it natural to be greedy and selfish?

Does a child have to be taught to lie....or must he be taught to be honest?

Why should a husband love his wife and be devoted to her needs?

.


If you were to read my post again. I never said they were perfect Chirstians. I said they serve the community and give back more to the church than most people in my church. That is part of the Christian lifestyle.

And just to let you know I do not attend church anymore but its a United Church of Christ. I dont see how mocking anyones religion is going to help make youre point. But please continue to to make yourself look more ignorant. Theres many interpretations of the Bible and just because someone doesnt believe in yours doesnt mean its wrong.

I also dont understand where youre rant comes from really. Many gay people repsect their partner more than heteros respect their spouses. Being gay doesnt make you evil.


I agree.


-Markus
2002 Yellow Cavalier LS Sport
Check it out! --> Flickr

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:24 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

I never quite said they spend more, my main point was that because they spend a greater percentage of their income, they would in fact be TAXED on a greater percentage of their income than would high income households under "fair tax." Lets see you argue me wrong on this one...

OK, we're talking about different flat taxes. I believe it should still be an income tax, but the same percentage across the board. You're talking about the sales tax only.
bk3k wrote:

Also, I'll take your math lesson, and return it in kind, thank you. I'll even use your example. The $250,000 household likely DOES spend more on a per household basis(I never actually argued that they didn't), but when you are talking about either allocating stimulus dollars or setting tax rates, this affect all households... not just two example families. That $250,000 and up household is outnumbered in the US 50:1. The spending of the lower income household - although lower - is multiplied my the overwhelming number of them. Do I REALLY need to do that kind of overwhelming math for you? Lets do it anyways.

Lets use your 20% figure. The first group is the 2% of families that earned $250,000 or more. The second group is the other 98%. Lets give a 5% tax break/stimulus check to both groups. We'll go with your $250.000 families and your $30,000 families(100 families total to keep the math simple). I know its not completely accurate average of American families but this is an example - the one you used. The $250,000 families are gonna get $12,500 out of the deal and the $30,000 families are gonna get $1,500. Multiply the first by 2(2% of families) and the second by 98(98% of families). You get $25,000 and $147,000 respectively. And as you admit, the higher income family will not spend 100% of that, and the lower income family will. You tell me which bracket can get the stimulus check to have the greatest economic impact? This should be VERY obvious... even to you. Or perhaps somehow you think that much less than 100% of $25,000 is > about 100% of $147,000?

The very fact(which you acknowledged as true) that higher income families spend a lower percentage of their income - that basically runs contrary to your "trickle down" theories. Quite simply - It is less efficient. On the other hand, giving money to those who spend pretty much 100% of their income is much more efficient and in the end will find its way into the hands of the wealthy anyways(since they tend to own the businesses that the money is spent at). And if that money is out there to be spent, jobs must be created to collect it. A rising tide raises all ships.

No doubt you prefer your "fair tax" - it lifts a huge amount of the tax burden off of the wealthy only to place the burden down lower to those who can least afford additional taxes. That is what its really all about. You can call it "fair" or whatever you want, but the bottom line remains the same. No amount of calling me an idiot can change the truth. However, I suspect that won't stop you... Carry on.

The thing about the punitive tax codes which tax people a higher percentage for making more money, is that it begins to diminish incentive to make more. While your rebate example makes sense, it's missing this point of incentive. I was posting that example as a response to your statement which sounded like you were saying lower income people should keep more because they would spend more of it. Also, I would wager that in the case of a rebate, even the people of higher income would spend most or all of it. Even though they spend a lower percentage of their income in general, something like this usually gets spent, because they budget their money, and this is spending money they hadn't counted on. The other thing that you're forgetting is that a good portion of those people making $250+ are small business owners who are set up as an LLC or partnership, so when you increase their tax, you're hurting a business, which means potential to harm the smaller people, because they may work for these small businesses, which will be forced to cut back.

All this aside, the whole idea of a stimulus check has never worked. Bush did it twice, and it didn't do sh!t. The only thing he did that worked, as it did in the 80's, was marginal tax rate cuts, and increases in exemptions and deductions, thereby lowering the tax rates for the majority of americans. In 2003, my taxes when down, because the exemption was increased, and the child tax credit was increased. At the time, I was earning money that would put me in the lower middle class. This shows you that it did not favor the rich, and ignore the middle class, as Obama campaigned on, and continues to campaign on (you'd think the election hadn't happened yet if you hear some of his recent speeches). The flat rate income tax would be far more fair. With or without basic deductions, it would work better than anything we have ever had. In February, the Republicans proposed a tax bill that would come close, making two brackets: under $100K, and over $100K. Everything up to $100K would be 10%, and everything over it would be 25%. That would mean that the poor, and most of the middle class, would pay only 10%. I find that highly fair. However, it was voted down by a party line vote.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:35 PM on j-body.org
Stimulus checks as well as the earned income credit, are forms of welfare for many. No way someone paying out $2000 per year in federal taxes, should get back $3500 tax refund.....then a "stimulus" check for another $1000. That may be a welfare baby's momma dream, but it is still stealing money from one group and giving it to another.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:29 PM on j-body.org
Ill agree with that. Just gives people who already arent working a chance to live beyond their means.




Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:43 PM on j-body.org
@!#$. I'm gonna start my own country free of religion and taxes, who's with me?



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:53 PM on j-body.org
Id live there. Except for the complete lack of values and economy



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:59 PM on j-body.org
Don't have sex with animals, there's your values. Place our country near an oil well, theres our economy.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 7:19 PM on j-body.org
mctoad wrote:

Don't have sex with animals, there's your values. Place our country near an oil well, theres our economy.


Sweet, cousins are fair game!!!!!

just thought this thread needed some comedy.



Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 7:28 PM on j-body.org
Alex Richards wrote:

mctoad wrote:

Don't have sex with animals, there's your values. Place our country near an oil well, theres our economy.


Sweet, cousins are fair game!!!!!

just thought this thread needed some comedy.


Now our country is very appealing to ScottaWhite



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:08 PM on j-body.org
Back on topic - Miss California lost because she's a dumbass and looked as much. Have you watched her answer? She certainly didn't appear to be giving a confident well thought out answer. She looked like a bumbling idiot who wasn't comfortable with her own beliefs.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Monday, April 27, 2009 5:09 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

So in the four states that have recognized gay marriage, you can show me right where the law states that Catholic schools have to teach that gay marriage is OK?

It has nothing to do with the states who have legalized gay marriage, but it is a new spin off of it being debated. Remember, there is now only one state which has actually passed legislation to legalize gay marriage. The other 3 have done so as a result of a judicial case. Now that the movement is gaining momentum, legislation is being expanded to include other facets of the argument.

And the proof of this is where?



Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

In a country where their is freedom of religion, non-religious people should not have religion shoved down their throats. Why is it ok for the evangelical right to say gay marriage is bad, fight it tooth and nail and at the same time say their religions freedom is being taken away when it is allowed? What about the religious freedom of gay people, seems to me their religious freedom was taken away when gay marriage was not recognized by the government. So as long as we follow what you believe everything is ok? You said "you still have to accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs", as long as your not a gay who wants to marry your partner right? Because since they are gay they deserve to be discriminated against?

Wow you are so off base here it's rediculous.


Way off base because my opinion is different than yours? By the way it is ridiculous not rediculous.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Are you aware that marriage is a religious institution? That was the whole point of my statement that if a religion recognizes it, then the government should as well. It's not about religious discrimination against gay people, it's about the gay people that want a religious institution that is heterosexual by design. The religious discrimination of the government comes into play when they want to force a religion to adopt things that go against their beliefs.


Marriage is not a religious institution in my eyes. Like was stated before people who are not at all religious and sometimes don't believe in God at all get married and no one says a word about it. That is just another shining example of the rights hypocrisy. Marriage to the government is nothing more than a tax break, as it should be due to the "separation of church and state. Marriage has not been and never will be recognized by the government as a religious institution only, find where the government has taken an official stance and made a statement that says otherwise.




KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Monday, April 27, 2009 6:49 PM on j-body.org
I can go to the county court and get myself married by a secular judge. Sounds like a govt institution to me.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Monday, April 27, 2009 8:07 PM on j-body.org
shiZblam,

She bumbled, yes. Was it pure coincidence that Miss California, who the judges (including perez) knew attended a Christian college, in California, was given a hand-grenade question like she was? And to top it off, was it by chance that the raving-homosexual judge was the one to ask the question?

In the Gospels, we see Peter denying that he knew Jesus, even going so far as to curse to make it more convincing. This is coming from a guy who had walked with Jesus personally, + knew him better than most anyone else at the time.

So give this early-twenties beauty pageant gal a break for not pulling off a Daniel Websteresque response to a loaded question like she was given. The fact that she gave an answer that was true to her beliefs, knowing it was costing her the contest, says more about her character than most people I know, myself included.

(lets not forget her opponent....what's her name....got a freeby about big corporations and bailouts, so consider the level of difficulty.......like in diving)

Lets say someone hate Christians, "organized religion", and deny the existance of God, and are a greeny-rainbow...... even those people, if they were being fair + honest would applaud her for being true to herself.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:08 AM on j-body.org
Pure coincidence? I don't know... I don't really care - it's a stupid beauty pageant. As for having a gay judge ask the question... isn't that who should ask the question? I mean... it is a @!#$ beauty pageant... it's where he accels and gay rights are in his personal interest.

I don't think people should be given a free pass for being bigoted because their religion tells them to do so. You're accusing the judges of being exactly what she is... a bigoted idiot.

As for being true to herself, I definitely have to give her credit for that. She is a hell of a follower.

I'm curious, do you think she should have won for being honest - even though she could barely form competent sentences?





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:18 AM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

Marriage is not a religious institution in my eyes. Like was stated before people who are not at all religious, and sometimes don't believe in God at all, get married and no one says a word about it. That is just another shining example of the right's hypocrisy. Marriage to the government is nothing more than a tax break, as it should be due to the "separation of church and state." Marriage has not been, and never will be, recognized by the government as a religious institution only. Find where the government has taken an official stance and made a statement that says otherwise.

If you're going to correct someone's post for spelling or grammar, you'd better make sure your post is perfect.

The government has not taken an official stance on it because until they started trying to change the basic premise for the institution, no one really bothered with it. You may see that come about at some point in the debates over the new laws, but again, when the government started doing secular marriages, they weren't changing the basic design of it, which is why there were no complaints.

As for why your other statement was so off base, it's because you can't force a religion to change to fit someone else's beliefs. Yes, gay people have freedom of religion, but if the religion of their choice doesn't recognize same sex marriage, and they strongly disagree with it, they have the freedom to leave that religion and chose another one. You can't chose to be part of something, and then demand that it changes to fit you. Nor can you compel someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. However, that is what is being done in more ways than this gay marriage argument.

As for proof of the movement being expanded, I can't find where I was reading it, but if you google "Connecticut forcing schools to teach gay marriage", you should be able to find it. I just don't feel like searching for it at the moment. There is a proposal in that state that will mandate all schools, even ones of religious basis, to teach same-sex marriage. This is not freedom of religion, it is the government dictating beliefs.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:19 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

Marriage is not a religious institution in my eyes. Like was stated before people who are not at all religious, and sometimes don't believe in God at all, get married and no one says a word about it. That is just another shining example of the right's hypocrisy. Marriage to the government is nothing more than a tax break, as it should be due to the "separation of church and state." Marriage has not been, and never will be, recognized by the government as a religious institution only. Find where the government has taken an official stance and made a statement that says otherwise.

If you're going to correct someone's post for spelling or grammar, you'd better make sure your post is perfect.


I didn't correct your grammar, only your spelling. I just thought it was ironic that you didn't spell ridiculous correctly and got a chuckle out of it.. Hell I know my grammar sucks.

Quiklilcav wrote:

The government has not taken an official stance on it because until they started trying to change the basic premise for the institution, no one really bothered with it. You may see that come about at some point in the debates over the new laws, but again, when the government started doing secular marriages, they weren't changing the basic design of it, which is why there were no complaints.

As for why your other statement was so off base, it's because you can't force a religion to change to fit someone else's beliefs. Yes, gay people have freedom of religion, but if the religion of their choice doesn't recognize same sex marriage, and they strongly disagree with it, they have the freedom to leave that religion and chose another one. You can't chose to be part of something, and then demand that it changes to fit you. Nor can you compel someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. However, that is what is being done in more ways than this gay marriage argument.
[/qote]

No one is forcing religion to change, no one is forcing christianity to admit gays to their religion. It is not a matter of weather the church recognizes a same sex marriage, it is a matter of the government recognizing it. Last i checked you do not go to the local christian church to get your marriage licence, nir do you have to be married in a church for a wedding to be legal. It is a government based instatution. If only chritians got married and those marriages were the only ones recognized by the government you would have an argument. That is not how it works, Jews, Muslums, Hindus, Athiests and Agnostics (and on and on and on) get married in this country everyday and no one says a word. What makes gays getting married any different?

Quiklilcav wrote:

As for proof of the movement being expanded, I can't find where I was reading it, but if you google "Connecticut forcing schools to teach gay marriage", you should be able to find it. I just don't feel like searching for it at the moment. There is a proposal in that state that will mandate all schools, even ones of religious basis, to teach same-sex marriage. This is not freedom of religion, it is the government dictating beliefs.


I have not read the story yet, I will here in a few. I do not see what is wrong with teaching tolerance in school. You make it sound like they are teaching that gay marriage is the only way to go. Even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, public schools do not have the right to say the same thing, and on the other hand they do not have a right to promote it. But if they say you know it is your choice and do what you want, and if you see two men married walking down the street holding hands that is ok, it is their choice. If you see a man and a woman married walking down the street holding hands that is ok too, it is their choice. I am fine with that. We need to be allot more tolerant in this country, of other people and ideals, even if they conflict with their own.





KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:34 AM on j-body.org
See, look at that I can't even spell "quote" right. LOL

Ok, found the article and read it. They are not teaching that you have to be gay and marry a person who is the same sex. They have to say that it is normal and it is your choice, which is true, what is so wrong about that? If they can say getting married is normal, why can't they say the same thing about gay marriage?


Here is a link to the article for everyone elses reading pleasure. http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/17432

Here are a bunch of editorials in response to the fear mongering the Right Wing has done to stop gay marriage. http://www.connpost.com/letters/ci_12185039

I just don't understand why the Religious Right thinks they have the right to try to force their beliefs on other people. Not only do they try to force their beliefs on other people they happily discriminate and preach fear and hate while doing so, which completely goes against the ideals our country was based upon. "All men are created equal" and "the pursuit of happiness" means nothing to them I guess.


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:24 AM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

shiZblam,

She bumbled, yes. Was it pure coincidence that Miss California, who the judges (including perez) knew attended a Christian college, in California, was given a hand-grenade question like she was? And to top it off, was it by chance that the raving-homosexual judge was the one to ask the question?

In the Gospels, we see Peter denying that he knew Jesus, even going so far as to curse to make it more convincing. This is coming from a guy who had walked with Jesus personally, + knew him better than most anyone else at the time.

So give this early-twenties beauty pageant gal a break for not pulling off a Daniel Websteresque response to a loaded question like she was given. The fact that she gave an answer that was true to her beliefs, knowing it was costing her the contest, says more about her character than most people I know, myself included.

(lets not forget her opponent....what's her name....got a freeby about big corporations and bailouts, so consider the level of difficulty.......like in diving)

Lets say someone hate Christians, "organized religion", and deny the existance of God, and are a greeny-rainbow...... even those people, if they were being fair + honest would applaud her for being true to herself.

.


If she was so sure of herself then why would she stumble one her answer. Even if it was loaded and she was deifinite in her beliefs she would have no problem answering it truely and not hesitating about it. She almost gave up on her beliefs to win the pagent and you know it.



Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search