Miss California and Gay marriage

[plain 12]

fair.

however when you leave that "unable to articulate" shoe on the floor - you leave room for others to fill in the blank. personally i don't think your a bigot .

I guess I can see that, kinda....

how strange (think jachut touched on it) - that many state "but i got gay friends" ; just don't want them to get married (civil union).....very similiar to the "i have black/jew/muslim - fill i the blank" friends - just don't want them over for diner....it's got a stinky smell to it.

Sure. What's missing in the second instance is the personal interaction. In my case, (and I DO support civil unions, BTW) I have been over to my gay friends' house, and I have been out drinking with them. They are fully aware of my gay marriage stance (the reasons of which are complicated). Does it hurt their feelings? Maybe. Probably. But we're still friends.

re - marriage: for those against gay marriage & the use of that term are you fine to leave it to the individuals to make that a "religious" ceremony.....or are you not satisfied to allow civil unions - but must fight that right of same sex individuals? cause that's what ms CA fancy pants is out doing right now - going to fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage....where is my barf smiley...SUSAN??

I'm not exactly certain of what you're asking. Am I ok with a gay couple having a ceremony in their church? Sure. Do I support civil unions that grant all legal rights to homosexual couples? Sure.

And Ms Cali.....she's doing her damndest to hold on to her 15 minutes of fame. Funny how nobody called her out on how crappy she answered the question (And I ain't talking about the content of the answer, either).

[luluc 6]

I'm not exactly certain of what you're asking. Am I ok with a gay couple having a ceremony in their church? Sure. Do I support civil unions that grant all legal rights to homosexual couples? Sure.).

i was more questioning those who do not share the right for a civil union let alone marriage. ie- ms CA, who now is the spokeswhore for the National Organization for Marriage. cause she's an expert and all...

ACTIVELY - working agaist the rights of same sex couples.

not sure what you don't get - i'm asking if ya'll ( who want to keep the sancitity of marriage between a man/woman ) are ok keeping that term "marriage" to yourselves & let the rest of us who don't feel the need to define our relationships in a biblical way keep it "civil" w/out legal protesting or laws needing to be passed for basic human rights.

the term marriage will be obsolete here shortly......

i'm half jewish. and this is such a non-issue w/family * friends of this faith like there is w/...fill in blank "christian denomination"

[plain 12]

i'm asking if ya'll ( who want to keep the sancitity of marriage between a man/woman ) are ok keeping that term "marriage" to yourselves & let the rest of us who don't feel the need to define our relationships in a biblical way keep it "civil" w/out legal protesting or laws needing to be passed for basic human rights.

Yup. I'm personally ok with that. No need to re-work the tired ol' Texas constitution, either.....it'd be a simple thing for the legislature to legally make civil unions state law.

[BJean 16]

Plain: "The only difference is that I was clearly stating my own personal opinion....and if anybody disagreed with me, I could totally understand that. Notice I didn't call anybody that didn't agree a "bigot" or "small-minded" or made another personal attack."

I have no idea who you're referencing, but I never called anyone here a bigot or small-minded. I merely offered up a definition straight out of Webster's Deluxe Unabridged because people were saying that the term was being misused in this thread. I think it was probably being used properly but I didn't use it myself.

When I post on a thread I merely state my own personal opinions and beliefs. That's it. I do not cite other people's writings or proclamations or newpaper or magazine articles or crap they post on politically driven websites. That's up to those of you who seem to think it somehow gives your arguments and personal opinions some merit.

So your earlier comment about me is inappropriate if you're saying that I believe I have been posting facts. I am posting opinions. I state them sometimes in such a way that they come across as factual because I often BELIEVE they are factual. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is factual - as you and others so kindly point out at every opportunity. But my style of writing and posting is my own - take it or leave it.

And plain, I am not against a citizens's right to bear arms.

keep up the good work, luluc!

[BJean 16]

And curious plain, where'd you all get your nut-ball governor?

[BJean 16]

As for the way Miss Cali articulated her answer to the gay marriage question, it was reminiscent of "somepeople don't have maps..." Pure genius. And as for her 15 minutes, you can be sure that she is being used, which suits her just fine.

[Nanook 2]

BJean,

exactly what I thought when I heard her answer too, pretty sad!

[plain 12]

Plain: "The only difference is that I was clearly stating my own personal opinion....and if anybody disagreed with me, I could totally understand that. Notice I didn't call anybody that didn't agree a "bigot" or "small-minded" or made another personal attack."

I have no idea who you're referencing, but I never called anyone here a bigot or small-minded.

I wasn't referring to you. It was a few posts above yours. I can't go back and see on this screen who exactly, but I think it was on the previous page. *edited to add- I went back and looked. It was downinsocal.

When I post on a thread I merely state my own personal opinions and beliefs. That's it. I do not cite other people's writings or proclamations or newpaper or magazine articles or crap they post on politically driven websites. That's up to those of you who seem to think it somehow gives your arguments and personal opinions some merit.

If people want to discuss political issues intelligently, then there has to be some factual input. If all you do is stick to opinion, then the whole discussion is going to turn into a "nuh-uh, yeah- huh" thing. And citing sources is the very bedrock of academia......anybody can throw out some wild, unsubstiantiated stuff and try and pass it off as "the truth". It takes a higher thinker to argue a point using facts that can be independantly verified (and here's the rub.....I know that you have a fine mind, BJean. That's why I try and goad you into digging deep for your position). Citing previous sources goes back to the most famous of early debates: Lincoln-Douglas.

Bottom line, if you don't use facts when you try and debate, you're just gonna weaken your position. If you're content to just "drive-by" post, drop an opinion and leave, that's cool too....but I'll always be able to top you if you go that route.

And plain, I am not against a citizens's right to bear arms.

Oh, I know that. You've said so before. I wasn't accusing you of that.....I wrote that as an opening volley of the whole "is marriage a constitutional right" question, like the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. I'm sure you have some opinions on that.

And curious plain, where'd you all get your nut-ball governor?

Ain't it the truth? I detest Rick Perry. I voted for Kinky Friedman (independant) last election. Strangely enough, so did my parents. There are murmurings that Kinky may run again as a democrat next time.......if so, I would be strongly tempted to vote for him (if he hasn't changed his positions drastically. You might be surprised to know that he is STRONGLY pro-gay marriage). As with every election, I'll pick the candidate I believe will best guide the principality.

[pattygreen 5]

What I don't understand is why people can't just mind their own business. How does two people of any sex getting married impact your life unless you directly know said couple?

More people need to worry about themselves than everyone else.

The changing of the term 'marriage' to mean a same sex committment and a male and female committment instead of just male and female committment like God intended will eventually lead to a change in biblical values. At one time is wasn't 'ok' to 'live together'. It was once a 'sin', like God said it was. Today it is an acceptable thing. At one time, it was wrong to have babies outside of marriage for it was a sin. Today it is acceptable. Today, we allow even single people to adopt, when it is Gods plan for every child to have 2 parents. (and, no, it's not wrong to be single and adopt, but a better way is to be married and adopt, this way the child can have 2 parents.)What I am trying to say is that once you make "sin' acceptable, it is no longer seen as God intended it to be seen, as sin. The scripture speaks alot about end times and when "the people will turn from God and his will and the things that are wrong in his eyes will be as if right and the things that are right in his eyes will be as if wrong." I see that happening now. If same sex marriages becomes acceptable and lawful, before you know it, our public school books will picture 2 women together with a family of their own or 2 men together , and this is not acceptable to christians and others because to God, it is sinful. Christians are being bashed for sticking up for the word of God. We're told we're not loving and tolerent and accepting. Well, it's not that we're not any of those things, it's just that we are not any of those things when it comes to SIN. Think about it, are christians against anything 'good and kind'? No, just sin. This is when we stand up and protest (homosexuality, abortions, lying, stealing, premarital sex, etc.)We don't claim to be perfect, we know we're not. But we admit that to God and he forgives. God doesn't hate anyone. I've said that before. He just hates our sin. And, yes, you can CHOOSE who you will have sex with. Therefore, whenever you make that choice,to sleep with someone of the same sex, you are committing sin. There is no confusing of what God says in the bible. It is NOT a gray area in scripture, like some things can be. It is VERY black and white. (If you need the biblical reference, just ask me.)

I've heard alot about biogotry here. There is a difference in being acceptable of the national origin of people or the color of their skin, and homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sin, and the color of someones skin is not. That's like comparing homosexuality with the slavery thing and peoples 'rights'. Amending the constitution to free slaves was the right thing to do. Making marriage for all is not.

[luluc 6]

Ain't it the truth? I detest Rick Perry. I voted for Kinky Friedman (independant) last election. Strangely enough, so did my parents. There are murmurings that Kinky may run again as a democrat next time.......if so, I would be strongly tempted to vote for him (if he hasn't changed his positions drastically. You might be surprised to know that he is STRONGLY pro-gay marriage). As with every election, I'll pick the candidate I believe will best guide the principality.

he is really considering it:

Kinky Friedman | For Governor 2010

he also has a Facebook group to join - FYI.

[BethFromVA 5]

I read your earlier posts on this thread, luluc - good job!

It is difficult to understand people who claim to be patriotic, Constitution-loving Americans, but they condone or endorse abridging one segment of the population's fundamental Constitutional rights. As far as the government is concerned, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The government is not in the business of conducting religious ceremonies to legalize and recognize a couple as married under the laws of the land.

Technically the government doesn't -- the PEOPLE do. In virtually every state that it has come up for a vote, it has been shot down by the PEOPLE. In at least one case that I can recall, the GOVERNMENT overturned the people's vote against gay marriage and made it acceptable.

[BethFromVA 5]

I think her interpretation of the bible is way off. I think people forget that many can read the same passage in the bible and walk away with many different ideas as far as the meaning...I think PG and many others interpret the bible to suit their bigitry and hate and intollerance.

Amy, at the risk of sounding like PG (and I present this for clarification only), here is the specific passage:

Lev 18:22 - 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Researching further, it also says:

Deu 7:26 - "You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it come under the ban; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned.

And the definition of abomination:

a⋅bom⋅i⋅na⋅tion

   /əˌbɒməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-bom-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA

–noun 1.anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.2.intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination. 3.a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

So though some may choose to interpret differently for their own reasons, for those who believe that God does not accept certain things, this is pretty clear-cut. Bigot or not.

As for me and why I won't vote for gay marriage, I don't answer to man, I answer to my faith and to my God. I know many of you don't or won't understand that, but I have to go with what I believe in. I don't answer to anybody else in life.

[BethFromVA 5]

i was more questioning those who do not share the right for a civil union let alone marriage. ie- ms CA, who now is the spokeswhore for the National Organization for Marriage. cause she's an expert and all...

ACTIVELY - working agaist the rights of same sex couples.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but she's just as entitled to fight for what she believes in as those who actively work against the sanctity of man/woman marriage, no?

[luluc 6]

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but she's just as entitled to fight for what she believes in as those who actively work against the sanctity of man/woman marriage, no?

she can say / do anything she wants. and i'll rag & poke fun of her till i'm actually done talking about this gnat.

my first post in this thread said she was w/in her right to answer the question honestly as it pertains to her and her faith & she shouldn't have had to compromise herself.

do i agree w/her - H$LL no, i think she is being used now too ....and quite frankly - i'm GLAD. way to work it having a blubbering idiot w/a lack of the english language promoting marriage. :thumbup::thumbup:......

cue the scripture,

[BethFromVA 5]

she can say / do anything she wants. and i'll rag & poke fun of her till i'm actually done talking about this gnat.

my first post in this thread said she was w/in her right to answer the question honestly as it pertains to her and her faith & she shouldn't have had to compromise herself.

do i agree w/her - H$LL no, i think she is being used now too ....and quite frankly - i'm GLAD. way to work it having a blubbering idiot w/a lack of the english language promoting marriage. :thumbup::thumbup:......

cue the scripture,

Hehe, c'mon, lulu, don't mince words with us. Tell us how you really feel! :w00t::ohmy: