Thread: Miss California

Originally Posted by YankeeMary

Its real simple...they want to feel normal, be treated normal, to fit in if you will. They are no different then you or I.

On this we agree, but I don't feel that by changing a 'definition' this will happen for them overnight....in fact, IMO, it will further delay a true acceptance in society and the feeling of 'normalacy' they are looking for.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

On this we agree, but I don't feel that by changing a 'definition' this will happen for them overnight....in fact, IMO, it will further delay a true acceptance in society and the feeling of 'normalacy' they are looking for.

It might, it might not. But I know that I don't want to stand in anyones way of happiness any more then I want someone to stand in my way of happiness. Live and let live. If they want to cause physical harm to my family its a different story.

I must add I don't think you are as "cold hearted" as gets portrayed online. I think you just like to play "devils advocate" if you will.

Originally Posted by Crick

A few more thoughts since this thread has gotten so off track from Miss California keeping her title to a Gay Marriage/Religious Discussion:

1) If marriage is defined as between one man and one woman then are priests, nuns, preachers, rabbis, and all other religious figures who say that they are married to the church and/or married to God in direct violation of the definition of marriage?

2) If marriage is to procreate, then again are priests, nuns, monks and other religious persons taking a vow of celebacy in violation of God's command to be fruitful and multiply?

3) Isn't calling a group of people repulsive in direct violation of the teachings of The Bible since basically you are calling God repulsive since The Bible states that God created man in his own image?


Not to offend anyone (as Carrie Prejean said) but just a few thoughts that I had. I have many other thoughts but they are best left to the religious forum and another time. Just wanted to put a few thoughts out there for discussion dealing with gay marriage, the definition of marriage, etc.

Addressing #1 & 2 - I think we know - that it is in the figurative/symbolic sense, not literal........did both parties sign that legal document?

Address #3 - not on your life will I go into that discussion, I won't touch that here with a 20' pole

Originally Posted by YankeeMary

It might, it might not. But I know that I don't want to stand in anyones way of happiness any more then I want someone to stand in my way of happiness. Live and let live. If they want to cause physical harm to my family its a different story.

I must add I don't think you are as "cold hearted" as gets portrayed online. I think you just like to play "devils advocate" if you will.

Thanks Mary. I don't think I'm cold hearted at all. I do try to look at things from all sides and sometimes do 'play devil's advocate'...that's the only way to be fair and objective on any issue.

BTW Who's saying I'm cold hearted?

Originally Posted by SurferGirl

Pepper, I don't think you are cold hearted at all.
I respect the fact that you will listen to both sides of an issue.

Bahet, have I ever suggested that the gays should go back into the closet.
I just wish they would be more accepting of other peoples rights.
You know some of the first people that they went after were the ones that said they love all of God's people. Yes Christians did reach out to the gay community and in return look have they have acted towards us. Yes, I do find that behavior deplorable and repulsive. The first group to reach out to them and it was like a big slap in the face.

Why do so many stand up for any group execpt the Christians.
If you were down on your luck, who would be the first to lend a helping hand, just think about it.

How are they not respecting YOUR rights? It's the other way around...You HAVE the right to marry who you love, they don't.

And my atheist DH or my atheist best friend would be the 1st one to lend a hand to me. Christianity has nothing to do with helping someone. LOTS of people help others all the time that are not Christians.

Originally Posted by ahippiechic

How are they not respecting YOUR rights? It's the other way around...You HAVE the right to marry who you love, they don't.

And my atheist DH or my atheist best friend would be the 1st one to lend a hand to me. Christianity has nothing to do with helping someone. LOTS of people help others all the time that are not Christians.

And in my experience, alot of Christians will help you, but then they will rub it in your face that they did, or tell you that all of your problems are because you are not the same religion that they are. Notice, I said ALOT, not all. I know there are good Christians out there, just like I know there are good Wiccans, Satanists, etc.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

Addressing #1 & 2 - I think we know - that it is in the figurative/symbolic sense, not literal........did both parties sign that legal document?

Address #3 - not on your life will I go into that discussion, I won't touch that here with a 20' pole

Then by definition they are not married? Shouldn't they say "I have a civil union with God and/or the church if no legal document is signed by both parties? Also is it not a contradiction by them wearing a wedding band to symbolize they are married? Just curious as to why people feel that some people can call themselves married and express vows/wear a wedding band and it's alright yet if another couple exchange vows/rings they are rediculed for saying they are married. Seems hypocritical to me.

Originally Posted by SurferGirl

Many of you are intolerant of my point of view and then you turn around and call me intolerant. very interesting

So I guess to some of you anyone that disagrees with you is intolerant.
very very interesting

I guess that is your own way of being very intolerant, you expect people to cave into what ever you think is PC at the time.

For the record when our original constitution was written something like this was just beyond imagination or I'm sure they would have stipulated marriage is 1 man and 1 woman.

Don't believe anyone expects you to "cave into" what you perceive as being PC. Just trying to understand why you feel ALL people should not have the same rights.

You were around when the original Constitution was written? You know for a fact what they were thinking or that they were all heterosexual? Maybe they didn't specify the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" because they thought ALL people would have the same freedoms?