Miss California - Same Sex Marriage-Perez Hilton

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
No there is absolutely a slippery slope. And homosexuality is a sin according to the bible. I am so sick of people trying to force their views on other people. And surprise, surprise its no longer the religious right yelling on tv, it is angry bullying radical left liberals.

The majority of the country does not believe in gay marriage, that is a fact. One of the most liberal states in America, did not go for it, that is a fact.

All of this BS, anything goes, PC, ACLU mentality creates something negative in my opinion. When society stops having boundaries and everything starts sliding towards acceptance, you have chaos. And that it where the country is going. If voters in a state vote for it then fine but I will still disagree.

And I don't believe in being radical the other way either. But it is absolutely my right to believe that changing the definition of marriage is not a good idea for many reasons.

And you, Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Behar and so on will not make me feel guilty or afraid to speak my mind. There wasn't anything controversial about Miss California's answer, she was attacked because this new liberal mafia cannot tolerate opinions other than their own.......how hypocritical. And yeah, conservative pundits are speaking out because it is bull that this woman has gone through this. It's not about being articulate, her photos or anything else ...it is about hatred.....hatred from the left, that she dare insinuate that being a homosexual is wrong. The only thing safe to attack these days is Christianity....not Islam, abortion, gay rights, socialism etc..........but god forbid you mention your Christian religion, then you are a close minded biblethumper.

So, I respectfully disagree.

I am a church-going, Sunday-school teaching, bible reading (twice in its entirety and many parts I've studied in more depth) Christian, and I do not believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I do understand that some Christians interpret certain passages to say that and I am deeply respectful of the conflict that Christians who believe that find themselves in when we discuss the issue of homosexuality.

As much as I dig the Bible and consider it to be my primary guidebook for Life, I recognize that man's interpretation of the Bible has been used to justify the worst and most brutal sort of human behavior - from slavery to murder to war to the subjugation of women.

Leviticus is a chapter in the Bible that is often referred to as denouncing homosexuality as a sin. This same chapter could be seen to denounce eating shellfish as a sin. And yet, I see no public uproar in the aisles of Long John Silver or The Red Lobster, and I have never known anyone to privately or publicly condemn (often to Hell) someone who dines on crab cakes. It seems that sex gets our attention more than shrimp. I'm not surprised, of course, but I find this type of hypocrisy hard to stomach.

It's best to simply admit that every last one of us who cares about the Bible picks and chooses and interprets (in some form or fashion) in the way the best suits our own beliefs - though most of us try in the process to receive Truth from this source.

Once upon a time, the pulpit and indeed the Church used their interpretation of the Bible to uphold and even help spread slavery. This was a gross misuse of the Bible and its core principles and, to its credit, the Catholic Church has apologized for its part in slavery (and other things). Big props to them! That Church's apology tells us that - hey, we can get things wrong when it comes to Biblical interpretation because we are human. Most importantly it teaches us that when we get things wrong under the auspices of following God's word, we can recognize our mistake and change our position and our ways.

Thank God for the living breathing word of God and how it challenges us to grow in the most personal and intimate ways.

Mystergirl, though you and I might not see eye to eye Biblically regarding this issue, I hope you will be proud to be a Bible thumper along with me! I agree that Christians take it on the chin a lot, but - from my perspective, some of that is duly earned and none of it negates the great good that Christianity does in this world.
 
If Christians are criticized, it is because of a few who invoke the Bible selectively and subjectively, and then insist it is an objective authority that must govern the rest of us.

But on the whole, all religious belief is treated with great respect in this country (and in most other countries), far more so than the respect accorded other beliefs that cannot be rationally verified.
 
I am proud of being a Christian and you are right, the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people.

Believe it or not, I understand both sides of the argument and struggle with an answer. Its not just black or white for me. I don't believe people choose to be gay...so why would god create them, why is loving the same sex, a sin. I don't think anyone KNOWS the answer, you just end up picking a side and believing in it. But the marriage thing encompasses other issues for me. I don't lose sleep over it, but I have my opinion.

It is the outrage directed at people who don't believe in gay marriage that bother me. Like oh, you are a bigot and intolerant and on and on. When people DO believe in gay marriage I don't do a freak out or act like they stabbed my puppy. And this is true of other issues as well. I am a passionate person but realize that not everyone will have the same opinion as me, but I will not be made to feel badly if I disagree. Thats just a fact.
 
Shanna Mokler resigns as pageant director http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520081,00.html

And the hypocrisy continues... Shanna Moakler resigns because she "wants to be a role model for young women" and disagrees with Miss California's posing for racy pictures as well as her stand on gay marriage.

Ok, Shanna Moakler has been plastered all over TMZ gossip site for a long time with her very public and trashy feud with Paris Hilton, partying at the playboy mansion, public divorce then reconciliation with husband Travis Barker, as well as trashy quotes that can't be quoted here. I'm pretty sure there are some trashy pictures of her around as well (although I won't swear to it and I don't want to waste any more of my time looking for them). So which part of her exemplary life are the young women suppose to emulate and look up to? I'm pretty sure this was all while she was representing the pageant as a director. Pot, meet kettle. She has got to be kidding.
 
It is the outrage directed at people who don't believe in gay marriage that bother me. Like oh, you are a bigot and intolerant and on and on.


what irks me is people calling christians "intolerant" yet these same people who want christians to be tolerant of certain things sure aren't tolerant of christian views if they differ. seems hypocritical to me :)
 
In the wake of Donald Trump's decision to not take away Miss California USA Carrie Prejean's title after semi-nude photos of her showed up online, former Miss Nevada USA Katie Rees, who was stripped of her title in 2006 following a similar incident, is... well, let's just say she isn't happy.

“An accurate word to describe me is irate,” the 24-year-old beauty queen tells Extra. “If you’re semi-nude, you’re semi-nude and it says so in the contract. And [Prejean] broke the contact… She should’ve had her crown taken away just like mine… For her crown not to be taken away is absolutely outrageous.”

Katie also sees a very important difference between her situation, where personal photos of her behaving badly were made public, and Carrie's pics.

“The fact is Carrie purposely posed nude for these pictures. I did not," she explains. "I was a teenager who accidentally was out having a good time with her girlfriends and was unguarded... I just wonder if Mr. Trump knows what he put me through. What I’ve gone through these past two years. The strong woman that I’ve had to become to fight for myself.“

And rather than just cry over spilled milk, Katie says, "I am speaking with my lawyer right now.”


http://www.okmagazine.com/news/view/14250
i can see that as a valid argument, at least.
 
In the wake of Donald Trump's decision to not take away Miss California USA Carrie Prejean's title after semi-nude photos of her showed up online, former Miss Nevada USA Katie Rees, who was stripped of her title in 2006 following a similar incident, is... well, let's just say she isn't happy.

“An accurate word to describe me is irate,” the 24-year-old beauty queen tells Extra. “If you’re semi-nude, you’re semi-nude and it says so in the contract. And [Prejean] broke the contact… She should’ve had her crown taken away just like mine… For her crown not to be taken away is absolutely outrageous.”

Katie also sees a very important difference between her situation, where personal photos of her behaving badly were made public, and Carrie's pics.

“The fact is Carrie purposely posed nude for these pictures. I did not," she explains. "I was a teenager who accidentally was out having a good time with her girlfriends and was unguarded... I just wonder if Mr. Trump knows what he put me through. What I’ve gone through these past two years. The strong woman that I’ve had to become to fight for myself.“

And rather than just cry over spilled milk, Katie says, "I am speaking with my lawyer right now.”

http://www.okmagazine.com/news/view/14250

i can see that as a valid argument, at least.

How in the world do you "accidentally" go out and have a good time?

I hardly think that these photos* (http://www.tmz.com/2006/12/21/naughty-miss-nevada-stripped-of-her-title/) compare to tastefully done professional pictures, topless or not.

*NSFW
 
How in the world do you "accidentally" go out and have a good time?

I hardly think that these photos* (http://www.tmz.com/2006/12/21/naughty-miss-nevada-stripped-of-her-title/) compare to tastefully done professional pictures, topless or not.

*NSFW

LOL, angel! That was an eyeful - or a mouthful - or something!!! Point taken. For me, I'm sort of over Ms. Cally's lying and failing to take just the smallest amount of personal responsibility for her photos. Just saying!
 
LOL, angel! That was an eyeful - or a mouthful - or something!!! Point taken. For me, I'm sort of over Ms. Cally's lying and failing to take just the smallest amount of personal responsibility for her photos. Just saying!

Agreed! Of course her working with NOM is enough for me. That is one scary group, though I think they got rid of the scariest board member.
 
LOL, angel! That was an eyeful - or a mouthful - or something!!! Point taken. For me, I'm sort of over Ms. Cally's lying and failing to take just the smallest amount of personal responsibility for her photos. Just saying!

ITA with you. I just think it's creepy and disturbing for the so-called "tolerant" side of the aisle to go after someone with such vengeance when she -who has absolutely no legal power to change a single law - spouts an unpopular or even stupid opinion. She could have said the earth was flat, but that doesn't mean someone should make it their life's purpose to ruin her.

I just think that if you dug into every one of these girls' lives equally (or pretty much any human being), you'd find something nasty about all of them, or at least something you could make sound nasty if you really tried. And if you aren't going to do it to all of them then, yes, it is a witch hunt. What was once a beauty pageant has become, well, politics. And we all know how lofty and moral that environment is. :rolleyes:

Don't these people have genuine celebrities to stalk or something?
 
ITA with you. I just think it's creepy and disturbing for the so-called "tolerant" side of the aisle to go after someone with such vengeance when she -who has absolutely no legal power to change a single law - spouts an unpopular or even stupid opinion. She could have said the earth was flat, but that doesn't mean someone should make it their life's purpose to ruin her.

I just think that if you dug into every one of these girls' lives equally (or pretty much any human being), you'd find something nasty about all of them, or at least something you could make sound nasty if you really tried. And if you aren't going to do it to all of them then, yes, it is a witch hunt. What was once a beauty pageant has become, well, politics. And we all know how lofty and moral that environment is. :rolleyes:

Don't these people have genuine celebrities to stalk or something?

I hear you, angel. This whole thing had been very interesting to watch - I've been especially agog at the Pageant World at large - such hypocrisy and phoniness and backstabbing and dishonesty and on and on from every side!

I agree that people went after her tooth and nail because of her "intolerant" opinion, but I have to say - if you wrap yourself in the cloak of traditional family values and/or the Bible on a national platform, people often feel like you are being holier-than-thou and you better believe that someone is going to dig up every documented non-family-value act you ever participated in. I'm not saying it's right - just that I kind of get the urge to throw eggs at people who come across as sanctimonious.

You know I agree with you that if enough digging is done, many of us could be made to look like the scum of the earth.
 
In my " opinion, whom a person sleeps with, what is done between two consenting adults in their own bed and bedroom, whom they choose to love and have a relationship with, is NOBODY business except the two people involved in a relationship.

Heck, people have too much time on their hands when they feel that they can control other people's feeling for the person they love and whom they love.

No one is "harmed" by two people of the same sex spending their life with each other, with the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage between two consenting adults of any sex.

It is the "smoke and mirrors of religion and intolerance that "fans" the flame of "hate". Who cares what the "religious right" thinks, they do not speak for he entire nation of the USA.

So I ask you this: I want to know the "specific" passage that clearly states(without self serving translation)that says loving a person of the same sex is a sin. Guess what many things are "sinful" but god fearing people still do it anyways, as they pick and choose what the "bible" means to them.

In Canada, we are not "so religious" and passed two laws, the first one is that no one can make statements that lead to "hate" against a group of people based on human rights. The second is respecting the right to love whom ever you want.

So no more "religious" people declaring on Sundays that "killing" a gay person is what God wants.........

Everyone has human" rights.....you only have to be human to "ensure" those rights are respected, that is why when there is a "human right" violation, it is actionable.
 
In my " opinion, whom a person sleeps with, what is done between two consenting adults in their own bed and bedroom, whom they choose to love and have a relationship with, is NOBODY business except the two people involved in a relationship.

Heck, people have too much time on their hands when they feel that they can control other people's feeling for the person they love and whom they love.

No one is "harmed" by two people of the same sex spending their life with each other, with the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage between two consenting adults of any sex.

It is the "smoke and mirrors of religion and intolerance that "fans" the flame of "hate". Who cares what the "religious right" thinks, they do not speak for he entire nation of the USA.

So I ask you this: I want to know the "specific" passage that clearly states(without self serving translation)that says loving a person of the same sex is a sin. Guess what many things are "sinful" but god fearing people still do it anyways, as they pick and choose what the "bible" means to them.

In Canada, we are not "so religious" and passed two laws, the first one is that no one can make statements that lead to "hate" against a group of people based on human rights. The second is respecting the right to love whom ever you want.

So no more "religious" people declaring on Sundays that "killing" a gay person is what God wants.........

Everyone has human" rights.....you only have to be human to "ensure" those rights are respected, that is why when there is a "human right" violation, it is actionable.

There's not one. This website lists the six main ones Christians sometimes use to support the contention that homosexuality is a sin: http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html. There are a few other little ones that could be seen (depending on translations) to touch on the issue.

The best book I have ever read on the issue is called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. It's a must-read for anyone with interest in the subject, IMHO.

Jesus never says a single word about homosexuality. At the risk of sounding like a pedant, let me repeat that. Christ Himself has not a single word to say on the subject.

Interestingly enough, in Matthew 19 (the story also appears in Luke, but I forget the chapter and am too lazy to look it up), Christ affirms a gay couple. When the Centurion begs Jesus to heal his "special" male friend/servant (it is opined by a number of Biblical scholars that the specific word in the original text of these verses that is used to describe this male friend/servant infers that the Centurion and the servant enjoy a sexual relationship), Christ praises the Centurion's faith and heals his "special" friend right up.

Homosexual relationships (particularly between males) were extremely common in Christ's time. I'm sure Jesus was aware of this and that homosexual sexual behavior was well within His daily experience of living. If what they were doing was such an affront to God and nature, might Christ not have mentioned that - taken one of the numerous opportunities He would have had to touch on the danger of such conduct?

Not surprisingly, Christ didn't have a damned thing to say about it. He was concerned with our hearts, knowing that the love and holiness of our interior landscapes is what rightly directs our paths.
 
OMG!! So I'm reading she cancelled the Larry King show - she had a birthday party in Atlanta last night, up kinda late, and was TIRED!!!

It's all about me......it's all about me..... la la la.... I'm so beautiful, I'm so special....

This woman is the gift that keeps on giving.
 
OMG!! So I'm reading she cancelled the Larry King show - she had a birthday party in Atlanta last night, up kinda late, and was TIRED!!!

It's all about me......it's all about me..... la la la.... I'm so beautiful, I'm so special....

This woman is the gift that keeps on giving.


If she makes a habit out of that, she can forget much of a career. And I would guess that not continuing to get massive publicity will make DT mad.
 
If she makes a habit out of that, she can forget much of a career. And I would guess that not continuing to get massive publicity will make DT mad.

Evidently she had missed several commitments as Miss California prior to the latest controversy.
 
Shanna Mokler resigns as pageant director http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520081,00.html

And the hypocrisy continues... Shanna Moakler resigns because she "wants to be a role model for young women" and disagrees with Miss California's posing for racy pictures as well as her stand on gay marriage.

Ok, Shanna Moakler has been plastered all over TMZ gossip site for a long time with her very public and trashy feud with Paris Hilton, partying at the playboy mansion, public divorce then reconciliation with husband Travis Barker, as well as trashy quotes that can't be quoted here. I'm pretty sure there are some trashy pictures of her around as well (although I won't swear to it and I don't want to waste any more of my time looking for them). So which part of her exemplary life are the young women suppose to emulate and look up to? I'm pretty sure this was all while she was representing the pageant as a director. Pot, meet kettle. She has got to be kidding.

LOL I thought the same thing and I'm listening to her right now on Showbiz Tonight.
Shanna's just trying to make drama and get attention. She is the WORST role model I can think of and besides, she's a two bit...reality TV talentless non star. Now she's doing tons of shows because she is trying to steal the "admire me because I stick up for what I believe in" limelight.

This Shanna chick is upset because she thinks Carrie is lying? I don't think she has any moral ground to accuse anyone of anything. I saw that stupid reality TV show.
 
mysterygirl said:
I am proud of being a Christian and you are right, the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people.

Believe it or not, I understand both sides of the argument and struggle with an answer. Its not just black or white for me. I don't believe people choose to be gay...so why would god create them, why is loving the same sex, a sin. I don't think anyone KNOWS the answer, you just end up picking a side and believing in it. But the marriage thing encompasses other issues for me. I don't lose sleep over it, but I have my opinion.

It is the outrage directed at people who don't believe in gay marriage that bother me. Like oh, you are a bigot and intolerant and on and on. When people DO believe in gay marriage I don't do a freak out or act like they stabbed my puppy. And this is true of other issues as well. I am a passionate person but realize that not everyone will have the same opinion as me, but I will not be made to feel badly if I disagree. Thats just a fact.

what irks me is people calling christians "intolerant" yet these same people who want christians to be tolerant of certain things sure aren't tolerant of christian views if they differ. seems hypocritical to me :)

Nobody has suggested that gays should be allowed to legally marry while Christians should NOT be. THAT would be hypocrisy.

It is not "intolerant" to argue against those who would deny equal rights to their fellow citizens. Rather, it's a moral duty.

More importantly, perhaps, to this discussion, while this may be a matter of "different views" to you guys, in my house, gay marriage is a matter of whether I'm legally related to my (step) children, whether they can visit me in a hospital and whether they are guaranteed to inherit my estate. It's a matter of thousands of dollars in extra taxes my husband and I pay every year because our marriage isn't recognized by the (federal) government. It's a matter of tens of thousands of dollars I've paid into Social Security which my husband cannot collect if I predecease him. It's a matter of my husband's insurance coverning me when I am uninsured, WITHOUT his having to pay extra taxes on that coverage. It's a matter of guaranteeing that I will be allowed to make decisions for him when he is incapacitated, and vice versa.

And I could go on and on.

But most of all, it's a matter of my being a second-class citizen in the country in which I was born, where I have full responsibilities but only partial rights.

So don't be surprised if you encounter a little righteous indignation when you want to deny rights on the basis of two or three brief passages in an old book.
 
There's not one. This website lists the six main ones Christians sometimes use to support the contention that homosexuality is a sin: http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html. There are a few other little ones that could be seen (depending on translations) to touch on the issue.

The best book I have ever read on the issue is called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. It's a must-read for anyone with interest in the subject, IMHO.

Jesus never says a single word about homosexuality. At the risk of sounding like a pedant, let me repeat that. Christ Himself has not a single word to say on the subject.

Interestingly enough, in Matthew 19 (the story also appears in Luke, but I forget the chapter and am too lazy to look it up), Christ affirms a gay couple. When the Centurion begs Jesus to heal his "special" male friend/servant (it is opined by a number of Biblical scholars that the specific word in the original text of these verses that is used to describe this male friend/servant infers that the Centurion and the servant enjoy a sexual relationship), Christ praises the Centurion's faith and heals his "special" friend right up.

Homosexual relationships (particularly between males) were extremely common in Christ's time. I'm sure Jesus was aware of this and that homosexual sexual behavior was well within His daily experience of living. If what they were doing was such an affront to God and nature, might Christ not have mentioned that - taken one of the numerous opportunities He would have had to touch on the danger of such conduct?

Not surprisingly, Christ didn't have a damned thing to say about it. He was concerned with our hearts, knowing that the love and holiness of our interior landscapes is what rightly directs our paths.

Southcity.........I went to your link and read through the arguments with an open mind. I have read some of these before but am not well versed enough regarding the Bible to have answers. So I looked around to read other articles and found many which pick some of these explanations apart. "Refuting Homosexuals Who Use the Bible to Defend Homosexuality" was one of them. So it basically often boiled down to translations of words and in some cases, timelines. I must say that I have not changed my mind about homosexuality but continue to listen...

As far as people staying out of other's bedrooms....I agree. But this is about changing the definition of marriage in the United States (not Canada).

I can see I am outnumbered on this thread but I am not outnumbered in this country. So I will leave it at that........
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
3,098
Total visitors
3,236

Forum statistics

Threads
602,639
Messages
18,144,270
Members
231,471
Latest member
dylanfoxx
Back
Top