Miss California | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Miss California

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I agree, if I could just ignore the parts of scripture that were hard or weren't politically correct I would... it would make my life so much easier. But, because I believe that the Bible is the be all end all of God's word and because I do respect Christ above all that I tend to fall on the 'religious side'...

that isn't to say that I scream for the blood of those who don't believe or do as I do... that's not my department... and I'm not completely against the civil union idea... to be honest I see it as no different than a heterosexual couple that - for whatever reason - don't want a "marriage." Biblically they are 'living in sin' but the state recognizes their "union." And if I go by it biblically then they aren't any better or worse than that of a gay couple... if that makes sense?


I actually have a lot of respect for people of the other views and what not - so long as my opinion is as equally respected. I try to stay out of these discussions anymore and I don't even know why I'm posting this now lol I guess I can't shut up ;)
 

Alsace

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
About marriage, Leviticus 21:14 forbids a man from marrying a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute.

Mathman, it's just the _high_ priest who is forbidden from marrying a woman of the above "marital status." See verse 10.
 

bekalc

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
that isn't to say that I scream for the blood of those who don't believe or do as I do... that's not my department... and I'm not completely against the civil union idea... to be honest I see it as no different than a heterosexual couple that - for whatever reason - don't want a "marriage." Biblically they are 'living in sin' but the state recognizes their "union." And if I go by it biblically then they aren't any better or worse than that of a gay couple... if that makes sense?

Well the thing is I'm not really sure what the difference is between civil unions and gay marriage, it seems to be semantics to me.
 
Last edited:

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Well the thing is I'm not really sure what the difference is between civil unions and gay marriage, it seems to be semantics to me.

"civil union" is not a marriage. it's two people living together that get the same sort of legal benefits that a married couple does. yes it is semantics but a civil union isn't a contract with God, AFAIAC... whereas a marriage is. Whether or not the married couple sees it as such *shrugs*...

Civil Unions are not recognized by God, just by the legal eagles of the world...


that's what I'm getting at.
 

bekalc

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
"civil union" is not a marriage. it's two people living together that get the same sort of legal benefits that a married couple does. yes it is semantics but a civil union isn't a contract with God, AFAIAC... whereas a marriage is. Whether or not the married couple sees it as such *shrugs*...

Civil Unions are not recognized by God, just by the legal eagles of the world...


that's what I'm getting at.

Well as a Catholic, I don't believe God recognizes a marriage just because the state calls it a "marriage"....But I think we are concerned about how civil unions will develop and also feel its a semantics thing....
 
Last edited:

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
"civil union" is not a marriage. it's two people living together that get the same sort of legal benefits that a married couple does. yes it is semantics but a civil union isn't a contract with God, AFAIAC... whereas a marriage is. Whether or not the married couple sees it as such *shrugs*..
.
Toni, what about "marriage" performed in City Hall and not sanctified but not blessed by a religious officer? Isn't it the same thing?
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Well the thing is I'm not really sure what the difference is between civil unions and gay marriage, it seems to be semantics to me.

"civil union" is not a marriage. it's two people living together that get the same sort of legal benefits that a married couple does. yes it is semantics but a civil union isn't a contract with God, AFAIAC... whereas a marriage is. Whether or not the married couple sees it as such *shrugs*...

Civil Unions are not recognized by God, just by the legal eagles of the world...


that's what I'm getting at.

Well as a Catholic, I don't believe God recognizes a marriage just because the state calls it a "marriage"....But I think we are concerned about how civil unions will develop and also feel its a semantics thing....

.
Toni, what about "marriage" performed in City Hall and not sanctified but not blessed by a religious officer? Isn't it the same thing?

I'm not about in the US, but in the UK a marriage is called a marriage provided it's a man and woman. Whether the ceremony takes place in a church and the cermony is religious or whether it takes place at a town hall (or some other secular place that has a certificate allowing marriages to be performed there)and is a "civil ceremony" which specifically forbids any reference to religion, any incpororation of religious music etc. The piece of paper signed at the end by the couple is a "marriage certificate".

Civil partnerships are only available to same sex couples and in theory should not be called marriages but civil partnerships. The ceremonies that i've wintessed go to great lengths to talk about "civil partnership" and not "marriage". However, the media and coloquially most people refer to it as "gay marriage".

There was some debate and anger at the time that civil partnerships were made legal, by loby groups acting for straight couples who did not want to enter into a "marriage" and wanted a civil partnership to be made availble for all couples not just same sex couples.

The only thing this confirms to me is that you can't please all of the people all of the time. There is always going to be somebody who isn't getting exactly what they want out of their "union".

I'm just glad that gay people have something in this country which is equivalent (even if it isn't quite the same) to what straight people can do with regards to their relationships. At the end of the day, the piece of paper and what you call it is meaningless - it's the actual relationship between the two people that counts and how those two people keep that relationship going and support each other.

Ant
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
I thought her response at Miss USA was ok, and I'm not sure that question really belonged in a beauty pageant, so all things considered she did pretty well, expressing her opinion without backing down but also without getting too offensive about it.

This, however, crosses that line for me. But I guess with Miss California out there to protect marriage, so many people across the US are now feeling much better about their own marriages. Fortunately all my married friends are happy with their spouses and not at all threatened by the upcoming marriage of our lesbian friends.

alsace said:
Mathman, it's just the _high_ priest who is forbidden from marrying a woman of the above "marital status." See verse 10.
As I understand it, under Jewish religious law, anyone descended from a priest (last name would be Cohen or a variation thereof) has those limitations, along with others.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
As I understand it, under Jewish religious law, anyone descended from a priest (last name would be Cohen or a variation thereof) has those limitations, along with others.
That is correct. Kohens are considered to come from Aaron's line, and are considered sort of "potential" high priests. When a family has a newborn firstborn boy (one born in a vaginal delivery and who doesn't have older maternal siblings and whose mother hasn't had miscarriages beyond, IIRC, the first trimester) they are supposed to pay a Kohen on the 30th (?) day after the birth to redeem him from the service of serving in the temple (though the Orthodox rabbis now say that since noone can prove they are descendant from Aaron, one doesn't have to pay a Kohen for the ceremony). Kohanim today have to abstain from contact with dead bodies (they have to perform ritual cleansing after visiting cemeteries). In addition to divorcees and widows, Kohanim also cannot marry converts, only women actually born Jewish. At the same time, modern Judaism is rather uncomfortable with designating a group of people "special"; Maimonides back in 12th century claimed that the only idea behind designating Kohanim was to limit animal sacrifices to a group of people to slowly root out the process altogether. Furthermore, modern rabbis, even the orthodox ones, agree that the Kohanim status is only relevant in this word where people are born unequal, but will not matter in the next world, where one's worth will be determined purely by their deeds.

This concludes today's lecture on Judaism. :laugh:
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
This concludes today's lecture on Judaism. :laugh:


I agree :clap: :clap:

I find it really interesting to hear about different religions. I wonder how people (and young people at that!) can know so much when it seemingly requires an encyclopeadic knowledge of a vast quantity of texts! It would be like studying full time for a degree in addition to everythig else you have to do!

Ant
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
I find it really interesting to hear about different religions. I wonder how people (and young people at that!) can know so much when it seemingly requires an encyclopeadic knowledge of a vast quantity of texts! It would be like studying full time for a degree in addition to everythig else you have to do!
Well, I for one am Jewish, so it's not like I had to look anything up. But I knew Ptichka would do a better job explaining than I could. :clap:
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I just find it quite fascinating (growing up in an atheist society, I am learning about my religious heritage as I go along). In truth, all the rules, especially the ones from the Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are quite obscure to say the least! However, I believe that in their totality they teach us something essential - that in a civilized society there are laws that govern how we have to behave to one another, and that we all, from illegal immigrant up through the president, have to live by it.

At the same time, it is quite amazing how many rules are still relevant. For example, my friends and I were recently discussing a potential moral dilemma. Say a friend asks you to keep some money for him, and you get robbed. Do you have to reimburse your friend? Well, apparently Judaism has answered this question centuries ago - yes if you received anything for keeping the money, no if you did it for nothing :)
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I think it's easier to know so much about your religion when you either grow up with it... but most religions also encourage daily meditation and study... so yeah... it's not that hard... and they have degrees for them too ;)
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
I think it's easier to know so much about your religion when you either grow up with it... but most religions also encourage daily meditation and study... so yeah... it's not that hard... and they have degrees for them too ;)
Yeah, the whole daily study and meditation part I never got. E.g. if someone is like really Christian - helping others is a priority, right? So when I had all those lessons before my confirmation, that was 2 hours a week over 2 years + an exam - I always thought that it was an immense waste of time. I totally rocked those lessons and the exam, but what good did it do? Why not let the kids work those two hours a week in a senior citizen's home, an orphange, with disadvantaged youth or anything like that? They learn a lot more about life then, and if they want, about God and Jesus.

What good does it do for the World, for other people if you study the Bible / Koran / Thora like an hour a day - but don't do anything selfless or helpful? And some of those oh-so-believing Christians / Muslims start spewing nonsense around, about "real" marriage, and God's laws etc. Take the Pope, a highly intelligent man, fluent in Latin, good pianist, spent his entire life learning and reading about Jesus and God - and what does he these days? Says that there shouldn't be any condoms distributed in Africa. Hurray! What a freaking waste of time, energy and resources. And all those evangelical organisations in the US, in other countries, waste all that money and energy on stupid campaigns that protest something that actually would never affect them.

Even if I did think that I have a problem with stuff like gay marriage (which I don't), as a good Christian (which I am not) wouldn't it be better to make a priority list, like:
1. End all wars
2. Cure all diseases
3. Help all the orphaned children
4. End domestic violence
5. Help disadvantaged people all over the world
6. Save the environment
4783. Develop floors with an ecological automatical cleaning device, so vacuuming will be outdated
11985. Try to rebreed Dinosaurs (creatures of god, after all)
19873689906. Get gay marriage banned


What I would like to see from lots of religious people in the world: read the important parts of your scriptures, and not some outdated footnote and stick to the basic rules, like altruism. Less talk - more meaningful altruistic action.
 
Last edited:

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
I have never thought that the state belonged in the marriage business at all, but since it has chosen to do so, the distinctions are not meaningless.

Favoring marriage is embedded in the tax code, not to mention a huge number of other statutes.

For example, some companies extend health coverage to spouses of employees, but not to significant others of employees. If gay marriage is enacted, those spouses who were previously not coverd would have health insurance.

So gay marriage is not just about love, or a piece of paper. It's about money, and the law.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Medusa - I think you're advocating an almost medieval approach to religion. Commoners were not suppose to understand the word of G-d, but to blindly follow the directives they got from the clergy. In fact, it was considered dangerous to allow commoners to read Bible for themselves (Judaism is different in that all males are obliged to read the Torah).

Study and meditation provide a path to enlightenment. Meditation provides us with a way to examine ourselves, be honest with ourselves about ourselves. Study allows us to internalize the morals of the religion. In theory, the person who engages in both those pursuits will have internalized inherent morality and act accordingly, whereas someone without that benefit would only perform good acts out of fear of retribution in this world or the next.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Doris - if both heterosexual and homosexual couples formed "civil unions" as opposed to "marriages", than the difference between the two would indeed become meaningless. While I agree that in a perfect world there would be no need for legally-defined marriages (however you want to call them), I wouldn't advocate it just yet in our society. The truth is that there have been numerous studies showing how marriages benefit society; it appears that people (especially men) indeed start acting more responsibly with that piece of paper.
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Medusa - I think you're advocating an almost medieval approach to religion. Commoners were not suppose to understand the word of G-d, but to blindly follow the directives they got from the clergy. In fact, it was considered dangerous to allow commoners to read Bible for themselves (Judaism is different in that all males are obliged to read the Torah).

Study and meditation provide a path to enlightenment. Meditation provides us with a way to examine ourselves, be honest with ourselves about ourselves. Study allows us to internalize the morals of the religion. In theory, the person who engages in both those pursuits will have internalized inherent morality and act accordingly, whereas someone without that benefit would only perform good acts out of fear of retribution in this world or the next.
I only understood about half of that. But I don't think that people should perform good out of fear of retribution, but out of compassion, out of empathy. But do I need to study the Bible / Thora / Koran to incorporate that into my life? I think it's something everyone who grew up in a not too poor and loving environment has: compassion, love, empathy, sense of honesty, sense of justice. Nobody should be compassionate or helpful because the Bible / Thora or the clergy says so (the clergy never really did that by the way, e.g. the crusades...). It is human nature.
 

DragonPhoenix

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
But I don't think that people should perform good out of fear of retribution, but out of compassion, out of empathy.

Nobody should be compassionate or helpful because the Bible / Thora or the clergy says so (the clergy never really did that by the way, e.g. the crusades...).

Completely agree. People should be compassionate or helpful because they want to be compassionate or helpful, not because they are told to.
 
Last edited:
Top