The question was totally unfair. Regardless of how she answers the question she loses. If she comes out in favor of gay marriage she upsets people; if she gives the answer she gave, she upsets people (not the least of which is the judge); and if she doesn't give an answer that falls on one side or the other her answer will be seen as a wishy-washy response.

 

I also think the judge should never have asked a question to which he was incapable of objectively evaluating the response. Therefore, I believe the judge should be criticized just as much for asking the question as he should be for his display of obvious bias after he received the answer he did.

 

Finally, I don't think you ask that question without contemplating the answer you might get. I therefore believe that the judge expected (and obviously wanted) a quite different response. I think he was trying to use the pageant as a stage for his political beliefs and was sorely disappointed which explains his inappropriate emotional response.

 

:thumb:

 

Excellent post! I believe you described the whole problem. It was not the answer given at all, but the ridiculous question that was asked!

Former, Marriage is an union between a man and a woman, nothing else can fit. Call it something else. Bible/Websters.

 

Religion is in our States. The Bible out weighs U.S. Laws.

 

Haftback...Not my opinon. I don't care what others believe.

 

Ezekiel 3:16 "we must warn others from their sin, we will be blessed even if they continue to sin".

 

Genesis 19 6: 11: 24 Sodom story, God destroyed the city due to the Homosexual sin of the people. Not my opinon

 

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not sex with a man if you are a man".

 

Matthew 15:19 "Do not commit sexal Immoorality'.

 

Also 1st Corinthians says the same thing in 5:1/6:18/10:8

 

Galatians 5:18 Again the same as above

 

Hebrews 12:16 Same verse 13:4 also

 

Jude 7 "states the fact of Sodom and how they serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire"

 

Revelations 21:8... The sexuality immorral their place will be in the firely lake of burning sulfur.

 

I never gave my think so's, but you are entitled to yours. I'll stick to what God planned for a man to leave his Mother and Father and meet a woman who did the same and reproduce the earth.

 

I have more....

 

Your turn...

Edited April 21, 200917 yr by Alabama Larry
Didn't want to give too many verses

The question was totally unfair. Regardless of how she answers the question she loses. If she comes out in favor of gay marriage she upsets people; if she gives the answer she gave, she upsets people (not the least of which is the judge); and if she doesn't give an answer that falls on one side or the other her answer will be seen as a wishy-washy response.

 

I also think the judge should never have asked a question to which he was incapable of objectively evaluating the response. Therefore, I believe the judge should be criticized just as much for asking the question as he should be for his display of obvious bias after he received the answer he did.

 

Finally, I don't think you ask that question without contemplating the answer you might get. I therefore believe that the judge expected (and obviously wanted) a quite different response. I think he was trying to use the pageant as a stage for his political beliefs and was sorely disappointed which explains his inappropriate emotional response.

 

Any idea what question(s) was asked of the others?

Former, Marriage is an union between a man and a woman, nothing else can fit. Call it something else. Bible/Websters.

 

Religion is in our States. The Bible out weighs U.S. Laws.

 

Haftback...Not my opinon. I don't care what others believe.

 

Ezekiel 3:16 "we must warn others from their sin, we will be blessed even if they continue to sin".

 

Genesis 19 6: 11: 24 Sodom story, God destroyed the city due to the Homosexual sin of the people. Not my opinon

 

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not sex with a man if you are a man".

 

Matthew 15:19 "Do not commit sexal Immoorality'.

 

Also 1st Corinthians says the same thing in 5:1/6:18/10:8

 

Galatians 5:18 Again the same as above

 

Hebrews 12:16 Same verse 13:4 also

 

Jude 7 "states the fact of Sodom and how they serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire"

 

Revelations 21:8... The sexuality immorral their place will be in the firely lake of burning sulfur.

 

I never gave my think so's, but you are entitled to yours. I'll stick to what God planned for a man to leave his Mother and Father and meet a woman who did the same and reproduce the earth.

 

I have more....

 

Your turn...

Larry, you didn't address the point I made in my above post that marriage is a secular bond in this country.

Edited April 21, 200917 yr by formerkywrestler
fixed my thought process

I have no issues with a particular religion not wanting to marry gays. I DO have a problem with the state not allowing gay marriage.

 

I'm not going to debate whether the Bible condones it or not, because at last check the Bible doesn't write U. S. Law.

What about the idea that homosexuality goes against natural law, and since civil law should be an extension of natural law, it is illogical for the government to condone this type of behavior?

 

FWIW, though, I don't understand why the government has a hand in marriage, anyways.

What about the idea that homosexuality goes against natural law, and since civil law should be an extension of natural law, it is illogical for the government to condone this type of behavior?

 

FWIW, though, I don't understand why the government has a hand in marriage, anyways.

 

 

Something I posted some time ago on this issue:

 

That really depends on how you want to define the purpose of a marriage in reference to the state and how it suits the state's purposes.

 

As the state should have no innate religious trappings for the institution of marriage it does indeed call into the question what defines a marriage. Moreover why would a state with no religious connotations even bother with recognizing any sort of union between couples, heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. So the driving we question we have here is this: What benefit do we have for the state with the recognition of any sort of marriage?

 

As an entity that is to be based on prudence and pragmatism our amoral state should not be swayed by notions such as "love." No because "love" is of no practical relevance, you can't tax love. You can't measure or quantify love, devotion or affection thus rendering that benefit moot. Married couples tend to get tax breaks and incentives, to what end though? For what purpose would the government wish to treat them differently?

 

The only thing that a married couple has that is of use to the state is the eventual production of future citizens. These citizens, provided they make it to adulthood, are an eventual source of revenue via taxation and/or of use in their contributions to society through their careers or through civil service. The state's primary goal, outside of self perpetuation(the same as any good bureaucracy), is to "promote the general welfare." Thus through the enrichment of the population via said production of citizens the government would attain an eventual benefit.

 

With this as the primary motivating factor as a benefit to the state it would stand to reason that the only "marriages" that would be worth recognizing would be those capable of producing said benefit to the state.

 

While the relationship of Bob and Horatio may be healthier than that of Eamon and Sally, B&H are biologically incapable of what E&S can do. This is of course provided that the terrible film Junior was truly ficticious.

 

Outside of that I personally can see no reason, this is not taking into account religious connotations that is, as to why a couple that uses the same public restroom should not be granted some benefits, tax break wise, if they were to adopt a child. However I personally find that calling it a marriage is not politically prudent. I don't take personal issue with those who wish to subscribe to religion, thus no reason to want to annoy them.

 

 

Just throwing that thought out there.

What about the idea that homosexuality goes against natural law, and since civil law should be an extension of natural law, it is illogical for the government to condone this type of behavior?

 

FWIW, though, I don't understand why the government has a hand in marriage, anyways.

Admittedly, the theory of natural law isn't something I'm very well versed in. I can buy the concept at face value...but it is too broad of a concept to apply to everything. Someone who is homosexual would tell you that these are natural urges and thus a part of natural law. Furthermore if I understand the idea of natural law correctly (which admittedly I might not) the idea of killing an unhealthy baby which is common behavior in many animals (including other Primates) is a part of of natural law.

 

As our government is currently set up I have no issue with government sanctioned unions mainly for purposes of determining ones partner. Frankly I could care less what the official name is, as it is, the government seems set to call this union "marriage". I think the problem with most religious people is they can't make the distinction that for many marriage is a secular bond and has nothing to do with the church. Since the government sanctions this bond it should be separate from the church, as our government is supposedly a secular one.

 

If government was set up in the Utopian fashion of my dreams there would be no need for it at all.

What about the idea that homosexuality goes against natural law, and since civil law should be an extension of natural law, it is illogical for the government to condone this type of behavior?

 

FWIW, though, I don't understand why the government has a hand in marriage, anyways.

 

There hand is only in tax purposes and they should leave it to the states or church to determine that and abide by their decisions. The federal government should have no say in marriages whatsoever.

Something I posted some time ago on this issue:

 

That really depends on how you want to define the purpose of a marriage in reference to the state and how it suits the state's purposes.

 

As the state should have no innate religious trappings for the institution of marriage it does indeed call into the question what defines a marriage. Moreover why would a state with no religious connotations even bother with recognizing any sort of union between couples, heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. So the driving we question we have here is this: What benefit do we have for the state with the recognition of any sort of marriage?

 

As an entity that is to be based on prudence and pragmatism our amoral state should not be swayed by notions such as "love." No because "love" is of no practical relevance, you can't tax love. You can't measure or quantify love, devotion or affection thus rendering that benefit moot. Married couples tend to get tax breaks and incentives, to what end though? For what purpose would the government wish to treat them differently?

 

The only thing that a married couple has that is of use to the state is the eventual production of future citizens. These citizens, provided they make it to adulthood, are an eventual source of revenue via taxation and/or of use in their contributions to society through their careers or through civil service. The state's primary goal, outside of self perpetuation(the same as any good bureaucracy), is to "promote the general welfare." Thus through the enrichment of the population via said production of citizens the government would attain an eventual benefit.

 

With this as the primary motivating factor as a benefit to the state it would stand to reason that the only "marriages" that would be worth recognizing would be those capable of producing said benefit to the state.

 

While the relationship of Bob and Horatio may be healthier than that of Eamon and Sally, B&H are biologically incapable of what E&S can do. This is of course provided that the terrible film Junior was truly ficticious.

 

Outside of that I personally can see no reason, this is not taking into account religious connotations that is, as to why a couple that uses the same public restroom should not be granted some benefits, tax break wise, if they were to adopt a child. However I personally find that calling it a marriage is not politically prudent. I don't take personal issue with those who wish to subscribe to religion, thus no reason to want to annoy them.

 

 

Just throwing that thought out there.

As you and I differ on our taxation beliefs I have trouble buying into this. But, I will say if there were ever a need to populate the earth I could buy into this argument much more and would more than likely be against homosexual unions that didn't at least procreate outside of the union.

As you and I differ on our taxation beliefs I have trouble buying into this. But, I will say if there were ever a need to populate the earth I could buy into this argument much more and would more than likely be against homosexual unions that didn't at least procreate outside of the union.

 

What purpose or benefit to the government is there to a marriage otherwise?

 

How so on taxation?

What purpose or benefit to the government is there to a marriage otherwise?

 

How so on taxation?

In my personal Utopian form of government the government basically stays the hell out of my life except for providing defense and infrastructure. So there isn't a purpose or benefit to the government. Also, one can procreate without any kind of union as is so painfully obvious on the Maury Show. I agree with you on these things...but, the government is involved with marriage and as it is now gay couples can adopt many children and can procreate outside of their union using many different methods. Therefore for tax purposes and determining ones partner for many other legal issues I believe that gay couples can serve the same role as heterosexual ones. I know you look at things amorally, but personally I feel if that's what makes someone happy they can have at it. So to me, the happiness of another is the benefit.

 

I'm essentially against any tax that doesn't directly provide for my safety and with the advances in science it's easy for a gay couple to procreate so those minimal taxes will continue to be met

 

If one is strictly for heterosexual relationships because of procreation and the betterment of society. Then why not get rid of any natural procreation and use the advancements in science to create genetically better humans?

In my personal Utopian form of government the government basically stays the hell out of my life except for providing defense and infrastructure. So there isn't a purpose or benefit to the government. Also, one can procreate without any kind of union as is so painfully obvious on the Maury Show. I agree with you on these things...but, the government is involved with marriage and as it is now gay couples can adopt many children and can procreate outside of their union using many different methods. Therefore for tax purposes and determining ones partner for many other legal issues I believe that gay couples can serve the same role as heterosexual ones. I know you look at things amorally, but personally I feel if that's what makes someone happy they can have at it. So to me, the happiness of another is the benefit. As the procreation aspect of a heterosexual couple can be met by a gay couple I feel no need to only have heterosexual couples. In fact with human cloning and genetic engineering wouldn't it be easier to create better citizens without the need for procreation via sex?

 

I'm essentially against any tax that doesn't directly provide for my safety and with the advances in science it's easy for a gay couple to procreate so those minimal taxes will continue to be met.

 

You are more libertarian than I, that makes sense.

 

Even so I did say with an adopted child that the tax breaks for a same sex couple is acceptable. I just say call it something other than marriage for the sake of keeping the peace.

 

I don't feel that the government has any place involving people's happiness. They are there to do a job no matter whether it evokes positive or negative emotions.

 

The idea of no parents for the sake of creating human beings is an interesting dilemma that I have pondered off and on. What better way to produce soldiers for the state? Of course that runs into all sorts of practical problems in regards to loyalty and limiting governmental power.

You are more libertarian than I, that makes sense.

 

Even so I did say with an adopted child that the tax breaks for a same sex couple is acceptable. I just say call it something other than marriage for the sake of keeping the peace.

 

I don't feel that the government has any place involving people's happiness. They are there to do a job no matter whether it evokes positive or negative emotions.

 

The idea of no parents for the sake of creating human beings is an interesting dilemma that I have pondered off and on. What better way to produce soldiers for the state? Of course that runs into all sorts of practical problems in regards to loyalty and limiting governmental power.

I'm fine with calling it something other than marriage. Honestly they should do away with all state sponsored marriages and create state sponsored unions. The funny thing is that this would appease the masses, not realizing that they are exactly the same thing. I find it quite humorous how many cling to their bibles as this is where the argument truly forms.

 

I just said it's a benefit, not necessarily a government benefit. Like I said, in my view of how government is ran their isn't a benefit for ANY state sanctioned marriage.

 

I, like you believe that there are a lot of dilemmas to such an idea. Being that the main purpose of government is defense, I have not ruled out such an idea, and think it would make a lovely thread. But for the purpose of this thread, I think that if someone believes the benefit of a heterosexual marriage is procreation, well, I'm just saying that we are scientifically past that being a need.

Anyone else catch Perez Hilton's remarks?

 

 

Does this guy actually have fans?

Edited April 21, 200917 yr by bugatti
Rule 8

What's interesting is that I know the runner ups name but not the winner's. I kind of feel sorry for the winner.