Will Christians be protected from Gay social goals?

[Mere_Christian]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

[Mere_Christian]

Miss California is yet another example that the answer to the OP is No.

[Goat]

All things being equal, kids are better off in a home with a mother and father.

Two observations:
Primo, seldom are all things equal.

Secondo, do you have any empirical evidence to back up that children are better off in a home with a father and mother? What do you mean by better off? Better off than what: a single parent household or a equivalent two same-sex parent household?

Juvenile Hall, Prisons, Youth residential facilities (Group Homes), psychiatric facilities, homeless shelters, STD's, drug addiction, school drop outs.

McCulloch, I have worked in the social service field for over twenty years and the percentage of people screwed up, come from the non nuclear family in such large numbers it will stagger you if you care to do a bit of research.

Give a call to Attorney Jeffrey Leving out of Chicago (812) 807-3990. He has some startling figures.

Opposing gay goals for society has nothing at all to do with bigotry or civil rights violations, but with a sensible rationale for the mental and physical health of children. Children within the foster family system (loving and warm as it may be) litter the juvenile justice system.

Gay rights is a very new structure for the family makeup. It will take time to see what this does to children. It does not bode well for expectations based on current pop culture that same-gender "parents" will raise people with a stable mental health.

I believe there was a vice president that once tried to bring our attention to the problem of broken families. He may have gotten patatoe wrong, but he was dead right about healthy children.

You listed things.. yet.. why, you did not provide evidence. You made yet another series of claims, .. without backup.

Do you know the difference between 'providing evidence' and 'unsupported claims'? Perhaps you can actually provide numbers from a valid source, such as a government agency.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 110:

...Gay rights is a very new structure for the family makeup. It will take time to see what this does to children...

Yet you offer your opinion as though it were fact?
---------------------------------------
From Page 12 Post 111:

Miss California is yet another example that the answer to the OP is No.

Can you verify the majority of judges voted down on Miss California because of her religion?

Can you verify the majority of judges voted down on Miss California because of her opinion?

[JoeyKnothead]

On the issue of the holier than thou Miss California:

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping semi-nude photos a secret and could be stripped of her beauty queen title, according to a state pageant spokesman.
Prejean said the photos -- taken when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."...
..."They are going over the legalities and clearly she breached her contract," Neal said. "When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification.

>my bolding<
Lying, hypocritical, "Cafeteria Christian".

Is this woman still to be lauded for her "morals"?

[Cathar1950]

On the issue of the holier than thou Miss California:

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping semi-nude photos a secret and could be stripped of her beauty queen title, according to a state pageant spokesman.
Prejean said the photos -- taken when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."...
..."They are going over the legalities and clearly she breached her contract," Neal said. "When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification.

>my bolding<
Lying, hypocritical, "Cafeteria Christian".

Is this woman still to be lauded for her "morals"?

Let's not jump all over the little nitwit.
Getting naked or even doing a nude photo doesn't make you evil and having an uninformed opinion about homosexual relationships and rights isn't related to her nude picture that was meant to stimulate healthy hetrosexuals males. I wonder if it was difficult to talk her into doing the nude?
Maybe she was doing it for God and country.
Or maybe it was just helping her feel whole.

I doubt her opinion is what lost her the contest.

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's not jump all over the little nitwit.
Getting naked or even doing a nude photo doesn't make you evil and having an uninformed opinion about homosexual relationships and rights isn't related to her nude picture that was meant to stimulate healthy hetrosexuals males. I wonder if it was difficult to talk her into doing the nude?
Maybe she was doing it for God and country.
Or maybe it was just helping her feel whole.

I doubt her opinion is what lost her the contest.

>with respect to Cathar1950, whose opinions I value<
Firstly, I think she's hotter'n a two dollar pistol, and I can't wait to see the pics.

But mostly what I'm getting at is she considers such "traditional values" as marriage, while rejecting such "traditional values" as being honest when signing contracts. As marriage is a form of contract, I consider her duplicity to be more evidence of "pick and choose" policies regarding her own opinion about what is "right or wrong". For me it's not the pics, but the withholding of that information from the pageant organization that is "evil".

If she is willing to omit pertinent information required of her contract, then what pertinent information may she be silent about in regards to gay marriage?

[Amos]

On the issue of the holier than thou Miss California:

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping semi-nude photos a secret and could be stripped of her beauty queen title, according to a state pageant spokesman.
Prejean said the photos -- taken when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."...
..."They are going over the legalities and clearly she breached her contract," Neal said. "When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification.

>my bolding<
Lying, hypocritical, "Cafeteria Christian".

Is this woman still to be lauded for her "morals"?

Please explain how this has anything to do with the position Miss California took regarding gay marriage and the media firestorm that followed. In other words, how does this relate to the topic under consideration in this thread?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 12 Post 117:

...Please explain how this has anything to do with the position Miss California took regarding gay marriage and the media firestorm that followed. In other words, how does this relate to the topic under consideration in this thread?

From the same page you saw my post, there was this post:

From Page 12 Post 111:

Miss California is yet another example that the answer to the OP is No.

Now, one can consider such, in regards to the OP, as some kind of evidence that 'Christians are being oppressed' in the name of 'gay activism'.

So I offered that this lady is herself attempting to hold gays accountable to "traditional marriage" predicates, which are social and actual contracts, while she holds herself immune to her own contract.

Need I define hypocrisy?

This lady is being put forth in the original post as some 'martyr', while she herself has violated the terms of her own contract.

Had this woman been honest up front she would never have been in the position to make her statement, and so she ostensibly misrepresented herself in order to gain a national stage.

Had she not done so, she never would have been in the position to be 'martyred' in the first place.

[micatala]

On the issue of the holier than thou Miss California:

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping semi-nude photos a secret and could be stripped of her beauty queen title, according to a state pageant spokesman.
Prejean said the photos -- taken when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."...
..."They are going over the legalities and clearly she breached her contract," Neal said. "When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification.

>my bolding<
Lying, hypocritical, "Cafeteria Christian".

Is this woman still to be lauded for her "morals"?

Please explain how this has anything to do with the position Miss California took regarding gay marriage and the media firestorm that followed. In other words, how does this relate to the topic under consideration in this thread?

A public figure who makes public pronouncements should not be surprised by criticism and doesn't really have much ground to complain.

I would say some of the comments against her that I have heard about were over the top, and reflect extremely badly on those who made them.


However, I would point out that criticism is not necessarily the same as persecution. We are all entitled to our opinions, including Miss California. If she was denied a prize or a higher prize only due to her viewpoint, she might have a case, but that depends on the pre-existing rules of the contest. My guess is the judging is entirely the purview of the judges and the organization and they can pick the winners pretty much however they wish.

To the extent she loses the prize she was awarded due to breech of contract, this is also entirely her own responsibility.



Now, it is certainly common in public discourse to get into mud-slinging regarding "whose sin is worse." Certainly many, including many who oppose gay rights, would find her posing half nude for a magazine immoral, even if it was for commercial purposes.

My only request is that if she feels it is her right to pose for such pictures and that is is her right not to consider such actions immoral, that she consider that her statements on the morality of others are going to legitimately be considered as hypocritical by many.

[Amos]

From Page 12 Post 117:

...Please explain how this has anything to do with the position Miss California took regarding gay marriage and the media firestorm that followed. In other words, how does this relate to the topic under consideration in this thread?

From the same page you saw my post, there was this post:

From Page 12 Post 111:

Miss California is yet another example that the answer to the OP is No.

Now, one can consider such, in regards to the OP, as some kind of evidence that 'Christians are being oppressed' in the name of 'gay activism'.

So I offered that this lady is herself attempting to hold gays accountable to "traditional marriage" predicates, which are social and actual contracts, while she holds herself immune to her own contract.

Need I define hypocrisy?

This lady is being put forth in the original post as some 'martyr', while she herself has violated the terms of her own contract.

Had this woman been honest up front she would never have been in the position to make her statement, and so she ostensibly misrepresented herself in order to gain a national stage.

Had she not done so, she never would have been in the position to be 'martyred' in the first place.

No, you don't need to define "hypocrisy," just as I probably don't need to define "relevant." Her "hypocrisy" is not "relevant" to this discussion. Her failure to disclose the fact that she got nekkid for the camera as a minor doesn't make what she said false or justify anything that might have happened because of what she said. It has no bearing on the situation except to give those who disagree with her a reason to point and shout "Hypocrite!"

I bet you think everything Bill Bennett writes or says is false because he had a gambling problem.