Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was runner up for the Miss USA Pageant. She answered a question about gay marriages, and gave her opinion on what she feels about homosexuals being allowed to get married. She said that she feels they should not be married. She was told by her state sponsors that she needed to apologize to the gay community. They also told her to not talk about her beliefs. She refused to do so. Since when, in this country, can't you speak your opinion, without being bashed for it? The homosexual community has no problem telling others how they feel about it. I don't agree with them, but I'm not asking for an apology from anyone who's gay.

I applaud her for standing up for what she felt was the right answer and not backing down on her beliefs when the question was posed. She was representing the majority of the people in California when she gave her answer, after all.

I believe that if you are homosexual and you want to live that life style, it's your life, so go ahead. But I also believe that God instituted the marriage union between a man and a woman together. They say their vows to Him. So, to call the homosexual lifestyle a 'marriage' is a wrong term for it. It's not a marriage. Why can't they call it a civil union, or anything else they like. Like maybe "Partnership" or how about "a love unit". Whatever. The term 'marriage' is already taken. They can still have all the same rights as married couples do. Why aren't they satisfied with that? Do they just like to argue?

plain, takes one to know one. Ninnie, ninnie, na na. (I gotta give you your props - you do your share of mocking and so that certainly qualifies you to call me out.)

For what it's worth (and we all know it's not worth much, but, whatever) I respect what you posted about your beliefs regarding the Bible. Your beliefs pretty much align with most Christians' take on the subject. It makes sense. But you do know that I wasn't speaking in reference to someone with wholly conventional beliefs, don't you?

And in the Bible it says that to call someone a "fool" is a bad thing. So be it. I guess that pretty much sums up how I feel about extremists who are judgemental and intolerant but who say they love people when they so obviously demonstrate that they do not respect other people, much less love them. Not only do they scorn other people and their beliefs, but they do not even respect other religions or beliefs. And I believe that until we creatures here on earth can learn to live together with mutual love and respect, we will never be able to live in harmony and peace. LBT is a microcosm that illustrates that perfectly.

Yes, intolerance sits squarely on my shoulders too. Guilty as charged. (At least I don't pretend to love everybody and dish out lip service saying what a good little sinner I am.)

i am sorry, but could someone attempt to explain the pansexual thing to me please? i read the definition but still cannot grasp the concept at all!

want: I believe I understand. The pansexual is not always attracted to a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. They are attracted to the person no matter what sex they are. If it is a woman, she might fall in love with another woman or she might fall in love with a man.

You understand homosexual, heretosexual and bisexual preferences, right? Well it seems to me that a pansexual doesn't have a set preference for a person of either the female persuasion or male persuasion. They are attracted to and love people because of who they are, unrelated to which sex they are.

How'm I doing here, Nancy?

I wouldn't worry about grasping it you either do or don't. It wasn't meant to be a "joke".

I just wanted to mention that I saw Oprah today and she did an interesting show on children being bullied today. They focused on what they called sexual harrassment bullying with children in grade school and middle school. They specifically had three parents on there whose young boys had committed suicide by hanging themselves after being bullied this way for a while. One child was buried just yesterday.

Younger children are being bullied and boys called "fag" and girls "whore or lesbian". These kids don't even grasp what it is to be gay etc... at this age but are sexualized at earlier ages due to movies and TV etc... Anyway I bring it up because it was an important show, I think and you could go to Oprah.com and read about it and get other links from it.

One thing that they mentioned is that we've told kids in the past and were ourselved told to "just ignore the bully" and this is the wrong approach. Kids need skills in which to deal with bullying and others who are standbyers need to be taught not to go along with the bullying and what the consquences could be.

I'm sure some of this bullying could be passed down from parent to child so it does concern me when we use God to make it acceptable to condemn homosexuality what affect this could have, so think about it, Nancy.

want: I believe I understand. The pansexual is not always attracted to a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. They are attracted to the person no matter what sex they are. If it is a woman, she might fall in love with another woman or she might fall in love with a man.

You understand homosexual, heretosexual and bisexual preferences, right? Well it seems to me that a pansexual doesn't have a set preference for a person of either the female persuasion or male persuasion. They are attracted to and love people because of who they are, unrelated to which sex they are.

How'm I doing here, Nancy?

You did a grear job BJean, thanks, I can't type much today because my daughter's parrot bit through my index finger:eek: I think I'm done on this subject for now...

hi all... ok first... Plain thats a tough question (about bisexuals being born that way)... I think for some ppl yes I think so, for some I think its just natural curiosity, for others I think its a choice ie... kids wanting to be cool. But I do beleive that ppl are born with curiosity.

I see PG has found a friend!

I think pansexuality is what many bisexuals are in actuality. I know of many "bisexuals"who have expressed that it isn't a particular sex that they are attracted to, its the person, if they happen to be the same sex then so be it. I think love is what its all about. Ppl go through life searching for love, I say grab it where u can! (and no it is not a sin)

amy

plain, takes one to know one. Ninnie, ninnie, na na. (I gotta give you your props - you do your share of mocking and so that certainly qualifies you to call me out.)

What? Me?

For what it's worth (and we all know it's not worth much, but, whatever) I respect what you posted about your beliefs regarding the Bible. Your beliefs pretty much align with most Christians' take on the subject. It makes sense. But you do know that I wasn't speaking in reference to someone with wholly conventional beliefs, don't you?

I know. But my point is, if you want to be known as a tolerant person, mocking somebody else's religion is prolly not a good strategy.......especially when the core beliefs are pretty close. Example:

Joe - I believe that some of the Bible is literally true.

Fred - I believe all of it is literally true.

Joe - You're a fool.

And I believe that until we creatures here on earth can learn to live together with mutual love and respect, we will never be able to live in harmony and peace.

I could not agree more. It's human nature to create a us / them division.

Well that's a pretty darned simplistic way to condemn Joe for stating his beliefs, eh? I mean there has been YEARS of dialogue on this subject on LBT. It has been an exhaustive and exhausted discussion of the topic and one party (actually several) have repeatedly claimed that even though there is good evidence to the contrary, they still stand by their belief that God actually wrote the Bible and that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Would it have been more comfortable for you if Joe had used the term "pig headed"? Or "foolish" instead of "fool"? Or are we all just expected to agree to disagree?

Oh yeah, except that the foolish, pigheaded party won't do that. Hmmm. Guess this is the reason for religious wars, eh?

want: I believe I understand. The pansexual is not always attracted to a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. They are attracted to the person no matter what sex they are. If it is a woman, she might fall in love with another woman or she might fall in love with a man.

You understand homosexual, heretosexual and bisexual preferences, right? Well it seems to me that a pansexual doesn't have a set preference for a person of either the female persuasion or male persuasion. They are attracted to and love people because of who they are, unrelated to which sex they are.

How'm I doing here, Nancy?

That's a great explanation, but I guess I still don't see a difference between that and a bisexual.

Well that's a pretty darned simplistic way to condemn Joe for stating his beliefs, eh? I mean there has been YEARS of dialogue on this subject on LBT. It has been an exhaustive and exhausted discussion of the topic and one party (actually several) have repeatedly claimed that even though there is good evidence to the contrary, they still stand by their belief that God actually wrote the Bible and that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Would it have been more comfortable for you if Joe had used the term "pig headed"? Or "foolish" instead of "fool"? Or are we all just expected to agree to disagree?

Oh yeah, except that the foolish, pigheaded party won't do that. Hmmm. Guess this is the reason for religious wars, eh?

Well actually, there is really no evidence that God didn't write the Bible. I mean....push come to shove, it's a matter of faith. You either believe that the document is an inspired document, or not. There is no proof strong enough to convert an unbeliever, or to dissuade a true believer.

I wonder.....would you tell the same thing to a Jew that believed the Torah was dictated by God? Or a Muslim that believed the Qur'an was dictated by Gabriel?

I believe a bisexual is deemed to be attracted to both men and women. I believe that to a bisexual, it has to do with sexual attractiveness. Homosexuals are attracted sexually to a person of the same sex. Heretosexuals to a member of the opposite sex.

I think pansexual people can be attracted to anyone, including transgender folks, transvestites, asexuals, etc., etc. In other words, they are not attracted to people because of a sexual draw. They are attracted to people for their personalities and who they are psychologically, instead of who they are sexually.

No one claims to ever have seen God write anything. No one claims to have seen God. They claim they have seen God IN things, but not God Himself in a physical form. That's one reason why there are no pictures or paintings of God. One must use their imagination or spiritual beliefs to envision God.

So tell me, how can God physically write something if he doesn't manifest himself in a physical way?

Please note that I do not have a quarrel with the idea that parts of the Bible have been divinely inspired. THAT is what you cannot disprove.

I believe a bisexual is deemed to be attracted to both men and women. I believe that to a bisexual, it has to do with sexual attractiveness. Homosexuals are attracted sexually to a person of the same sex. Heretosexuals to a member of the opposite sex.

I think pansexual people can be attracted to anyone, including transgender folks, transvestites, asexuals, etc., etc. In other words, they are not attracted to people because of a sexual draw. They are attracted to people for their personalities and who they are psychologically, instead of who they are sexually.

That's a pretty good explanation. The problem I see with the label "pansexual" is that, unless they are attracted to another pansexual or in a non-monogamous relationship, they are eventually reduced to heterosexual or homosexual (depending on the person they are with at the time). Does that make sense?

No one claims to ever have seen God write anything. No one claims to have seen God. They claim they have seen God IN things, but not God Himself in a physical form. That's one reason why there are no pictures or paintings of God. One must use their imagination or spiritual beliefs to envision God.

So tell me, how can God physically write something if he doesn't manifest himself in a physical way?

Please note that I do not have a quarrel with the idea that parts of the Bible have been divinely inspired. THAT is what you cannot disprove.

The language of the bible is of 3 kinds. Figurative, Symbolic, and Literal. Such expressions as "harden not your heart" and "let the dead bury their dead", are figurative, and their meaning is made clear by their context. Symbolic language, like the description of Daniel's "four wild beasts" or "Christ in the midst of the 7 candlesticks" is explained, either in the same chapter, or somewhere else in the bible. The rest of the language of the bible is to be interpreted according to the customary rules of grammar and rhetoric. That is, we are to read the bible as we are to read any other book, letting it say what it wants to say, and not allegorize or spiritualize its meaning. It is this false method of interpreting scripture that has led to the origin of so many religious sects and denominations. You need to avoid these 3 things when handling God's word: The misinterpretation of it, the misapplication of it, and the dislocation of it. Due to mans training, environment, prejudices, or desire to make the scriptures teach some favorite doctrine, they are unwilling to let the scripture say what they want to say.

It is clear to me from the character of the bible that it is not the work of man. It details with seathing and unsparing severity the sins of its greatest men, as Abraham, David, Jacob, Moses, charging them with falsehood, treachery, pride, adultry, cowardice, murder and gross licentiousness, and presents the history of the children of Israel as a humiliating record of ingratitude, idolatry, unbelief and rebellion, and it is safe to say, that the Jews, unguided and undirected by the Holy Spirit, would never have chronicled the sinful history of their nation. 2 Timothy says, "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD." God directed men to put into writing such messages, laws, doctrines, historical facts, and revelations. as he wished men to know. Inspiration means "God breathed". God through the Holy Spirit told men of old just what to write. God not only spoke directly to men (like Moses), He also spoke to them in the person of Jesus when God was manifest in the flesh. Jesus spoke not of himself, but of what the Father himself gave him commandment to speak.He told men what to write.The bible says this: "The Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The Lord said to Moses, "Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou must say." Exodus 4:10-12. If God could speak to men, he could tell them what to write.