Thursday, February 25, 2010



Wow! Free speech about homosexuals allowed -- officially anyway



We read:
"Former Miss California Carrie Prejean isn't the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white," Ashley told Pop Tarts.

"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

Ashley, 23, will be representing Beverly Hills in the Miss California pageant in November. Her statements mirror former Miss California Carrie Prejean's answer to a question about same-sex marriage in last year's Miss USA pageant. At the time, Prejean said her answer opposing same sex marriage cost her the title.

And according to the Miss California's state director, Keith Lewis, a contestant's personal opinion should have no bearing on the result. "The Miss California USA system has always had a place for an individual's thoughts and opinions when it comes to all sides of political issues," Lewis told Pop Tarts. "It is an organization which empowers women, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs."

Source

The City of Beverly Hills has distanced itself from her, however

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

So it's now ok to have an opinion in Mexifornia? How generous of them.

Anonymous said...

... but they distanced themselves from her? LOL!!!

So, it's ok to have an opinion as long as you don't stand so close to me ...

Anonymous said...

Just wait till Parez Hilton starts F-Bombing her on YouTube.

PS: She's HOT and I'm a Hethrosexual (horney) male. HEH!

Anonymous said...

Firstly Ms Ashley did not actually say either that she was opposed to homosexuality or homosexual marriage. She did say that the Bible was against homosexuality and gay marriage and that she thought that God, in his infinite wisdom, has made it clear that he was opposed.
Secondly, she did not 'mirror' the comments of Ms Prejean, she merely holds similar views (although Ms Prejean didn't mention the Bible IIRC - she simply siad that was how she was raised).
Is it now a crime for beauty pageant contestants to hold the same views as the majority of voters in the state they represent?

Anonymous said...

As Prejean said at the pageant, she held the same views as Obama on homo marriages. Why doesn't Obama get any flack at all?

Bobby said...

It's fascinating how beauty pageants seem to attract bible scholars. It's also interesting that in an industry filled with gays you have people that disapprove of homosexuality.

BTW, does she have any tattoos? Because according to Leviticus it is a sin.

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

But I suppose some sins are better than others.

Anonymous said...

The Bible can justify anything you like or don't like, as it's all about interpretation and "context".
And what value or interest is the opinion of a 23 yr old "beauty queen" except to herself and her admirers.

Anonymous said...

Bobby said...
"It's also interesting that in an industry filled with gays you have people that disapprove of homosexuality."

Um, perhaps you're thinking of the fashion industry? Gays do not dominate the beauty pagent as they do fashions. If they did, the pagent (and the contestants) would be "very" different.

Anon 5:48, we all know that in the fake PC world most people seem to be living in, "anything" that is said by "anyone" that displeases gays is taboo.

Anonymous said...

Yes the contestants would have more style!

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:39am "The Bible can justify anything you like or don't like, as it's all about interpretation and context".

OK, refer me to where it can be used to justify homosexuality, then.

Anonymous said...

Jesus, on family values:

(29) And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. –

Matthew 19:29

Anonymous said...

BTW, does she have any tattoos? Because according to Leviticus it is a sin.

BTW - is she a part of "the Children of Israel?"

That is to whom the passage is addressed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:45, I think the term "Man" is pretty much all inclusive.

Bobby said...

"Um, perhaps you're thinking of the fashion industry? Gays do not dominate the beauty pagent as they do fashions. If they did, the pagent (and the contestants) would be "very" different."

---Yes they do. There are plenty of gays who work as pageant coaches, colorists, hair stylists, not to mention fashion designers. Of course, the parents who send their daughters to parade their flesh in bikinis don't care, because let's face it, who's gonna hate the man who does your hair or the coach who gets your daughter to win first prize? It's like the day my sister got married and we had gays all over the house doing hair and makeup. I found it so ironic that these people that can't get legally married we're helping my sister get married.


"BTW - is she a part of "the Children of Israel?""

---I don't think she's Jewish but I know she can't have it both ways, you can't quote from Leviticus when it's convenient and then say "hold on, that doesn't apply to me" when it isn't. Either everything applies or nothing applies.

My own personal opinion is that beauty pageants are somewhat sinful. It's the difference between posing for Playboy and posing for FHM or Maxim. If you do the later society doesn't see you as a total slut.

Anonymous said...

Either everything applies or nothing applies.

Clearly you have no concept of the term "context."

Bobby said...

"Clearly you have no concept of the term "context."

---Are you saying we shouldn't judge people for what they say? Ashley is clearly judging people using the Bible, is it wrong to use the same Bible against her?

Anonymous said...

---Are you saying we shouldn't judge people for what they say?

I looked through all my comments and can't find where I said anything like that at all.

The fact of the matter is that you made an assertion about a verse in Leviticus that was without the context of the surrounding passage.

There is an old saying which goes something like "a text without context is a pretext."

Ashley is clearly judging people using the Bible,

Really? Where in her quote is there any "judging?"

Perhaps you need to understand the meaning of the word "judging" as well.

Bobby said...

"The fact of the matter is that you made an assertion about a verse in Leviticus that was without the context of the surrounding passage."

---The point I was trying to make is that people pick and choose what they like from Leviticus. I see a lot of Christians sporting tattoos, yet that's a sin. In fact, according to Christian websites if the body is thy temple then you're basically painting graffiti on yourself.


"Really? Where in her quote is there any "judging?"
---You're right, mentioning that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death is not a judgment. She's merely quoting the bible, well, I'm doing the same with the issue of tattoos.


"Perhaps you need to understand the meaning of the word "judging" as well."

---She's judging sin, is she not? She's judging good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, am I not correct? I'm not arguing with what she beliefs, I'm only questioning if she only quotes Leviticus only when it comes to gays but not when it comes to other stuff.

Frankly, I hope for her sake that she has a clean lifestyle with no drugs, no premarital sex, no binge drinking, no lesbian kissing to turn on her boyfriend, and nothing that's gonna make more libertine people say "you see? She's against this but she's doing that."

Remember Anita Bryant? The holier than thou woman in the 70s? She was finished after her divorce because back then divorce was a major no-no. All I'm saying is, be careful when you quote the bible and aren't leading a biblical life.

Anonymous said...

You know - its a pretty common tactic typically used by gays whenever anyone mentions that the Bible forbids homosexuality to chip in with something helpful like:
Do you eat shellfish
do you have slaves
do you stone sabbath breakers
do you execute disobedient children
all on the basis that each of these things is stated in Leviticus.
Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and brought an end to its strictures on the above. Apparently (at least according to the Epistle writers of the NT) that didn't extend to the laws about sexual purity.
It really isn't such a difficult concept.
Now, as for whether she is a hypocrite because of her position on fornication/adultery - that's another matter.
I could actually understand gays saying that if you want to impose biblical morality then you should prohibit all extra-marital intimacy. At least that would make it consistent.

Anonymous said...

9) And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. – Leviticus 21:9

Anonymous said...

---The point I was trying to make is that people pick and choose what they like from Leviticus.

The point is that you took something out of context to try and prove a point.

Since you like to quote the Bible so much and "prove" that you know and understand what it means, why don't you follow this:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."


You should see how verses out of context cause problems, but you won't admit it because it shows just how wrong you are.

She's merely quoting the bible, well, I'm doing the same with the issue of tattoos.

One quote taken in context, the other taken out of context. Not the same at all.

She's judging good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, am I not correct?

You are wrong. You are not correct. Once again, you make a statement based upon something you know nothing about.

---She's judging sin, is she not?

No, she isn't.

Frankly, I hope for her sake that she has a clean lifestyle with no drugs, no premarital sex, no binge drinking, no lesbian kissing to turn on her boyfriend, and nothing that's gonna make more libertine people say "you see? She's against this but she's doing that."

Of course, you would want that standard applied to yourself, right? You wouldn't be saying things like "I am for free speech" and then be against any speech you disagree with, would you?

Of course not.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:20 said, "I could actually understand gays saying that if you want to impose biblical morality then you should prohibit all extra-marital intimacy. At least that would make it consistent."

Well, as a Christian who loves his wife, married as virgins, remained faithful for decades, and plan to continue to do so, I say, what's so wrong with that? Contrary to popular belief, we are not alone in this view and practice.

Bobby said...

"You should see how verses out of context cause problems, but you won't admit it because it shows just how wrong you are."

---Hold on, you put two different verses together as if they related, I only used one verse. Besides, I was trying to make a point about bible quoters.


"Of course, you would want that standard applied to yourself, right?"

---There's a difference, I don't go around quoting the bible, I don't tell people what God wants. I did not join American's Against Tattoos and started preaching about how we need to ban Tattoo Parlors. I don't use the bible to make political points. So you see? I can't be held to the same standard because I'm not a bible quoter.

Anonymous said...

---Hold on, you put two different verses together as if they related, I only used one verse.

Right. I used two verses out of context to prove that verses out of context are often not applicable. You used a verse out of context and keep trying to defend its use.

Besides, I was trying to make a point about bible quoters.

I want to make sure that I understand your point. It seems that your point is that taking verses and passages out of context is acceptable for you. That is the only point I get from your post.

I can't be held to the same standard because I'm not a bible quoter.

That's funny, I could have sworn you used a quote from the Bible to try to show how wrong she was for her position. I must have misread you.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like a persons opinion on sexual issues...you probably shouldn't be asking them about it.

~darko

Anonymous said...

A 23 year-old beauty-queen isn't an authority on anything except airheadology.

Bobby said...

"That's funny, I could have sworn you used a quote from the Bible to try to show how wrong she was for her position. I must have misread you."

---No, I used an example of how some passages in Leviticus are popular while others are not.

I see people on the left doing that as well, specially when it comes to the death penalty, guns or environmentalism, they just love finding bible verses to justify their positions.

Anonymous said...

---No, I used an example of how some passages in Leviticus are popular while others are not.

So you did quote the Bible after saying that you didn't after quoting it after denying it after .....

Geez. It is amazing that you now say that you never quoted the Bible while in the next paragraph saying that you were using the same tactic the left uses of quoting the Bible.

And by the way, the concept of "context" still eludes you.

I see people on the left doing that as well, ....

Gasp! What a shocker. Bobby likes the tactics of the left. I guess it is a case of "brothers in arms."

Bobby said...

"So you did quote the Bible after saying that you didn't after quoting it after denying it after"

---Ashley quoted the bible first, did she not? I was just giving her a taste of her own medicine.


"Gasp! What a shocker. Bobby likes the tactics of the left. I guess it is a case of "brothers in arms."

---Did I say I like those tactics? I was just using them as an example of what not to do. If you're going to argue with the bible then be prepared to defend it when people question you.

I saw this video of Ashley
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/26/Miss_Beverly_Hills_Defends_Antigay_Statements/

She did not look very smart, which is why it isn't smart to quote from the bible unless you're an expert like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or the millions of others who take the bible seriously and don't just find a convenient quote every once in a while.

Anonymous said...

1.) She stated her beliefs about marriage using the Bible to explaining those beliefs. That is no more "judging" than you stating your belief why homosexual marriage should be permitted.

2.) A person does not become without sin simply because they believe the Bible is God's word any more than a person can become carbon neutral simply because you believe Algore's "Inconvenient Lie" is right about Global Warming. In other words, because she thinks sin is wrong doesn't mean she is going to be successful every single day at not sinning. Just as you are not going to be able to live by candle light every single day to stay “carbon neutral”.

3.) Maybe I missed something but does she actually have a tattoo? If so how do we know this wasn't done prior to her finding Salvation? or occurred when she was away from God? Again, people make mistakes, sin is human nature.

4.) Her life is not squeaky clean and will never be. It is moronic to say a person has to be perfect in order to believe in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

---Ashley quoted the bible first, did she not? I was just giving her a taste of her own medicine.

Hmmmmm..... let's see.....you wrote on 2:24AM, "I don't go around quoting the bible, ...." and "I can't be held to the same standard because I'm not a bible quoter."

Yet you quoted a passage from Leviticus, did you not?

It doesn't matter your rational for doing so, the fact of the matter is that you quoted a passage, then when challenged on the context of that passage, lied about quoting the Bible at all.

---Did I say I like those tactics?

So you used a tactic that you don't like? Is that what you are saying now? Which one is it? Do you like and approve of the tactic that you used? Or do you hate and disapprove of the tactic you used?

If you're going to argue with the bible then be prepared to defend it when people question you.

I'm sorry, but coming from you this is ridiculous. You used a passage and when questioned, you denied ever quoting the Bible. You refuse to address the idea that you took the passage out of context.

You won't live up to the standards you require of other people.

She did not look very smart,

Well there ya go. How smart people are is dependent upon their looks. That is just another ridiculous statement in a long line of really stupid and ignorant statements you have made.

the millions of others who take the bible seriously and don't just find a convenient quote every once in a while.

So you admit that what you did wasn't very smart? After all, you certainly aren't any type of Bible scholar or even a student of the Bible. This is not the first time you have tried the tactic of quoting the Bible and having your lunch handed back to you. Therefore, according to your own standards, you must not "look" very smart (whatever that means) and you aren't very smart to begin with.

Thanks for that admission.

Anonymous said...

LOL Anon 7:23, glad you're on my side.

Bobby said...

"Yet you quoted a passage from Leviticus, did you not?"

---I was trying to make a point about quoting the bible.

"So you used a tactic that you don't like?"

---How else was I supposed to make my point?

"Well there ya go. How smart people are is dependent upon their looks."

---What? Dude, you are such a lawyer! I didn't mean "looks" as in physical beauty, I meant the way she spoke. I doubt you saw the video, but if you did you'll see that she didn't answer the questions like someone who knows her bible.


"So you admit that what you did wasn't very smart? After all, you certainly aren't any type of Bible scholar or even a student of the Bible."

---No, which is why I don't bring up the bible unless someone does it first.

Besides, I'm very cynical about beauty queens who quote the bible. Remember what happened to Prejean? Now there's nude pictures of her, pictures she took for her boyfriend.

Now don't take me wrong, Lauren is free to believe what she wants, but when you're quoting from the bible I just hope you don't have some serious sins in the closet.

Anonymous said...

---I was trying to make a point about quoting the bible.

You wrote: "I don't go around quoting the bible, ...." and "I can't be held to the same standard because I'm not a bible quoter."

Quote... didn't quote... quote.... didn't quote....

You can't even face your own lies.

---How else was I supposed to make my point?

The ends justify the means? Is that really what you want to say?

You really believe that a tactic that you hate is acceptable for you to use? Try looking in a dictionary for your picture under the word "hypocrite."

---What? Dude, you are such a lawyer!

Translation: How dare you call me on my stupid remark!

I didn't mean "looks" as in physical beauty

Oh. My apologies for believing what you wrote.

I doubt you saw the video, but if you did you'll see that she didn't answer the questions like someone who knows her bible.

Okay. Let's look at this statement as well. Here is a young woman in an interview where she must respond in a timely, intelligent manner. There is no proof reading. There is no "cut and paste." There is no "deleting" what she just said.

You determine that her comments are from someone who is not very bright, yet you make ridiculous, stupid, inane comments here all the time. You have a chance to check your writings and yet your comments are so much more ridiculous than anything this woman says. She never claimed that Dresden was Berlin. She never confused college women basketball players with the men of the NBA. If you want me to go on, I can. In this thread alone, you made the ridiculous comment on the looks of a person and yet you weren't speaking in real time.

The fact of the matter is that you want to hold her to a higher standard than you can possibly meet. You claim that her spur of the moment comments show she is not bright. What does that say about you?

---No, which is why I don't bring up the bible unless someone does it first.

I see. So if someone knowledgeable brings up the Bible, you feel that you should highlight your ignorance on the subject? Or even if that person is not very knowledgeable on the Bible, you feel compelled to demonstrate your empathy with them by exhibiting your ignorance and stupidity?

Besides, I'm very cynical about beauty queens who quote the bible.

Why? Because they show how ignorant on the subject you are? Not that it is difficult, but is that why?

You get caught lying and being hypocritical here all the time and yet you feel it is your responsibility to say "look at that person!"

If you want to see what ignorant looks like, read your posts and then go look in the mirror.

Bobby said...

Fine anonymous, you win, I'm not interested in debating was a liar I am.

Anonymous said...

Fine anonymous, you win, I'm not interested in debating was a liar I am.

It is not a debate. It would take a simple acknowledgment that you made contradictory statements. It would take a simple acknowledgment that your stance on this is hypocritical.

In other words, it would take moral guts.

Walking away just proves my point.

Anonymous said...

for the ignorant quoting the bible, remember even the devil tried using it against Jesus. The word must be rightly divided. Be filled with the Spirit and start learning.

Bobby said...

I'm walking away because arguing with you is impossible. If you'd learn to defend your positions without engaging in character assassination, I wouldn't mind debating you.

Anonymous said...

So 4:15PM, for all we know the Bible might be Satan's way of confusing mankind - and it certainly seems to work! (And whose "spirit" might we get filled with - God's?, the Devil's?, or our own delusions?)

Yo' mama said...

I'm walking away because arguing with you is impossible. If you'd learn to defend your positions without engaging in character assassination, I wouldn't mind debating you.

Take your own advice.

Anonymous said...

I'm walking away because arguing with you is impossible.

TRANSLATION: Mom!! The mean anonymous man is showing how I lied, fabricated things and have no morals! Make him stop!!

If you'd learn to defend your positions without engaging in character assassination, I wouldn't mind debating you.

I wasn't the one that called someone stupid on the basis of their looks. So please, don't try the double standard routine. It doesn't play very well and we all see through it.

And as another poster wrote, take your own advice.