Did Miss California lose because of her opinion on gay marriage?

[The Ghost of RubangB]

starcraft said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

starcraft said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Slimebeast said:

WessleWoggle said:

Slimebeast said:
These things (among a thousand of others) are making me hate liberals and gay activists and the same 'holier than thou' type of people.

And they're so unaware of their hypocrisy that it's pathetic.

Wtf? Explain.

By eating meat they're doing a bigger atrocity themselves than what they are condemning others of doing.

Oh come on slimebeast.  We should stick to the marriage issue, and not turn this into "the hypocrisy of liberalism."  I could just as easily take every right-wing radical fringe group, and say that they prove "the hypocrisy of conservativism."  And what does eating meat have to do with anything?  Must all liberals be vegetarians or hypocrites?

I wasn't going to comment as noone has said anything new since I left this thread.

But after all your hypocritical and intolerant attempts to label people who disagree with you as bigots, and frame the debate with ridiculous unrelated things such as the race debate and obscure references to homophobia perpetrated by random assholes, I just found the bolded phrase absolutely hilariously ironic.

I was comparing the uphill civil rights battles of gays to the uphill civil rights battles of other races, sexes, and people who want to marry across racial lines.  Sorry if that was somehow too off-topic for you.  Ya know, doing research and using history.  How can we even argue without doing that?

You're the one who keeps saying "it's been only this way always forever," which is dead wrong, and I've proven it wrong several times with historical examples where marriage was different or even gay marriage was accepted and celebrated, and you keep ignoring it.

Please feel free to point out exactly how and where I'm being a hypocrite or intolerant.  Sorry if I don't tolerate the denial of equal rights under a secular government in a nation with a separation between church and state.  Were abolitionists intolerant because they wouldn't tolerate the slavery of others?

I stoped using terms like always the moment you pointed out isolated and largely irrelevant incidents of homosexual "marriage" occuring.  Of course what you actually 'proved' was simple ceremonies of partnership, but I am sure you're correct that some sort of gay marriage would have occured in the past in some small corner of the globe.  You can find an example of anything if you look hard enough.

What you fail to conceptualise through your ridiculous holier than thouh exterior on ANY level is that most people simply don't agree that the question of gay marriage as a definitional issue is in any way a rights issue.  Marriage is an institution that is ideologically based on love between a man and a woman.  It's simply a part of the definition.  It does not make room for homosexual relationships. 

You're not debating with someone who argues for relgious dictation of how our society operates.  The vast majority of humanity does not consider this a rights issue at all.  If you want to argue that homosexuals need more economic and social rights worldwide to bring them on par with heterosexuals I'm right there with you.  But your ridiculous attempts to frame the debate in terms of slavery and race are a sign of weakness in your argument, and a classic left-wing tactic to distract from the issue at hand.

So is your entire argument that we can't change definitions?  Because if that's your argument, they already did in a few other countries and states, and we have done so in the U.S. several times.  And I could just say "study linguistics for half a second" to see how fast definitions change.

I want equal rights for everybody, and I don't care who's tolerant or intolerant about anything.  You can refuse to recognize any marriages you want, and so can I, and so can every single religion and church and person and family out there.  But the United States government should not.  If that requires a definition change that bothers some people, so be it.  It won't insult their marriage, and if it does, I would like to know precisely how and why.

And I would like to know how I'm being hypocritical and what I'm "failing to understand" and how I'm being "holier than thou."  I want marriages for everybody or civil unions for everybody.