By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

WessleWoggle on 21 April 2009
HappySqurriel said:
SciFiBoy said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fact: Oranges exist
Fact: They are living Organisms
Fact: living organisms can do things
Fact: one of these things living organisms can do is to talk

Therefore: Oranges can talk?

 

Your argument is a non-sequitur ...

 

 

well done, you missed the point entirely, my point is that, if you give straight people a right to marry based soley on there orientation, you should give the same right to gay people should you not?

 

 

Sure, we'll give them an equal right ... They can choose any word that isn't "Marriage" and we will make the two kinds of relationships 100% equal under the law

That wouldn't be fair.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 April 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

Well the same logic you use here would seem to indicate that it's wrong to make it so that guys can't enter a ladies room to use the bathroom.

Or play in womens sports or any other sort of thing.

Or that a co-ed sports team could have all guys.

Some things are dependent on sex.  Whether that is right or not... who can say.

 

somethings like that are ok, others arent, for instance, in many jobs, men are paid more than women, that is not fair, its discrimination

sports are an intresting one, i dont see any reason a women cant play a mans game or vice versa, ok it may be a bit unfair at a proffesional level, thats because they have different strengths, so we put them in different sections and stuff, im not against that.

what does "co-ed" mean?

Co-ed sports are sports when men and women play together.  In general your team needs to be half male and half female on the court at all times.

In baseball you need to alternate "Male-Female" etc.

 



WessleWoggle on 21 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
WessleWoggle said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
HappySqurriel said:

I never generalized and made any claim that "All" or "most" supporters of gay marriage were intollerant, but I have seen more racist and intollerant rants from gay marriage supporters than I have ever seen from people who oppose it ...

I'm not religious at all and it doesn't impact me directly, but I have been in crowds of people where if you changed "Evangelical Christian" to "Jew" you'd feel like you were in Germany in the 1930's. For people who preach so heavily of tolerance and acceptance you'd think that gay marriage supporters would try to understand the arguments against it without resorting to stereotypes and scapegoating.

 

 

Fact: Gay People Exist
Fact: they are human
Fact: humans are allowed to do things
Fact: one of the things humans are allowed to do is to get married
Fact: 1+1+1+1= 4

if you have a counter to these facts, which is not ignorant, then i would love to hear it, as im not aware of any.

Well the same logic you use here would seem to indicate that it's wrong to make it so that guys can't enter a ladies room to use the bathroom.

Or play in womens sports or any other sort of thing.

Or that a co-ed sports team could have all guys.

Some things are dependent on sex.  Whether that is right or not... who can say.

I can.

Male/female bathrooms are wrong because we're culturally taught that private parts are not for public viewing, which in turn, makes people want to look at private parts. There would be a lot of invasion of privacy if, in our culture, people were allowed to use the same bathroom.

As for sports, men and women are sized differently, with males usually being bigger and stronger.

There's a logical explaination for why men and women use different bathrooms and why they play on different sports team. There is no logical explaination for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

 

Aren't we culturally taught gay marriage is wrong?  I mean that is the traditional view.

Men and women are sized different.... so are Men and Men.

No form of seregation should be legal.

Bathrooms should be changed if as they currently are men and women can't be in the same room.

 

Most people are culturally taught gay marriage is wrong. So what? It doesn't hurt anything except people's feelings. Bathrooms with both sexes would cause breaches of privacy via peeping.

I do agree that women who are big enough should be allowed in mens sports teams.

As for your last sentance, I didn't understand it.

 



theRepublic on 21 April 2009
nojustno said:
pakidan101 said:
See, this is the real problem.

It is not the fact that she voiced her opinion that got her into trouble. It is perfectly fine for her to say that her values about marriage should be between a man and a woman, or in her words "opposite marriage." It is also fine that she doesn't want to offend anybody as well. What was not fine was when she said "that is how marriage SHOULD be."

See, I'm also against gay people from "marrying." What I am not against is gay people from being together. The problem from her statement was that people can and will infer that she is inflicting HER own opinion on how OTHER people should live their lives. As a Miss America contestant, she needed to give an answer that will please everybody and nobody at the same time, especially in this kind of question.

A better answer would have been "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman (if this is her opinion), but I also believe that gay couples should be allowed together. Religion already forbids gay people from existing in this specific religion, let alone marry, but it also forbids people from being harsh and demeaning towards anybody, including homosexuals. Gay couples 'marrying' demeans the meaning and occasion of marriage as just 'another definition of being together' for other religious, heterosexuals who are going to marry or already married. If there is another religion that is created for gay couples and allows them to marry, then should be allowed to. But otherwise, allowing them to marry while demeaning the sanctimony of other marriages shouldn't be allowed."

Oh and technically, homosexuals are a danger to humanity. Not sociologically, but evolutionary-wise. If there are more and more homosexuals, there are less and less new babies made. How will humanity survive then?

um dude, only like ~5% of the population is gay, not exactly threatening. Seeing how it isnt a choice, I don't see that percentage increasing.

If I remember right:

2 to 3% of men are homosexual

1 to 2% of women are homosexual

<1% are bisexual



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

HappySqurriel on 21 April 2009
WessleWoggle said:
HappySqurriel said:
WessleWoggle said:

Well thought out arguments? I'd like to hear one please. I've never heard an argument that wasn't based on cultural or religious bias.

It's intolerant because, well, let me just parody you.

"Personally, I'm neither for or against the abolition of slavery, but I have noticed a pattern that people who abolition of slavery can typically forumlate well thought out arguments and abolition supporters reply by calling them intollerant. I have never even seen an argument that explains why slavery is wrong, and I have yet to see anyone explain how having a different point of view was immediately intollerant."

 

 

 

 

The fact that you associate full rights protected under the law with the exception of the word "Marriage" being undefined and unused by the government with Slavery is actually quite frightening ...

The fact that you responded to my parody, rather than the important part of my post, is lame.

"Well thought out arguments? I'd like to hear one please. I've never heard an argument that wasn't based on cultural or religious bias."

 

Well, one of the more classical arguments is that the formalization of the relationship between a man and a woman we call marriage is a means to ensure that the paternity of these children is acknowledged, and that they are accepted and supported by the extended family on both sides. While this may seem somewhat outdated today because of DNA testing and child support, no legal entity can force grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins to accept these children; and children who are born outside of a marriage are still (generally speaking) ostracised from one side (typically paternal) of their family.

There is a risk that by introducing homosexual marriage that people will become confused about its initial purpose, more people will have children in more unstable relationships outside of marriage, and within a couple of generations the majority of children will have little support from (at least) one half of their extended family.

 



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 21 April 2009
WessleWoggle said:
HappySqurriel said:
SciFiBoy said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fact: Oranges exist
Fact: They are living Organisms
Fact: living organisms can do things
Fact: one of these things living organisms can do is to talk

Therefore: Oranges can talk?

 

Your argument is a non-sequitur ...

 

 

well done, you missed the point entirely, my point is that, if you give straight people a right to marry based soley on there orientation, you should give the same right to gay people should you not?

 

 

Sure, we'll give them an equal right ... They can choose any word that isn't "Marriage" and we will make the two kinds of relationships 100% equal under the law

That wouldn't be fair.

 

 

How is ensuring equality while recognising differences not fair?

 



WessleWoggle on 21 April 2009
HappySqurriel said:
WessleWoggle said:
HappySqurriel said:
SciFiBoy said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fact: Oranges exist
Fact: They are living Organisms
Fact: living organisms can do things
Fact: one of these things living organisms can do is to talk

Therefore: Oranges can talk?

 

Your argument is a non-sequitur ...

 

 

well done, you missed the point entirely, my point is that, if you give straight people a right to marry based soley on there orientation, you should give the same right to gay people should you not?

 

 

Sure, we'll give them an equal right ... They can choose any word that isn't "Marriage" and we will make the two kinds of relationships 100% equal under the law

That wouldn't be fair.

 

 

How is ensuring equality while recognising differences not fair?

 

 

 

It is 'fair', but it's unfair compared to this opinion:

I think we should all be considered people, not male or female. Any person should be allowed to get married to any person. We should all have the right to marry any person we want.



WessleWoggle on 21 April 2009
HappySqurriel said:
WessleWoggle said:
HappySqurriel said:
WessleWoggle said:

Well thought out arguments? I'd like to hear one please. I've never heard an argument that wasn't based on cultural or religious bias.

It's intolerant because, well, let me just parody you.

"Personally, I'm neither for or against the abolition of slavery, but I have noticed a pattern that people who abolition of slavery can typically forumlate well thought out arguments and abolition supporters reply by calling them intollerant. I have never even seen an argument that explains why slavery is wrong, and I have yet to see anyone explain how having a different point of view was immediately intollerant."

 

 

 

 

The fact that you associate full rights protected under the law with the exception of the word "Marriage" being undefined and unused by the government with Slavery is actually quite frightening ...

The fact that you responded to my parody, rather than the important part of my post, is lame.

"Well thought out arguments? I'd like to hear one please. I've never heard an argument that wasn't based on cultural or religious bias."

 

Well, one of the more classical arguments is that the formalization of the relationship between a man and a woman we call marriage is a means to ensure that the paternity of these children is acknowledged, and that they are accepted and supported by the extended family on both sides. While this may seem somewhat outdated today because of DNA testing and child support, no legal entity can force grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins to accept these children; and children who are born outside of a marriage are still (generally speaking) ostracised from one side (typically paternal) of their family.

There is a risk that by introducing homosexual marriage that people will become confused about its initial purpose, more people will have children in more unstable relationships outside of marriage, and within a couple of generations the majority of children will have little support from (at least) one half of their extended family.

 

Wtf does that mean? How does that make sense?

 



SciFiBoy on 21 April 2009
WessleWoggle said:

 

 

It's is not fair because it is more unfair than this opinion:

I think we should all be considered people, not male or female. Any person should be allowed to get married to any person. We should all have the right to marry any person we want.

 

bolded is what i think as well, i agree 100% with that statement, well done WessleWoggle



gomezc on 21 April 2009
pakidan101 said:
See, this is the real problem.

It is not the fact that she voiced her opinion that got her into trouble. It is perfectly fine for her to say that her values about marriage should be between a man and a woman, or in her words "opposite marriage." It is also fine that she doesn't want to offend anybody as well. What was not fine was when she said "that is how marriage SHOULD be."

See, I'm also against gay people from "marrying." What I am not against is gay people from being together. The problem from her statement was that people can and will infer that she is inflicting HER own opinion on how OTHER people should live their lives. As a Miss America contestant, she needed to give an answer that will please everybody and nobody at the same time, especially in this kind of question.

A better answer would have been "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman (if this is her opinion), but I also believe that gay couples should be allowed together. Religion already forbids gay people from existing in this specific religion, let alone marry, but it also forbids people from being harsh and demeaning towards anybody, including homosexuals. Gay couples 'marrying' demeans the meaning and occasion of marriage as just 'another definition of being together' for other religious, heterosexuals who are going to marry or already married. If there is another religion that is created for gay couples and allows them to marry, then should be allowed to. But otherwise, allowing them to marry while demeaning the sanctimony of other marriages shouldn't be allowed."

Oh and technically, homosexuals are a danger to humanity. Not sociologically, but evolutionary-wise. If there are more and more homosexuals, there are less and less new babies made. How will humanity survive then?

Nicely put.