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?

starcraft on 22 April 2009
WessleWoggle said:
starcraft said:
nojustno said:
wfz said:
Pics?

Anyways, that's pretty lame that she was booed off and called such names by people who are insecure and/or overly sensitive freaks.

It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, everyone else can **** off.

True, entitled 100%. She's still a bigot for having that opinion though and certainly didn't deserve to win.

I am going to do this as politely as possible.  With the sole exception of you, everyone in this thread has refrained from making personal attacks.  Cut it out, now, or I will report you.

Excuse me?  How is someone a bigot for agreeing with the majority of Americans and the VAST majority of humans worldwide?

Because the amount of people who support something has nothing to do with it's validity? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? You're using one, it's called ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. 

I am familiar with both concepts.  Neither are applicable to this post.  I fully agree that someone who wishes to deny homosexuals economic and social rights is a bigot.  Someone who simply recognises that something has always been defined as something, and that that something and its definition are of great importance to the vast majority of people on this planet, is not a bigot.  They, unlike those who call them intolerant, are attempting to find a reasonable way to grant everyone their rights without defiling an insititution that for all its good and bad means a great deal to a great many people and has done for millenia.

I have a serious, SERIOUS problem with governments anywhere that persecute gays, attack gays, or dont offer gays the same legal and economic entitlements that are offered to heterosexual couples.  But marriage is an entirely different beast.  For MILLENIA it has been the union of a man and a woman.

Who cares? I don't. There's no reason to inhibit gay marriage just to protect someone elses flawed concept.

Defeated above.

There is no sense in pretending that it has always been pretty.  There have been marriages for war, diplomacy, money and sex.  But at it's core marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman loving eachother formally recognising that fact before their peers and in many cases before their religion.

No. At 'it's core' marriage, was and always has been, a way to bind people legally, socially, or religiously. In our country it's a legal thing, so it should be defined as such. There's no secular argument against gay marriage that makes sense, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed. They deserve equal right to marry someone they are attracted to, either both gay and straight marriages are called marriages, or they're both called civil unions.

I beg your pardon?  For millenia the vast majority of marriages were for love, or strong affection.  Just because the nobles, kings and tyrants you read about in history books married for power, greed and diplomacy doesnt mean the peasants they governed did.  Even where the marriages were for convenience, they were between a man and a woman.  Your intolerant nature makes you incapable or realising just how much that means to so many billions of people.

  I might add, that marriage exists largely because of the support of religious infrastructure of all creeds, the same infrastructures that proponents of gay marriage are now attempting to silence and label as bigots.

Marriage exists because it's of benefit to people who are married. Gay people want the same benefits, and they want it to have the same name. It's only fair. As for people who are against that, they are bigots. Or maybe I should use a different word? Is assholes better? Douchebags? No, I'll stick with bigot.

Lets take your simple argument for a moment.  You completely defile the massive majority of people who would be greatly insulted by labelling a gay union a marriage and call them intolerant.  You say this is because they get benefits homosexuals dont.  But if they ask homosexuals to have every right they have, but have a different name for it, supporters of gay marriage are somehow being tolerant by demanding the same name?  Why is that only fair?  Where is the secular argument that says that people that argue this can change the way something has been defined for all of civilisation when it is so important to the majority?  Are they not bigots?  Is assholes better? Douchebags?  No I'll stick with bigots. 

Don't you see?  You're doing exactly what HappySquirrel accussed the gay-marriage movement of.  You cannot construct an arguement.  You're right because you're right and anyone that disagrees with you is intolerant.

I have every support for civil unions or equivelant economic and social contracts for gay and lesbian couples.  We as a society should not deny those benefits too people simply because of their sexual orientation.

Good.

But in my opinion, anyone that simply cannot understand why supporters of marriage as it has always been find the idea of gay marriage wrong or offensive needs to make an effort to re-examine the many perspectives of this issue.

I understand them, but their postition is illogical. They're trying to protect silly ideas, and there's no need to.

Silly ideas like wanting to call a spade a spade even though not doing so spares billions of people offense, sadness and a sense of loss within their own marriages?

Anyone that feels they DO understand why supporters of gay marriage are offended and feel that it is simply because they are bigots, needs to realise their hypocracy,

I disagree. I'll call a bigot a bigot. You, just like the bigots you are supporting and defending, are doing so based on illogical reasons. 

 

 

 

 

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009

@starcraft, you keep saying ALWAYS and FOR MILLENNIA in all caps, as if marriage has ONLY ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.

To you I say this:

Not in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden (starting May 1st), Connecticut, Iowa (starting April 27th), Massachussetts, or Vermont (starting September 1st).

Also, not in America before white people showed up. A few of the native tribes allowed gay marriages as well. Throughout history there have been many cultures that not only allowed gay marriages, but promoted them, and even some that celebrated homosexuality as a way to be closer to the gods (like a shaman or a mystic of some sort).

So stop using the word ALWAYS.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

CAL4M1TY on 22 April 2009

Perez Hilton is easily the biggest douche in the world.

The woman expressed her opinion, I may not necessarily agree with it (I'm fine with homosexuality, but I've never really thought about gay marriage before, but I'd say I was okay with it), that's her right to free speech working there.

It's not like she said "Gay people are devils and should be shot", she just said that she personally believed that marriage should be between a man and woman and that's how she was raised to think. Given the type of crap Hilton has spewed over the years, the fact that he gives her crap about having an opinion is rubbish.

Also, isn't it actually a good thing that we get a beauty pageant contestant that spoke her mind, rather than answer what she thought the judges would have been most impressed with? Kudos to her for that.

But no, I don't think that was the reason she didn't win.



starcraft on 22 April 2009

The Ghost of RubangB said:
starcraft, now you're treating Bacon like a second-class citizen, by telling him he was born into a sexuality that doesn't get to marry who he is emotionally inclined to marry, but has to marry who you tell him to marry whether he likes it or not.

Bacon doesn't have to marry anyone.  He has exactly the same pool or potential marriage options that I have.  Everything (well most things) in the world have definitions.  The definition of marriage means a great deal to a great deal of people for reasons that you simply refuse to see.  I am not someone that opposes gays having every social and economic right I have.  I am as opposed to those people as you are.

But at the end of the day, marriage was marriage before Bacon was born.  Were I an American I would wish him the ability to marry any woman that will have him, and share equivelant legal and economic benefits with any man that would have him.  But marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  That tradition is important to me, on the same deep and heartfelt level it is important to the vast majority of human beings.  We should not be punished or labelled intolerant for wanting to keep it that way.  In all honesty, I can understand his compulsion to want what straight people can have.  But you seem unable to comprehend why it is so important to the vast majority of humans to keep what we have, and why that would be demeaned if it was changed in this way.  Especially given most reasonable people should recognise that the difference should be in name and tradition only.  Not practicality.

Civil unions are a separate but equal clause. We've tried that in America before. We gave blacks their own drinking fountains, and their own part of the bus, so they wouldn't get our fountains and seats dirty. Now we want to give gays their own civil union contracts, so they don't get our marriages dirty. Both are offensive and neither are equal.

I view it differently I guess.  For the same reasons outlined above.  I recognise the Liberal impulse to associate horrible things like racism with this movement.  It is a pretty low attempt to equate proponents of the sanctity of marriage with racists.

With those separate but equal laws proven unconstitutional regarding race, it will be much easier to do so now regarding sexuality.

And saying that marriage was like that for MILLENNIA is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's a bad argument. Slavery was around for MILLENNIA. It's a long-standing tradition with strong roots! It's also evil.

Same goes with slavery as went with racism.  You're attempting (consciously or not) to create evil by association in the arguments of those that believe marriage is important and worth protecting for the vast majority to whom it is important.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

starcraft on 22 April 2009
WessleWoggle said:
starcraft said:
WessleWoggle said:
HappySqurriel said:
SciFiBoy said:
there is no excuse for being an ignorant idiot, people who dont like gay people are ignorant idiots, therefore, they fail, allways.

How does having a different definition of marriage mean that someone doesn't like gay people?

A large portion of people who disagree with gay marriage fully support the rights of adults to choose their own sexuality, and enter into any relationship (between consenting adults) that they choose to, but they see marriage as being far more than a wedding; and they see marriage as being a relationship which implicitly requires two people of the opposite sex.

typically, the most intollerant people in a gay marriage debate tend to be its supporters ...

Explain why being intolerant of the intolerant is a bad thing?

How about before he does that, you take a gander at my posts.  For my mind, HappySquirrel has successfully highlighted the fact that you are intolerant.  But you have not displayed for him why someone who disagrees with gay marriage is intolerant.

I've responded to your posts. 

Instead you simply revert to your belief that no well-constructed argument you have seen was based on anything other than cultural or religious bias.  First of all I will point out that if an argument is well-constructed, it shouldn't matter what cultural forms it evolved from, as all arguments are founded in a bias.  But secondly, I will point you in the direction of my previous posts.

You tell me why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. What bad will it do, besides mental harm to those with bigoted views?

 

You havent responded to my posts mate.  You have just said that I'm wrong, you're right and that I am a bigot.  Exactly as Happyquirrel predicted you would.

 

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009
wfz said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
@OP,

Miss California said "opposite marriage" and should have lost due to that alone. She also should have just worded it better so she wasn't telling everybody else how to live. She tried to tone it down a bit by saying it's great how people can decide, but then in the next breath she decided, for everybody. And that's where she lost. It was a pretty tricky question for a beauty pageant, definitely, but at beauty pageants you're supposed to give really boring answers about world peace, no matter what the question is.

I hope somebody makes a beauty pageant mash-up video, where I can learn that most people don't have maps of opposite marriage and the Iraq.

 

How was she pushing her idea on anyone? I just re-read it to make sure, and I disagree with what you said. Look at my post explaining my view of alcohol, is it not almost exactly the same?

 

She says that it's great that people get to choose, but for her, personally, she thinks it should be between a man and a woman.

 

I think it's great that people get to choose whether or not to consume alcohol, but for me, personally, I think that alcohol is a substance that causes too many problems and shouldn't be consumed by people.

Does that mean I'm pushing my view on everyone? Hell no, that's just my view. You can drink if you want, and that's fine, but I personally don't think alcohol is a good thing to drink. Just because I disapprove of what you do, does that automatically mean that I'm pushing my view on you?

Do you really think she was pushing her view on everyone, with that statement she made? How?

Where she said "that's the way it should be" and "in my country, in my family."

You didn't say "not drinking, that's the way it should be" or "in my country, in my family, nobody should drink."

Disapproval of the lifestyle/behavior/actions is fine, but disapproval of the legality is where I draw the line.  You may call me an idiot for drinking booze, and you'd probably be right, but once you say I shouldn't have the right to drink, I'll get pissed.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

WessleWoggle on 22 April 2009
Sstarcraft said:
WessleWoggle said:
starcraft said:
nojustno said:
wfz said:
Pics?

Anyways, that's pretty lame that she was booed off and called such names by people who are insecure and/or overly sensitive freaks.

It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, everyone else can **** off.

True, entitled 100%. She's still a bigot for having that opinion though and certainly didn't deserve to win.

I am going to do this as politely as possible.  With the sole exception of you, everyone in this thread has refrained from making personal attacks.  Cut it out, now, or I will report you.

Excuse me?  How is someone a bigot for agreeing with the majority of Americans and the VAST majority of humans worldwide?

Because the amount of people who support something has nothing to do with it's validity? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? You're using one, it's called ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. 

I am familiar with both concepts.  Neither are applicable to this post.  I fully agree that someone who wishes to deny homosexuals economic and social rights is a bigot.  Someone who simply recognises that something has always been defined as something, and that that something and its definition are of great importance to the vast majority of people on this planet, is not a bigot.  They, unlike those who call them intolerant, are attempting to find a reasonable way to grant everyone their rights without defiling an insititution that for all its good and bad means a great deal to a great many people and has done for millenia.

Ad populum isn't applicable? But you tried to use it to defend her! How does calling marriage between a man and a woman accomplish anything but satisfying ignorant bias? I don't care if an institution is getting eradicated. Equal rights are more important than silly concepts.

I have a serious, SERIOUS problem with governments anywhere that persecute gays, attack gays, or dont offer gays the same legal and economic entitlements that are offered to heterosexual couples.  But marriage is an entirely different beast.  For MILLENIA it has been the union of a man and a woman.

Who cares? I don't. There's no reason to inhibit gay marriage just to protect someone elses flawed concept.

Defeated above.

Deafeated? No, defended. There's a difference. 

There is no sense in pretending that it has always been pretty.  There have been marriages for war, diplomacy, money and sex.  But at it's core marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman loving eachother formally recognising that fact before their peers and in many cases before their religion.

No. At 'it's core' marriage, was and always has been, a way to bind people legally, socially, or religiously. In our country it's a legal thing, so it should be defined as such. There's no secular argument against gay marriage that makes sense, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed. They deserve equal right to marry someone they are attracted to, either both gay and straight marriages are called marriages, or they're both called civil unions.

I beg your pardon?  For millenia the vast majority of marriages were for love, or strong affection.  Just because the nobles, kings and tyrants you read about in history books married for power, greed and diplomacy doesnt mean the peasants they governed did.  Even where the marriages were for convenience, they were between a man and a woman.  Your intolerant nature makes you incapable or realising just how much that means to so many billions of people.

You're not getting my pardon, I don't care if you beg. You keep calling me intolerant. What am I intolerant of? Not wanting people to deny homosexuals equal rights just because they have a silly notion that marriage should only be between a man and a women?

  I might add, that marriage exists largely because of the support of religious infrastructure of all creeds, the same infrastructures that proponents of gay marriage are now attempting to silence and label as bigots.

Marriage exists because it's of benefit to people who are married. Gay people want the same benefits, and they want it to have the same name. It's only fair. As for people who are against that, they are bigots. Or maybe I should use a different word? Is assholes better? Douchebags? No, I'll stick with bigot.

Lets take your simple argument for a moment.  You completely defile the massive majority of people who would be greatly insulted by labelling a gay union a marriage and call them intolerant.  You say this is because they get benefits homosexuals dont.  But if they ask homosexuals to have every right they have, but have a different name for it, supporters of gay marriage are somehow being tolerant by demanding the same name?  Why is that only fair?  Where is the secular argument that says that people that argue this can change the way something has been defined for all of civilisation when it is so important to the majority?  Are they not bigots?  Is assholes better? Douchebags?  No I'll stick with bigots. 

Don't you see?  You're doing exactly what HappySquirrel accussed the gay-marriage movement of.  You cannot construct an arguement.  You're right because you're right and anyone that disagrees with you is intolerant.

I'm right because there's NO REASON TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED, OTHER THAN PEOPLES STUPID PRECONCEPTIONS OF MARRIAGE. Marriage is a legal contract, and should be allowed to gays, and it should be called marriage. This is my argument, constructed. Now, instead of calling me intolerant, why don't you construct an argument of your own that tells me that harm gay marriage will do. Mental harm to illogical people with flawed concepts of marriage does not count, they can just get over it and move on with the rest of society into a future where we all have equal rights. DEFINITIONS DO NOT MATTER, THEY CAN BE CHANGED AND THEY SHOULD BE CHANGED IF THEIR CURRENT DEFINITION IS UNFAIR.

I have every support for civil unions or equivelant economic and social contracts for gay and lesbian couples.  We as a society should not deny those benefits too people simply because of their sexual orientation.

Good.

But in my opinion, anyone that simply cannot understand why supporters of marriage as it has always been find the idea of gay marriage wrong or offensive needs to make an effort to re-examine the many perspectives of this issue.

I understand them, but their postition is illogical. They're trying to protect silly ideas, and there's no need to.

Silly ideas like wanting to call a spade a spade even though not doing so spares billions of people offense, sadness and a sense of loss within their own marriages?

They can get over their silly cultural ideas of what marriage is, and deal with gays having equal rights. A sense of loss? If someone's marriage is degraded because gays are allowed to marry, it says more about their relationship than it does about gay marriage being a bad thing. 

Anyone that feels they DO understand why supporters of gay marriage are offended and feel that it is simply because they are bigots, needs to realise their hypocracy,

I disagree. I'll call a bigot a bigot. You, just like the bigots you are supporting and defending, are doing so based on illogical reasons. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



WessleWoggle on 22 April 2009
starcraft said:

 

You havent responded to my posts mate.  You have just said that I'm wrong, you're right and that I am a bigot.  Exactly as Happyquirrel predicted you would.

 

 

Get off your highhorse, and come down here and actually propose an argument for why gay marriage is wrong. You haven't done so, you've only said that it will get rid of the old concept of marriage. How is that a bad thing? I think it's a good thing. People who get mentally harmed because their precious institution got flawed in their opinion, will get over it.

Why does it matter that someone predicted what I would say? Are you trying to prove he's a prophet or something?

I think any human should be allowed to marry any human. What's wrong with that?

 



The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009

@starcraft, I have listed places where gay marriage is now legal, where it has been legal in the past, and I can get more if you'd like. So stop using the word "always." You are not supporting an eternal tradition. Atheists get married too. Your dad did. I did. It's not a religious-only event.

And stop saying things like "any reasonable person" because that's a false appeal to authority and a thinly veiled insult at my intelligence for disagreeing with you.

Yes, supporting a tradition can be intolerant if it's an intolerant tradition. So yes, you can be a bigot for supporting a tradition. Antisemitism has been a tradition of Catholicism since the 12th century, and a tradition all across Europe and the Middle East for more than 2000 years. Supporting those traditions is bad. Just because something has been done for a very very long time (but not always and not everywhere and not by everyone and not by all religions), doesn't make it good or automatically deserving of my respect.

And I've already explained why the majority doesn't get to make laws that infringe on the rights of the minority. Our founding fathers saw that coming and created a system to stop that. Yeah we make mistakes, and yeah it takes us a while to fix them. So we end up with lawyers and judges that invoke religious authority to dictate secular law based on race. And now we end up with lawyers and judges that invoke religious authority to dictate secular law based on sexuality.

I, as a straight man, am angry that it is illegal for me, a straight man, to marry a man, straight or gay, that I don't love, while it is perfectly legal for me to marry an illegal immigrant to get her a green card, just because she has a uterus. I think marriage should be a personal issue and shouldn't be anybody else's business. The government doesn't tell me who to love or who to have sex with and they shouldn't tell me who to marry. That shouldn't be the government's job.

Marriage in the Old Testament was more like a reality show. Jacob tries to marry Rachel, but oh no watch out, her father switched her out for Leah, the ugly "fat cow" daughter, and tricked him into marrying the fat cow! Then he marries both! Then he has four wives! If that's the tradition you want to fight so hard to protect... uh, bigamy is illegal in America. So the government and the Bible look at marriage in different ways, and at divorce in different ways.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

WessleWoggle on 22 April 2009

I'm bored waiting for Star to respond. Respond quicker! I have school in 5 hours and need to sleep!