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?

akuma587 on 25 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
starcraft said:

@first part:

People like you make race relevant by using similar "separate but equal" arguments to discriminate against gays as were previously used to discriminate against racial minorities.

@second part:

Feeling your mate's balls was you being young and trying to learn about balls and your friend, and may have been sexually exploratory in some way, but definitely not sexuality-defining.  So THAT is irrelevant.  Sexuality is defined by who you love, not whose balls you touch.  I could go grab every nutsack on my block, and it wouldn't turn me or anybody else gay.

Just to play devils advocate... wasn't seperate but equal only considered unconstitutional because it was observed that things that were seperate weren't equal.  IE in practice.

So the colored bathrooms weren't as clean as the white ones etc.

 

If everything actually was equal under the law with how it was handled.  If you had a "Straight Marriage" and "Gay Marriage" and both were given equal rights..

that would be consitituional.

 

No, that's not true.  The Supreme Court said that being separate is inherently unequal.  The only issue that has yet to be decided is really whether homosexuals are a protected class that implicates the Equal Protection.  So far, the Supreme Court has not extended it that far.

Here are the actual holdings from the case:

Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan.
347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686
U.S. 1954.

[3] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

92 Constitutional Law
   92XXVI Equal Protection
     92XXVI(B) Particular Classes
       92XXVI(B)8 Race, National Origin, or Ethnicity
         92k3275 Education
           92k3278 Public Elementary and Secondary Education
             92k3278(4) k. Assignment and Transfer of Students. Most Cited Cases
               (Formerly 92k220(2.1), 92k220(2), 92k220)

The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the children of minority group of equal educational opportunities, and amounts to a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[4] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

92 Constitutional Law
   92XXVI Equal Protection
     92XXVI(B) Particular Classes
       92XXVI(B)8 Race, National Origin, or Ethnicity
         92k3275 Education
           92k3278 Public Elementary and Secondary Education
             92k3278(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
               (Formerly 92k220(2.1), 92k220(2), 92k220)

The doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place in the field of public education, since separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 25 April 2009

That... doesn't make any sense.

If everything is equal... minorities still don't get any equal education...?

Why? How you get teachers?

In either case this wouldn't seem to apply.



akuma587 on 25 April 2009

Nothing can be 100% equal. The Constitution doesn't guarantee equal results, just equal protection. Its more about equal access under the law. Not all schools can be equal as they would have to be identical to be truly equal. Its more about equal access. Minorities can go to whatever school they want if they live in that school district. And in many states it doesn't matter if you live in that school district or not. Before Brown, that couldn't happen.

So, yes, this does implicate the Equal Protection Clause potentially because it is about equal access under the law.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 25 April 2009
akuma587 said:

Nothing can be 100% equal. The Constitution doesn't guarantee equal results, just equal protection. Its more about equal access under the law. Not all schools can be equal as they would have to be identical to be truly equal. Its more about equal access. Minorities can go to whatever school they want if they live in that school district. And in many states it doesn't matter if you live in that school district or not. Before Brown, that couldn't happen.

So, yes, this does implicate the Equal Protection Clause potentially because it is about equal access under the law.

Yeah... that was exactly my point above.  In the real world something like schools can never be perfectly equal.

However this isn't true with the law.  Which isn't something built of stone and people.

A Gay Marriage, A straight marriage hell even a black marriage or a "under 5'2" marriage would all be actually equal.  Because they would be identical.  With different names.

There is nothing really legally wrong with it.  It's just kinda silly.



Akvod on 25 April 2009

I remember watching a disucssion on CNN, and a former winner or something said that the girls are judged for their very neutral, general, and universally accepted statements. Somebody also said that the question itself was unfair, because its polarizing, in comparisson to a question like "Do you want world peace" "Would you solve world hunger?", etc.

But still, I think that the most objective way to judge a girl is by how neutral she was. What if she did win? Then conservatives will argue that there's a liberal bias in the competition. What if a girl said she didn't want gays to get married and she lost? I'm a supporter of gay marriage, but nobody should be pushed down due to their beliefs.

I believe that judging a girl based on how neutral and charismatic her statement was, is as close to objective as you can get in such a subjective competition.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 25 April 2009

There were plenty of other non-softball questions asked at the event. The judges were told to ask questions about current social issues rather than just lob them questions about "World Peace," etc. It just so happens this one caused a big deal.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 25 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Nothing can be 100% equal. The Constitution doesn't guarantee equal results, just equal protection. Its more about equal access under the law. Not all schools can be equal as they would have to be identical to be truly equal. Its more about equal access. Minorities can go to whatever school they want if they live in that school district. And in many states it doesn't matter if you live in that school district or not. Before Brown, that couldn't happen.

So, yes, this does implicate the Equal Protection Clause potentially because it is about equal access under the law.

Yeah... that was exactly my point above.  In the real world something like schools can never be perfectly equal.

However this isn't true with the law.  Which isn't something built of stone and people.

A Gay Marriage, A straight marriage hell even a black marriage or a "under 5'2" marriage would all be actually equal.  Because they would be identical.  With different names.

There is nothing really legally wrong with it.  It's just kinda silly.

I think you just misread the holding:

The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the children of minority group of equal educational opportunities, and amounts to a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 25 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Nothing can be 100% equal. The Constitution doesn't guarantee equal results, just equal protection. Its more about equal access under the law. Not all schools can be equal as they would have to be identical to be truly equal. Its more about equal access. Minorities can go to whatever school they want if they live in that school district. And in many states it doesn't matter if you live in that school district or not. Before Brown, that couldn't happen.

So, yes, this does implicate the Equal Protection Clause potentially because it is about equal access under the law.

Yeah... that was exactly my point above.  In the real world something like schools can never be perfectly equal.

However this isn't true with the law.  Which isn't something built of stone and people.

A Gay Marriage, A straight marriage hell even a black marriage or a "under 5'2" marriage would all be actually equal.  Because they would be identical.  With different names.

There is nothing really legally wrong with it.  It's just kinda silly.

I think you just misread the holding:

The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the children of minority group of equal educational opportunities, and amounts to a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

 

Yes there is something intangiable that is unequal.  Something unmeasurable that causes the equal educational oppututnity to not be equal. 

In regards to something like the law... this isn't relevent... since the law is simply a mechanism.

 



akuma587 on 25 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

I think you just misread the holding:

The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the children of minority group of equal educational opportunities, and amounts to a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

 

Yes there is something intangiable that is unequal.  Something unmeasurable that causes the equal educational oppututnity to not be equal. 

In regards to something like the law... this isn't relevent... since the law is simply a mechanism.

 

Its not unmeasurable.  You have School X and School Y both run by the government.  If Student A is only allowed to go to School X no matter what he does, then he isn't provided equal protection by the law and the government is not treating him equally.  It isn't relevant that School X may be better or worse than School Y.  It isn't relevant that they may be exactly the same.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say that the law is simply a mechanism.  Law doesn't mean anything in the absence of facts.  Law only has a meaning when it is applied to a set of facts.  Otherwise it is just words on a page.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

mmnin on 25 April 2009
Slimebeast said:
mmnin said:
seece said:

 

 

People do have a tendency to go where they are accepted.  When we look at high school kids, they are in general subconsciously looking for acceptence and identity.  When peers treat them like they are gay, many start to think that that is all that they are....gay.  Some lose sense of anything else that makes them who they are.  This even happens in some degree when it is a joking, friendly, or positive treatment.  This is natural of their peers, because they are approached with something new that they might not fully understand.  What is worse is that in this encourageable state, they are then taken into a very competitive environment where sleeping with people is one path to popularity, drugs another, and performing or showing off your body is another.  Over time this strengthens a focus toward sex that can remain throughout the person's life.  And of course there are also facets of it that revolve around getting paid to have sex of course, usually with older members of the "scene."  This stems from this same process but is a different discussion.  But none of this is as bad as a new person coming in with wide eyes and learning a new environment just to be taken advantage of by someone who already "knows" the scene.  Most likely the very "friend" who introduced them, or a friend of that friend who they think they can trust.  Thus is the beginning of the cycle.  Or we could say that the beginning of the cycle is why they felt they had to do something different to find acceptance and identity to begin with.  Something that should not have to take place.

Certainly not everyone gets pulled fully into the situation, people have different paths, but that is how many situations happen.  That is why veterans have the phrase "fresh meat."  That "fresh meat" is likely a child (in life and finding himself) of a situation that he didn't feel like he/she belonged in.

Take a child though who doesn't ever go to a club or bar.  They might look for acceptance on the internet or might just be bait on a social networking site simply by having a young picture and putting up the word "gay" for sexuality.  Again, similar path but through a different entrance.

If they don't take either path, they are still subject to small comments at school or at home that help single out the person's feelings about their sexuality as an important topic.  So much so that they make it a focus in their life.  This takes away from other ambitions, and may cause them to take on maneurisms that they wouldn't normally take on.  All of these during the crucial and fragile developmental years can also deeply impact a person's psychology. That is why many psychiatrists approach homosexuals from a standpoint of personal acceptance as a primary goal and solution to problems that may not seem initially related.

 

These are interesting psychologics, although Im a little sceptical of how common and representative it is.

R u saying that these people wouldnt become homosexual if they lived in a different environment where they didnt get lured in by gay mentors into the "scene" like your describing above? And r u talking from your own experience?

No, they would probably still have the feelings.  The source of the feelings would be another discussion.  I'm referring to the tendency for gay people to be lured into a sex filled life and being introduced to orgies, drugs, partners that only last from 1 week to 1 month, pedophilia type attractions, etc.  There are other factors of course, but I think that this process is greatly nurtured by society.  Think of the alternative to this:  People respecting each other, basing a person on who they are in every way versus a "sexual" orientation, people having experiences on their life's journey (which doesn't revolve around sex) and truly falling in a mutual love/respect relationship in which they can spend the rest of their lives or at least a large portion of their lives while creating memories and a bond that would never have happened otherwise.  This leading to a more fulfilling, less sex driven, and psychologically healthy life.  In a way, by not having gay marriage of some form then we are encouraging short term relationships, unacceptance of who people are causing psychological problems and life misteps, which all in the tendency that the "scene" has created in this cycle, encourages lude acts and sexual deviances.  When we say that marriage should only be toward heterosexuals, we think we are protecting the morality of society, but we are actually aiding to its decline.

Personally:  I think that by even calling it a domestic partnership, it is degrading the meaning behind it, however over time it can grow to have its own gay "culture" meaning which might be similar in feel to the heterosexually established "marriage."  Though, it has an underlying quality reminding gay people that they are not equal, and anything that does this will psychologically have the tendency to feed the "scene" or "culture" that I talked about.  If we want gay people to live life in accordance to what heterosexuals have found to be a sexual maturity which has shown to have more potential to generate a more meaningful existence, then we need to try to allow gay people to fit into that form as much as possible, or at least feel that they are.  We should not feed the separation into two divisions, one that we deem socially acceptable and one that simply satisfies those who we would rather not have amongst us.  By doing this, you are already putting the expectation that the other group will not be as socially acceptable justifying the "scene" living life in its own way and creating what on the surface looks like a different "culture."

What exactly is marriage and where is it based?  The term is based primarily on a religious union.  It is a symbolic measure which has psychological implications that affect a person's overall choices in life.  It creates a new basis for living life.  The governments have also put a financial spin on the union and made it more of a financially meaningful contract in the eyes of the law.  The government should not be allowed to determine who gets married and by what method, regardless if a person is homosexual or heterosexual, as it is at its core a religious topic.  However, since there are now financial obligations, the government should not completely drop that connection.  My proposition is that despite how extreme it may be, we should completely separate marriage from the government and reestablish all governmental based unions as domestic partnerships.  Then allow these people to have their "symbolic" coating of choice put on in whatever religion will let them walk the isle.  This would take out the religion from the governments equation and put it in the hand of the religion itself, and should be acceptable to all parties involved.  Religious sects cannot argue with separation of church and state and forcing religion on any particular group nor can they argue with a measure that is going to prevent changing the definition of marriage.  Most people psychologically oppose gay marriage because it directly affects their religions definition of marriage.  And while this might be the best course of action, the alternative is to at least allow gay couples domestic partnerships to allow a similar environment to what these "gay children" knew growing up with their parents to where they can at least imitate that more secure lifestyle in a psychologically.  It would still create a divide, but at least it would help.