About the whole Miss California thing

moduspwnens wrote:It's probably because the official forums are such a terrible place, so they decided to enforce with moderation more harshly. It still doesn't help much, though.

I didn't break the forum rules.

Now instead of focusing on real world problems, our media is up in arms about the battle between a brain dead plastic barbie doll and a butthurt gay guy that makes his living making snarky comments about celebrities on the internet.

Too be fair I don't think she's brain dead, she seemed to be able to communicate an order of magnitude more eloquently then Perez.

Zironic wrote:

Now instead of focusing on real world problems, our media is up in arms about the battle between a brain dead plastic barbie doll and a butthurt gay guy that makes his living making snarky comments about celebrities on the internet.

Too be fair I don't think she's brain dead, she seemed to be able to communicate an order of magnitude more eloquently then Perez.

Different circumstances, though. She's a model who's hinging a lot of her career on success in the beauty queen circuit.

He's a foaming at the mouth gay rights activist.

I mean, seriously, it's like comparing a toy dog to a feral spider monkey.

I find the whole issue of gay rights slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now.

Panzerdin wrote:I find the whole issue of gay rights slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now.

They don't have full legal rights. Gays and bisexuals cannot enter into marriage with someone of the same gender. That is a full, legal corporate institution that provides both social and federal benefits, both within private affairs and financial affairs. There's many legal, industrial, financial, and social changes that happen to two parties who join in a marriage.

The problem is, this unique and powerful entity is only open to one mand and one woman joined together, no other possible combination for any willing parties.

I'd like to see both full gay rights and poly-fidellous rights.

Obrimos wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:I find the whole issue of gay rights slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now.

They don't have full legal rights. Gays and bisexuals cannot enter into marriage with someone of the same gender. That is a full, legal corporate institution that provides both social and federal benefits, both within private affairs and financial affairs. There's many legal, industrial, financial, and social changes that happen to two parties who join in a marriage.

The problem is, this unique and powerful entity is only open to one mand and one woman joined together, no other possible combination for any willing parties.

I'd like to see both full gay rights and poly-fidellous rights.

Actually, Homosexuals and Bisexuals most certainly can enter into an institution which grants exactly the same legal status as marriage. Polyfidellous individuals, as you refer to them, admittedly can't. Then again, where I live, there are almost no such individuals, and the legal status of a marriage would be quite difficult to apply to more than 2 individuals.

I'd like to see both full gay rights and poly-fidellous rights.

Wouldn't the divorce of a poly-marriage be a headache to sort out?

Actually, Homosexuals and Bisexuals most certainly can enter into an institution which grants exactly the same legal status as marriage. Polyfidellous individuals, as you refer to them, admittedly can't. Then again, where I live, there are almost no such individuals, and the legal status of a marriage would be quite difficult to apply to more than 2 individuals.

Afaik they can't in large parts of the US and they can't yet in Sweden.

I live in neither the US nor Sweden.

Oh, and Sweden will allow it effective in the 1st of May (and already allows the same legal status).

Zironic wrote:

I'd like to see both full gay rights and poly-fidellous rights.

Wouldn't the divorce of a poly-marriage be a headache to sort out?

Depends on what the legal statutes are in the divorce, but I see no reason why marriage, itself, needs special legal status. If people share stuff, they share stuff, whether it's in or out of marriage. I don't think it'd be any worse than roommates in a legal battle of some kind or when multiple corporations lay claim to a piece of land.

Zironic wrote:Afaik they can't in large parts of the US and they can't yet in Sweden.

Exactly. I live in California, in the US.

Obrimos wrote:Depends on what the legal statutes are in the divorce, but I see no reason why marriage, itself, needs special legal status. If people share stuff, they share stuff, whether it's in or out of marriage. I don't think it'd be any worse than roommates in a legal battle of some kind or when multiple corporations lay claim to a piece of land.

I mostly agree with you, marriage is a rather outdated legal concept and should probably be best replaced by a generic partnership law.

Panzerdin wrote:I find the whole issue of gay rights slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now.

Actually in certain states (of the US) they are not even allowed to adopt children, under any circumstances.


And as for Miss California...the whole situation is quite silly. She was asked a loaded question, flubbed the answer by not being eloquent (which is what that part of the competition is all about) but gave her real opinion. Beauty contests are like politics, you never tell the truth, you just smile and nod and say what people want to hear. While I don't agree with her I don't think it's a big deal.

She'll be ok though. She is dating Michael Phelps so I'm sure he'll loosen her up a bit. What was she raised to think about smoking pot?

I see no problem in saying what you think.
It's not like she's the queen of the world, or even a politican. She's a model, it's not like her opinions are important nor does anybody actually care what she says. Well, the media does care about everything, but still.

She's also not the only one who thinks like she does, disliking gays is not something new or world changing.
The mentality of disliking gays has been around for a long time, I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to dislike gays, but getting enraged over a person's opinion is just hilarious. =D

I like a poll where you can vote for all the alternatives at the same time...

Katraya wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:I find the whole issue of gay rights slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now.

Actually in certain states (of the US) they are not even allowed to adopt children, under any circumstances.

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't live in the US.

Panzerdin wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, I don't live in the US.

I am well aware of that. perhaps, for the sake of clarity, you should amend your statement to "I find the whole issue of gay rights in my country slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights in my country, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now."

The topic at hand involves Miss California, who is very much a US citizen.

Flipthebird wrote:

uke wrote:I voted yes. Whether you agree with her stance or not, the fact remains that she answered the question she was asked honestly, and in an un-offensive manner. The whole zealous crusade Mr. Hilton is on is making him look bad more than she.

Going back to my love for liberals (/sarcasm), there's a popular saying that "Liberals are champions of tolerance and free speech...as long as you agree with them."

You say you voted yes, but the rest of your statements sound you meant no...i r confuzzled.

I voted no. She was just saying what she believed.

DOH! Reading comprehension > me

I meant 'no', then.

I didn't find her answer offensive. Whether you agree with the answer or not, I feel it was communicated in a respectful manner. We all have a right to our opinion, and in this country (USA), we have a polictical process in place to determine which opionions become the law of the land.

It also mght not have been why she lost. It's a beauty contest, those things are sort of subjective to begin with.

Tev wrote:Separation of Church and State, constitutionally this can't happen, then again the Constitution is treated like toilet
paper by most law br.. err makers these days.

Care to show me where in the Constituition you find the words Seperation of Church and State?

I'll give you a hint, it's not in there. The phrase actually comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson who was talking about a building a wall for the Seperation of Church and State so to protection the Church from interference from the State. The Framers weren't concerned at all about the Church's influence on the State but on the State's influence and regulation upon the Church.

I have pretty strong opinions on this whole thing. I will leave my opinions about pageantry out of this, because they are irrelevant.

1.) I'm a liberal I guess. I mainly fall into this category because I (for the most part) can't stand the conservative mindset. I don't care if homosexual couples get married, adopt children, clone themselves, or anything else. If that's what they want to do, go for it.
2.) I have 0 problem with what this girl said. Do I agree with her? No. But, this is the United States of America. We are supposed to be able to speak and express how we feel and believe freely.
3.) What she said is in no way shape or form offensive. People are free to not approve of Gay Marriage. People are free to be Pro-Choice. People are supposed to be free to express these opinions in rational manners without fear of oppression.

What hilton did is uncalled for. The pageant should make a formal apology to this contestant, and bar this idiot from ever being allowed to judge something again.

I for one, applaud this young lady for standing up, and voicing her opinion. No one is telling you that you have to agree with her, but she was fairly well spoken and articulate. I don't have to agree with her to know that she had an intelligent thought out response.

Part of me wants to scream that this was a setup. Almost like Hilton and/or the pageantry people knew her stance on this, and didn't want her to win the competition (she was favored, and it's said that this cost her the competition). If it comes out that Hilton was on a mission either for himself or for the pageant, I hope she sues them for everything they are worth. Discrimination shouldn't be tolerated no matter what the basis.

EDIT: HOnorshammer beat me to it. Go check again, he's right. There is no Separation of Church and State written into any govermental document like you think. Jefferson wrote it, nothing official.

Honorshammer wrote:Care to show me where in the Constituition you find the words Seperation of Church and State?

I'll give you a hint, it's not in there. The phrase actually comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson who was talking about a building a wall for the Seperation of Church and State so to protection the Church from interference from the State. The Framers weren't concerned at all about the Church's influence on the State but on the State's influence and regulation upon the Church.

Actually they were more worried about the State forcing some other church on them. I find it funny that people talk about the Church when there's actually thousands of churches.

From what I understand, they didn't want the state controlling the church, nor the church controlling the state. Basically they didn't want what happened with the Catholic church or the church of England. Don't think they had much of an issue with religion affecting oppinions or whatnot.

Arnock wrote:From what I understand, they didn't want the state controlling the church, nor the church controlling the state. Basically they didn't want what happened with the Catholic church or the church of England. Don't think they had much of an issue with religion affecting oppinions or whatnot.

Most law makers and voters back then where of the same church, or near enough. There wasn't a half as many churches viving for powers and such

aranil wrote:Most law makers and voters back then where of the same church, or near enough. There wasn't a half as many churches viving for powers and such

Wikipedia wrote:Religion

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[10][11] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin[12]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.[13]

I count 7 churches.

Katraya wrote:

Panzerdin wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, I don't live in the US.

I am well aware of that. perhaps, for the sake of clarity, you should amend your statement to "I find the whole issue of gay rights in my country slightly absurd, to be honest. Homo- and Bi- sexuals already have full legal rights in my country, what more do they want? They can't be given any more rights, because they don't not have any now."

The topic at hand involves Miss California, who is very much a US citizen.

It's absurd to me, because it simply doesn't exist as an issue any more here.

I''m bored out of my mind with only MTadin to post on no offense just a larger group on the official forums