Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Interesting Vid.... TY to "the Mark" for posting that one

I guess we all know the truth now, I now stand even more in the "dumb B*tch's" corner.... His words not mine, more power to her for voicing her (non-PC) opinion.....

Originally Posted by icedog

Harmful by who's definition?

The question deals with a specific result. Defining harmful is not necessary to answer the question.

Regards,
EL

Originally Posted by elbonator

The question deals with a specific result. Defining harmful is not necessary to answer the question.

Regards,
EL

You asked what if homosexuality was harmful to society. The question is ambiguous because the term "harmful" is subjective. I may find that certain modifications to society as it is today would be a very good thing. Meanwhile, my mother would be very upset to find the rules by which she feels safe modified in any way.

Originally Posted by icedog

You asked what if homosexuality was harmful to society. The question is ambiguous because the term "harmful" is subjective. I may find that certain modifications to society as it is today would be a very good thing. Meanwhile, my mother would be very upset to find the rules by which she feels safe modified in any way.

One question dodge down. Next?

Regards,
EL

Originally Posted by elbonator

What if it turns out that legal recognition of homosexual arrangements is harmful to society in the long run?

Okay, I'll ask you again, "harmful" by who's definition?

Originally Posted by Big Red

it's like the way I feel about howard stern, I really don't like most of anything I've ever heard on his show,

now I was totally with you till you messed with Howard!

Originally Posted by icedog

Okay, I'll ask you again, "harmful" by who's definition?

You already dodged the question once, no need to do it again.

Regards,
EL

After reading trough this thread it is striking how intolerant attitudes is showed here... Towards the "intolerant people" it almost looks like the new form of tolerance is to ridicule the "intolerant" people. It is the exact same thing home in Norway where the highest form of tolerance these days is to be intolerant towards those with more conservative points of view.

Sure there is a lot of intolerant people around, but the ones that claim to be tolerant should try to act like it, even tolerate people they disagree with.

This really bothered me - it's BS if you have to be politically correct to win a beauty contest. That question is very complicated, her answer was actually fine, but it's the "wrong" answer so she loses, and a total ass gets a lot of publicity. We aren't going to advance equal rights by making fun of beautiful but not imperfectly articulate women by embarrassing them with bright lights shining in their eyes by cheap shotting them with controversial moral questions, and she scored big points with me for having the guts to stick to her guns and say what she believes. We need more of that in this country, and fewer PC litmus tests.

There is no question in my mind (doesn't mean I'm right mind you) that one does not CHOOSE to be gay. The idea of doing it with another man or spending my life with another man makes me vomit - I couldn't fake that, nor could I choose it, nor would I do that to rebel - I would do something fun (in the short term) but self-destructive (in the long term) to rebel, not something that makes me vomit (in the short term and long term). My brother is gay, and trust me it's been obvious for a long time that he wasn't rolling in the same direction I was. He didn't choose it, that's what he always was, is and always will be -that's him. And needless to say, I would hope he gets all the legal protections from his 20 or so year union that my wife would get from our ten year union.

But I don't think a gay union is a "marriage" and honestly I don't really care. It is what it is. I think it should have marriage like protections, because the same issues of one spouse subordinating his or her career in the couples' interest, and other things like that, apply. In my observations, a gay union shares many of the characteristics of a hetero union, but in many ways it is quite different, and particularly with instincts towards having children. I know that's controversial and it's just a gut feeling for me so I won't try to defend it, but I've had a close up view for a while and it's different. So to me a gay union isn't marriage because it isn't marriage - but I think it should have most of the same institutional protections, because it is the kind of union that merits those protections. Marriage is what it is, gay union is what it is, arguing whether they are the same thing is pointless and to me, silly. They aren't.

But for me this was just a classless ass scoring points trying to exploit a complex issue, and it's too bad the national media fell for it......again. And I'll take a woman with guts that says what she means and means what she says over one that lies or ducks the question diplomatically.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

And I'll take a woman with guts that says what she means and means what she says over one that lies or ducks the question diplomatically.

Thats my kind of woman also!