Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Originally Posted by elbonator

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

I think we could use a scenario similar to the one for dealing with 'if legal recognition of mixed race arrangements turns out harmful to the society in the long run'. Unless nobody had a contingency plan for that one, of course.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

According to these people it is. Demographic Winter - the decline of the human family I saw the whole thing. It's very interesting.

What it comes down to is that Same Sex mariages are ONE of the things (not the only thing though) that leads to less children being born. And that causes whole BOATS of trouble in our society.

I don't buy this. Of course I didn't pay the $20 admission to their full argument, but the highlights are just insulting to my intelligence. I do pay attention to the world around me and I went to school so I have pretty good idea what numbers mean. It's safe to assume based on their synopsis that I am not going to be spending my time exploring it further, even if they were willing to give me the full thing for free. I'd do it for pay though (this is Lee's approach to proselytizing).

Highlights are always insulting to your intelligence. They're only made to pique interest, it's always been like that. My dad had the DVD so I got to see the whole thing. They don't talk much about same sex mariages because it's just one of the causes for them. But the facts that the world population in well off countries is shrinking is something that they have well documented.

I'm sorry that I annoyed you with it. But it was a very interesting listen for me and if you saw the whole thing you'd probably agree.

Alex, I most certainly understand the demographic concerns and this is an important problem to be considered. I don't like when something is oversimplified to the point where it's clearly wrong. I know there are many arguments but picking the weakest one for a summary to me demonstrates you don't think too highly about your audience.

When I was learning to write one paragraph summaries I was taught that you present your strongest arguments. If you can't make it clear enough to be summarized concisely while it is still correct there is something wrong.

In any case I'm always looking for well argumented positions, I just don't trust the people of the movie. It has nothing to do with the problem - I haven't bothered to watch AlGore's movie either. It's a different problem (somewhat related) but his movie's synopsis has convinced me it's likely to be a waste of time for me. I can entertain myself better in other ways and I can find better information on the subject in other places.

That's all I was trying to say. Excuse my 'Miss California 2009' moment earlier. I realize a lot of people don't have the time, resources, or the inclination to do their own research and prefer to evaluate the positions of others even if those are not too well argumented.

This guy nailed it.

Commentary: Miss California, thanks for being honest - CNN.com

Originally Posted by elbonator

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

Regards,
EL

That's funny! I thought you were boasting how you dodged a question.

Originally Posted by xman

I think that should include inciting hatred. You know, "Go lynch those s"!

point of clarification: that's inciting ACTION not hatred. hatred is completely legal as long as you don't commit any illegal ACTIONS. i can say "you should hate xyz" i just can't say "you should kill xyz" there is a world of difference, and i feel it's important to clarify the terms.

That is the one thing that I have just never understood, the whole freedom of speech thing....

I personally can't understand the restraints against hate speech myself, speech is either free or it isn't, I can understand the don't yell "Fire" in a theater and don't yell "Bomb" on a plane... but other than immediate danger, speech is free isn't it????? (talking the US here not most other countries)

A warning to those of you on the left, that believe this Cal Gal was wrong in her answer, that sword has two edges, be very wary how far you chose to swing it....

Hugely important point where First Amendment rights and freedom of speech is concerned, thanks for poitning it out so clearly. (Of course, the case being discussed here doesn't really implicate freedom of speech at all, only a strong backlash to an unpopular answer to a question asked in an innapropriate forum).

Originally Posted by gssixgun

A warning to those of you on the left, that believe this Cal Gal was wrong in her answer, that sword has two edges, be very wary how far you chose to swing it....

Just for clarification, are you referring to the speech isn't "that" free sword or the gay marriage sword/potential for conservative backlash? If the latter, I had a gay Republican friend in Law School who was absolutely fuming and furious over the mad push to gay marriage. He felt that the way it is being fought for is counterproductive to the eventual attainment of full civil rights for gays. He also felt that every court case that I beleive is a step forward for our country was wrongly decided!

Of course speech is free...no one here wants to limit her speech. Some peolpe just find her opinions wrong or offensive. She is ABSOLUTELY free to express them, just as they are to disagree in strong terms. The self-proclained "gossip queen" who started all ths responded to her in rather crass and vulgar terms. he is free to do so, and we are all free to speak out against such low-class behavior.

Originally Posted by Kanahmal

Wanting others to have less rights than yourself pretty much makes you a bigot.

Does the constitution state marriage for anyone is a right?