Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Back to the topic like "The Mark" just pointed out...

Firstly they should not have asked the question in the first place if there was only one "right" answer in their closed little minds.....
Hmmmmmm reverse discrimination at work????? maybe she should have just pleaded the 5th

As I have always said "Don't ask me for my opinion, you might not like it"
they asked her....

Originally Posted by xman

Of course she has a right to non violent opinions as do the attendants. They told her that her opinions were unacceptable in their creepy, weird beauty pageant sub culture. Now, if her opinions included rounding up those people who want same sex marriage, well that would be unacceptable. Where's the line? Somewhere in between. Moronic, bigoted ideas will out. We can't all be arrested for being stupid, but we can't let stupidity destroy liberty either.

X

So X, would you approve of the thought police? Maybe assigning different levels of punishment based on ones thoughts?

To answer where the line is, well, thats when thought turns to action, at least that's how I see it.

Does not she qualify to be a right wing terrorist according to the HSA Right Wing Report?

Honesty is so not in.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Sure she has a right to her point of view. That I disagree with her doesn't change that.

Yup, question had no place in this contest. And whether she wants to expose her bigotry publicly in a forum that very well could cost her the crown (tiara?) if she does...that is entirely up to her.

How is what she said bigotry?

Did she say that gays should be denied equal legal rights, or somehow belittle or slander them? From what I read, she simply commented on the issues pertaining to marriage, which for all we know she may have been viewing the term marriage in the religious sense.

Her quote:

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

So, she is denied her rights to her opinion for the sake of "political correctness"?

EDIT: And that is where the argument of "why do people get upset if it does not concern them?" loses its' validity, because it does concern everybody, in this case vis-a-vis an infringement on Ms. California's freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by icedog

I also have the opinion that what makes two consenting adults live a happy, peaceful life and does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is none of my nor anyone else's business and should not be infringed upon by any legislation.

Why just two consenting adults? Why not 3 or more?

Are you prejudiced against polygamists?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Why just two consenting adults? Why not 3 or more?

Are you prejudiced against polygamists?

My goats love me but I am denied marriage to them...Damn!

And why should I be denied to marry somebody ELSE'S wife? Let's cut loose completely!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How is what she said bigotry?

Did she say that gays should be denied equal legal rights, or somehow belittle or slander them? From what I read, she simply commented on the issues pertaining to marriage, which for all we know she may have been viewing the term marriage in the religious sense.

Her quote:


So, she is denied her rights to her opinion for the sake of "political correctness"?

EDIT: And that is where the argument of "why do people get upset if it does not concern them?" loses its' validity, because it does concern everybody, in this case vis-a-vis an infringement on Ms. California's freedom of speech.

Believing (or having the opinion that) people should be denied fundamental rights and equal protection is one way I define bigotry.

And freedom of speech? All she lost was her shot at the crown! She has all the freedom of speech she would like! As do we all. If you use your freedom of speech and people don't like what you say, that doesn't make you less free to say it. Holds true for Michael Moore, and holds true for Neo-Nazis.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Why just two consenting adults? Why not 3 or more?

Are you prejudiced against polygamists?

"Why not X" isn't an argument about "why not Y."

Why NOT gay marriage? What does it damage? Does it really weaken the moral fiber of America? Does it "teach" children to be gay? Does it really "redefine" marriage for the vast amjority of Americans?

Why force them out of the protections that the rest of us take for granted?

D'Oh...meant to multi-quote and I forgot. Mea culpa for the double post.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

"Why not X" isn't an argument about "why not Y."

Why NOT gay marriage? What does it damage? Does it really weaken the moral fiber of America? Does it "teach" children to be gay? Does it really "redefine" marriage for the vast amjority of Americans?

Why force them out of the protections that the rest of us take for granted?

D'Oh...meant to multi-quote and I forgot. Mea culpa for the double post.

Actually, from kindergarden on up in most public schools, your children will now be taught that same sex unions is perfectly normal.