Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

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.

I take your point.

However, is marriage a RIGHT?

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.

Sorry to get off topic....
May not be a sound argument, but it is a good question...should three (or 14) consenting, loving adults be allowed to marry?

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Sorry to get off topic....
May not be a sound argument, but it is a good question...should three (or 14) consenting, loving adults be allowed to marry?

It is off topic. it is also a good question! Maybe a mod could split this thread starting from this post. Would be fun to see where it goes!

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Sorry to get off topic....
May not be a sound argument, but it is a good question...should three (or 14) consenting, loving adults be allowed to marry?

http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...tml#post278461
to quote myself:
"Polygamy
If anyone is dumb enough to try and put up with 7 wives concurrently, I say we let him go right ahead and ruin his life… it’s none of our business how miserable he is. If a woman thinks she is hot enough to keep 3 guys faithful to her, she is welcome to try. The GAD believes in allowing people to make all sorts of stupid mistakes and then letting them learn from it, and this is no exception. As long as two or more people of consenting age sign a binding contract, they can do whatever they want. The GAD thinks that the government has got lots more important stuff to do (repairing parking meters, etc, etc.) than to waste much time and taxpayer dollars trying to dictate to our citizens how they should live in private.


DNC: People should get married however they want, to whatever they want, even houseplants.
GOP: If it is not ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, then it is wrong, and God will SMITE you.
me: We SO do not care."

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I take your point.

However, is marriage a RIGHT?

Great question. Not in an of itself, no....but I think many of the BENEFITS bestowed upon those who choose to marry most certainly are.

Again, get the government out of the marriage business, and I think a bunch of the issue goes away. If a religious of non-religious marrying-authority (can't just say "Church" I guess) marries two people, then the state ought not be able to pick and choose who gets the benefits of that union.

Originally Posted by jockeys

http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...tml#post278461
to quote myself:
"Polygamy
If anyone is dumb enough to try and put up with 7 wives concurrently, I say we let him go right ahead and ruin his life… it’s none of our business how miserable he is. If a woman thinks she is hot enough to keep 3 guys faithful to her, she is welcome to try. The GAD believes in allowing people to make all sorts of stupid mistakes and then letting them learn from it, and this is no exception. As long as two or more people of consenting age sign a binding contract, they can do whatever they want. The GAD thinks that the government has got lots more important stuff to do (repairing parking meters, etc, etc.) than to waste much time and taxpayer dollars trying to dictate to our citizens how they should live in private.


DNC: People should get married however they want, to whatever they want, even houseplants.
GOP: If it is not ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, then it is wrong, and God will SMITE you.
me: We SO do not care."

jockeys, I missed that thread....holy crap that's awesome.

Print it, bind it, and I'll personally hand it out!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

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

Are you prejudiced against polygamists?

Wow this has been a busy thread!

Ray, No, I don't care what consenting adults do as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life. liberty or pursuit of happiness. What difference does it make what I think? I like vanilla ice cream but the store has a freezer full of many flavors. Would I be right to criticize those who like flavors other than vanilla?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

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

Ah, but it is relevant because Icedog's logic also applies perfectly well to polygamy.

If you accept the logic of this: "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."

... Then you must also accept this: "I also have the opinion that what makes multiple 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."

My point being that once you adopt a liberal approach to redefining the legal definition of marriage, you should be prepared to take it to its logical conclusion.

And once you broaden the scope of marriage to an absurd degree (marrying all your best friends maybe?) it becomes watered down so much it ceases to have any importance.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

And once you broaden the scope of marriage to an absurd degree (marrying all your best friends maybe?) it becomes watered down so much it ceases to have any importance.

Who will be defining "absurd" and "importance"?