Based off her answer, I'd wager she was raised with a conservative family, strong traditional beliefs and maybe a Christian upbringing.
There's nothing wrong with any of that, and it certainly does not typify the worst aspects of America.
There is a problem when your "strong traditional beliefs" are the only support you can muster up for an otherwise defenseless position, because the only thing that's "strong" about these beliefs is how tightly some people cling to them, not how logical of a defense they compromise (hint: an appeal to tradition is not valid logical support).
But in all honesty, it was a beauty pageant. She's a stupid blonde, a pretty face with no brains. Why is everyone so surprised?
She obviously has a right to her opinion. That being said, I think her opinion is awful. I respect her for saying what she believes, but don't respect what she believes. She's been brainwashed into thinking there's something wrong with gay marriage. That's the real misfortune.
She gave an honest answer to the question, knowing that (I would assume) it would hurt her. I'd say being honest is the right thing.
And opposing gay marriage isn't bigotry, period.
Oh hell yes it is! Denying other people a basic human right is extreme bigotry no matter how much you try to justify it as "standing by your beliefs etc".
This farce of people hiding behind their religion/"personal beliefs" to disguise their bigotry is a total cop out. It's offensive to say the least!
If she made an insensitive statement about Jews/Muslims/Black people - can you imagine the outrage. No, if anything this isn't seeing enough headlines!
BTW: I recommend people watch Perez's interview on Larry King. He said it perfectly.
It is. Only letting heterosexuals marry is the same thing as only letting white people marry. In either case you want a group of people to be second-class citizens even though giving them the same rights as you have does not in any way devalue those rights.
Should minors be able to marry? If not, you prohibit a certain group of people to marry.
Am I wrong in assuming that the general idea of a monogamous relationship between two people, in the form of a marriage, usually done in a church, is an inherently religious idea?
I understand that it has now become more of a state ideal, but it is ignorant to completely ignore people's opinions, just because they are different than yours.
Do I personally care about gay marriage? No, I don't care at all, either way. I find it as something inherently unnecessary, marriage is symbolic, two people who love each other can be together regardless.
All that I really want to say here is this: Is it really that wrong, or ignorant to believe that same-gendered marriage is wrong? No, it is the view of the Church, which for the record, is where most marriages take place. Is it inappropriate to state that "You may now kiss the bride" is at the forefront of people's minds - in relation to marriage? Guess what. Those oaths are normally delivered to a priest.
Denying other people a basic human right is extreme bigotry
How is marriage a basic human right?
Lets say someone believes in gay rights. They believe that gays have a right to be married, but that same individual personally is against gay marrage on an individual level. It's sortof like the mentality "I'm against flag burning, but I'll fight to the death for your right to do it".
I'm almost the opposite:
"I'm for gay marriage, but I'm not going to march, picket, or really do anything to help the cause. Good luck, anyhow."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#define ALWAYS SOMETIMES
#define NEVER RARELY
#define ALL MANY
-=GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN=-
I'm nerd enough to link my WoW Armory Though I'll put it in a small font.
Why was Perez Hilton even on this show anyways? This leech on society taking the moral high road when he is only known because he makes fun of celebrities and invades their privacy is the definition of irony. I don't even really care about the chicks comments, I think the fact that we live in a country where this clown is allowed on TV and actually taken seriously is far more disturbing.
Hah, I actually agree with you. I find him more offensive than any comment.
To be honest, I really don't give a frack about the Miss America Pagent, and for what it's worth, I support gay marrage... That being said, Is the Pagent now alligned with Gay Rights? I mean, if a contestant can lose based on their opinions of gay rights, then it pretty much is. Wheither that will hold water in the future depends on the judges I suppose.
It is. Only letting heterosexuals marry is the same thing as only letting white people marry. In either case you want a group of people to be second-class citizens even though giving them the same rights as you have does not in any way devalue those rights.
Should minors be able to marry? If not, you prohibit a certain group of people to marry.
This, but also it could be argued that the right isn't one of being able to marry who you're attracted to, but rather one of being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a right that all homosexuals do, in fact, have.
The whole point about the age of majority is that it defines the point at which the state recognises children as being able to make informed decisions. That's entirely different from restricting the marriage rights of people based solely on an irrelevant factor over which they have no control.
Maybe I am just ignorant, but what does it matter either way? Are there any benefits to being married that I am unaware of? Or is this entire argument based about the "right" that only heterosexuals have?
Should minors be able to marry? If not, you prohibit a certain group of people to marry.
Well, after a quick google search, it seems that in these wonderful States of ours, the only thing holding back minors from marriage is parental/legal guardian presence and consent, or some legal documents and nominal fees.
But if all she's saying is that she was raised not to approve of gay marriage, then she's deliberately obfuscating rather than answering the question. If she felt the question wasn't relevant, she could have said so. If she didn't have an opinion on gay marriage, she could have said that - it's not inherently a bad thing not to have an opinion on a particular issue, although when the issue is one of principle it's less defensible. The most likely alternative is that she had an opinion, and expressed it in a manner not befitting intellectual debate, an action which should be criticised.
Of course experiential factors have an impact on one's views, but since that has no effect on the validity of said opinions, they aren't particularly relevant.
"That's how I was raised" =/= "I was raised to oppose gay marriage."
It's an overture to a traditional, more conservative upbringing. We do not know why she opposes it outside of "that's how I was raised." We can speculate. For all we know, she's a practising Christian that believes the traditional family unit is important enough to preserve.
Whether or not she expressed it in a proper way is another story, and I am inclined to agree she chose her words poorly.
Oh hell yes it is! Denying other people a basic human right is extreme bigotry no matter how much you try to justify it as "standing by your beliefs etc".
This farce of people hiding behind their religion/"personal beliefs" to disguise their bigotry is a total cop out. It's offensive to say the least!
If she made an insensitive statement about Jews/Muslims/Black people - can you imagine the outrage. No, if anything this isn't seeing enough headlines!
BTW: I recommend people watch Perez's interview on Larry King. He said it perfectly.
The only bigotry being spouted here is yours. Religious objections are perfectly legitimate and acceptable. Did you stop to think that maybe she (and millions of others) oppose gay marriage because they believe the traditional family unit is good for society? That maybe they oppose it because children are better served in a household with a mother and father?
No, you didn't. You automatically lumped her and millions of others as bigots because they don't support your position.
It is. Only letting heterosexuals marry is the same thing as only letting white people marry. In either case you want a group of people to be second-class citizens even though giving them the same rights as you have does not in any way devalue those rights.
No, it isn't. There are perfectly just and acceptable reasons to oppose gay marriage, and doing so doesn't make one a "bigot." Automatically assuming someone is wants to damn, smite and kill gays because they oppose gay marriage, however, is bigotry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
Maybe I am just ignorant, but what does it matter either way? Are there any benefits to being married that I am unaware of? Or is this entire argument based about the "right" that only heterosexuals have?
To add to the post by Zulo above, there are the rights of visitation, health insurance, and many other health and life related responsibilities/perks that come with legal recognition of being married.
For a good reason to understand this, Terry Schiavo. That mess from a few years back was tied to "He's married to her, but technically is married to this other woman, but still has rights to declare the medical staff to pull the plug."
Most of the argument against gay marriage is tradition. People do not believe that tradition should be broken because of what the minority believes (lets be honest homosexuals are a minority) This does not mean that gays are doomed to an existence devoid of marriage, there is just a waiting period until everyone becomes acclimated to the change in ideas.
Most of the argument against gay marriage is tradition.
Which is called the "appeal to tradition" fallacy for a reason.
People do not believe that tradition should be broken because of what the minority believes (lets be honest homosexuals are a minority)
This is silly for many reasons, one being that this assumes that only homosexuals approve of gay marriage, and another being that this ignored the fact that minority rights have historically been gained through various court decisions, not by the direct will of the majority.
This does not mean that gays are doomed to an existence devoid of marriage, there is just a waiting period until everyone becomes acclimated to the change in ideas.
If restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples is unjust, then why should we wait for people to be comfortable with it? They should have no choice but to get comfortable with it, because justice is more important than their beliefs.
I dont mind her stating her belief (I am a supporter of Gay Marriage for reference). However, I did find it funny that she said "In America, we have the right ti choose" (or whatever she said along those lines). I dont think 4 states legalizing Gay Marriage is the "right to choose". I think that just shows that she is out of touch with the world. However, I have to agree that it seems odd that if it was true that she lost due to her belief, why should she lose if she shares a belief that most (I live in Massachusetts where its not but I believe the majority of Americans are against gay marriage) Americans share? Hopefully she didn't lose for that.
How else could 'That's how I was raised' (after talking about her religious upbringing and belief in the family unit) mean something different in this context?
I'm an agnostic, brought up in an areligious household, who believes in gay marriage and that the traditional family unit is important enough to preserve.
Can't really trace a belief back to any particular upbringing, so I don't see why her references to her supposedly formative childhood do anything for her statement?
First of all, why the appeal to majority (history is littered with examples of 'and millions of others...' leading to tyranny)?
Secondly, how is gay marriage detrimental to the traditional family unit? Do you see flocks of heterosexuals rushing to the divorce courts because of the granting of legal rights to gay people? You can still believe in the general superiority of the nuclear family structure while supporting gay marriage.
Could you list what you think these are?
I listed some of them.
I should note, I'm only defending the notion opposing gay marriage isn't bigotry. I support gay marriage myself, for my own personal reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
My mom's teacher friend who used to be Ms. California said it was bad that she said it like that because of the industry she's in. Since there's a lot of gay men in her industry, she probably hurt feelings, including her producer's.
She also said she could've come off differently and still be able to say what she thinks without offending people.
I just don't believe that marriage should grant you tax reductions and give you such fiscal benefits. If a church says "no we don't consider you married because your gay", that's just their opinion and cup of tea.
All marriage should be is a ceremony that makes you a couple in the eyes of your religious deity or whatever, why should it give you a higher benefit than those who have nobody else to rely on. In fact, id say the law promotes that couples should marry early without getting to know their partner first.
Hmm. I think that, in the most literal sense, it is bigotry...
bigot - one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion
I would say that the last part of the definition pretty much covers most of the "acceptable" reasons why one would be opposed to gay marrage.
Did you stop to think that maybe she (and millions of others) oppose gay marriage because they believe the traditional family unit is good for society? That maybe they oppose it because children are better served in a household with a mother and father?
Even if people believe that the traditional family unit is good for society, does that justify outlawing all other options?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They call me Hadoken 'cause I'm down-right fierce.
To hit on my point before, people are becoming complacent in this time of incredible freedoms. Think about it, just 80 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote. And still now, 80 years later, they make less money than men. Similarly, one hundred and fifty years ago we had a war which ended slavery (mostly as a side effect to keep Britain from supporting to South, but I digress) and then, one hundred years later, there was another uprising to catalyze a closer look at civil rights. But the point stands, these things take time. Just because progress isn't immediate does not imply that progress isn't happening. And it isn't because people are bigots, it is because people don't like change, as an overall rule. People who are opposed to a movement are not immoral people, they just have pre-cemented beliefs, and are unwilling to change them. The radicals, on both sides are the bigots, and the heart of the problem.
To hit on my point before, people are becoming complacent in this time of incredible freedoms. Think about it, just 80 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote. And still now, 80 years later, they make less money than men. Similarly, one hundred and fifty years ago we had a war which ended slavery (mostly as a side effect to keep Britain from supporting to South, but I digress) and then, one hundred years later, there was another uprising to catalyze a closer look at civil rights. But the point stands, these things take time. Just because progress isn't immediate does not imply that progress isn't happening. And it isn't because people are bigots, it is because people don't like change, as an overall rule. People who are opposed to a movement are not immoral people, they just have pre-cemented beliefs, and are unwilling to change them. The radicals, on both sides are the bigots, and the heart of the problem.
But surely bringing about progress more quickly is better than bringing it about more slowly?
Even if people believe that the traditional family unit is good for society, does that justify outlawing all other options?
Exactly. There seems to be this strange notion that allowing same-sex marriage will create dysfunctional family units that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Think about it this way; how would a lesbian couple who have a child through artificial insemination and not marry because it is illegal impact society any differently than if they had married? Wouldn't that only impact the child positively, by increasing a sense of stability and legitimacy in the familial unit? Wouldn't it be more detrimental for the child to grow up in a society that views her parent's relationship as abnormal, unstable, and of a second-class nature?
Anyone who is saying "oh she was just being honest" is being a moron. She alienated Thousands of americans by the sheer nature of how she answered the question. Shes is NOT, or could ever be a 'miss USA' that only represents the opinion of a margin. Period. honesty or not.
There is a problem when your "strong traditional beliefs" are the only support you can muster up for an otherwise defenseless position, because the only thing that's "strong" about these beliefs is how tightly some people cling to them, not how logical of a defense they compromise (hint: an appeal to tradition is not valid logical support).
But in all honesty, it was a beauty pageant. She's a stupid blonde, a pretty face with no brains. Why is everyone so surprised?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
Oh hell yes it is! Denying other people a basic human right is extreme bigotry no matter how much you try to justify it as "standing by your beliefs etc".
This farce of people hiding behind their religion/"personal beliefs" to disguise their bigotry is a total cop out. It's offensive to say the least!
If she made an insensitive statement about Jews/Muslims/Black people - can you imagine the outrage. No, if anything this isn't seeing enough headlines!
BTW: I recommend people watch Perez's interview on Larry King. He said it perfectly.
Should minors be able to marry? If not, you prohibit a certain group of people to marry.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
I understand that it has now become more of a state ideal, but it is ignorant to completely ignore people's opinions, just because they are different than yours.
Do I personally care about gay marriage? No, I don't care at all, either way. I find it as something inherently unnecessary, marriage is symbolic, two people who love each other can be together regardless.
All that I really want to say here is this: Is it really that wrong, or ignorant to believe that same-gendered marriage is wrong? No, it is the view of the Church, which for the record, is where most marriages take place. Is it inappropriate to state that "You may now kiss the bride" is at the forefront of people's minds - in relation to marriage? Guess what. Those oaths are normally delivered to a priest.
I'm almost the opposite:
"I'm for gay marriage, but I'm not going to march, picket, or really do anything to help the cause. Good luck, anyhow."
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
Hah, I actually agree with you. I find him more offensive than any comment.
To be honest, I really don't give a frack about the Miss America Pagent, and for what it's worth, I support gay marrage... That being said, Is the Pagent now alligned with Gay Rights? I mean, if a contestant can lose based on their opinions of gay rights, then it pretty much is. Wheither that will hold water in the future depends on the judges I suppose.
This, but also it could be argued that the right isn't one of being able to marry who you're attracted to, but rather one of being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a right that all homosexuals do, in fact, have.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
How is the gender of your partner irrelevant?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Well, after a quick google search, it seems that in these wonderful States of ours, the only thing holding back minors from marriage is parental/legal guardian presence and consent, or some legal documents and nominal fees.
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
Also, refusal of acceptance of an idea other than your own IS bigotry. So yes, she is a bigot. Just throwing that out there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?qsrc=2446
"That's how I was raised" =/= "I was raised to oppose gay marriage."
It's an overture to a traditional, more conservative upbringing. We do not know why she opposes it outside of "that's how I was raised." We can speculate. For all we know, she's a practising Christian that believes the traditional family unit is important enough to preserve.
Whether or not she expressed it in a proper way is another story, and I am inclined to agree she chose her words poorly.
The only bigotry being spouted here is yours. Religious objections are perfectly legitimate and acceptable. Did you stop to think that maybe she (and millions of others) oppose gay marriage because they believe the traditional family unit is good for society? That maybe they oppose it because children are better served in a household with a mother and father?
No, you didn't. You automatically lumped her and millions of others as bigots because they don't support your position.
The only offensive thing here is your bigotry.
No, it isn't. There are perfectly just and acceptable reasons to oppose gay marriage, and doing so doesn't make one a "bigot." Automatically assuming someone is wants to damn, smite and kill gays because they oppose gay marriage, however, is bigotry.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
To add to the post by Zulo above, there are the rights of visitation, health insurance, and many other health and life related responsibilities/perks that come with legal recognition of being married.
For a good reason to understand this, Terry Schiavo. That mess from a few years back was tied to "He's married to her, but technically is married to this other woman, but still has rights to declare the medical staff to pull the plug."
Most of the argument against gay marriage is tradition. People do not believe that tradition should be broken because of what the minority believes (lets be honest homosexuals are a minority) This does not mean that gays are doomed to an existence devoid of marriage, there is just a waiting period until everyone becomes acclimated to the change in ideas.
This is silly for many reasons, one being that this assumes that only homosexuals approve of gay marriage, and another being that this ignored the fact that minority rights have historically been gained through various court decisions, not by the direct will of the majority.
If restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples is unjust, then why should we wait for people to be comfortable with it? They should have no choice but to get comfortable with it, because justice is more important than their beliefs.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of High~Light Studios!
I listed some of them.
I should note, I'm only defending the notion opposing gay marriage isn't bigotry. I support gay marriage myself, for my own personal reasons.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
She also said she could've come off differently and still be able to say what she thinks without offending people.
All marriage should be is a ceremony that makes you a couple in the eyes of your religious deity or whatever, why should it give you a higher benefit than those who have nobody else to rely on. In fact, id say the law promotes that couples should marry early without getting to know their partner first.
bigot - one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion
I would say that the last part of the definition pretty much covers most of the "acceptable" reasons why one would be opposed to gay marrage.
_______________________________________________________________
Anyways, I want to say two things before I step out of this conversation.
1. I believe in, and support the rights of gays to marry.
1. I don't believe in, but I support the rights of bigots to feel the way they do.
To me, it's all part of living in a free society, both the good and the bad.
Now, I personally feel that this is quickly turning into a debate thread/potential flame fest, so I'm stepping out.
Even if people believe that the traditional family unit is good for society, does that justify outlawing all other options?
You really want to define it that broadly? Really?
Bigotry sounds pretty necessary when you put it that way. There are many ideas that I'll gladly refuse to accept.
Exactly. There seems to be this strange notion that allowing same-sex marriage will create dysfunctional family units that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Think about it this way; how would a lesbian couple who have a child through artificial insemination and not marry because it is illegal impact society any differently than if they had married? Wouldn't that only impact the child positively, by increasing a sense of stability and legitimacy in the familial unit? Wouldn't it be more detrimental for the child to grow up in a society that views her parent's relationship as abnormal, unstable, and of a second-class nature?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
------------------------------------------
[Team Revolution]