# Integrity



## Deaf Smith (Apr 20, 2009)

I don&#8217;t know if any of you watched the Miss. America Pageant (well I didn&#8217;t but&#8230 but Carrie Prejean, Miss California, showed impressive integrity.

During the show, one of the judges, a gay blogger, asked her, about her stance on same-sex marriage knowing she knew who he was (all contestants study judges so they know what they like or dislike) and she said, &#8220;I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Now that&#8217;s integrity! She knew he would not like that yet she told him the truth strait out. She was not insulting in any way, but she knew what would make an enemy out of him.

Even the co-director the Miss California competition, Keith Lewis, which Prejean won to make it into the Miss USA pageant, came out against her. Lewis told FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"I am personally ... hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement.

Hurt? 

So they would have her compromise her beliefs in order to curry favor! How despicable! 

But she showed integrity. You know she wanted that crown bad, just as any of the others did, but she stood tall and said what she believed in.

Yes integrity. To me she is better than any &#8216;Miss. America&#8221;.

Deaf


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 20, 2009)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with her position, you have to admit she stuck to it.

I find it despicable that one of the judges would use this as an opportunity to try to advance a personal political agenda, even if it's one that I may sympathize with to some degree.


-Rob


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 20, 2009)

Well I'll admire her integrity but her brain cells need a bit of a jump-start ... especially in the first part of her answer... "In my country..." where the hell is she from man?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2009)

Noted genius Perez Hilton called her a "Dumb *****". 
The left supports your right to unpopular opinions as long as they are APPROVED unpopular opinions...


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 20, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Noted genius Perez Hilton called her a "Dumb *****".
> The left supports your right to unpopular opinions as long as they are APPROVED unpopular opinions...


 
Perez Hilton is a parasite who survives off of the activities of other parasites, none of whom are worthy of our attention.

You're right about the left. Of course, the political right is exactly the same. Neither side is interested in the ideas of those with whom they disagree.


-Rob


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 20, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Hurt?
> 
> So they would have her compromise her beliefs in order to curry favor! How despicable!



I don't see how that follows.  You can still be hurt by someone's beliefs (i.e. that your love is inferior to theirs) without expecting or even wanting them to change.  Having integrity about your beliefs doesn't render those beliefs immune to criticism.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2009)

So, she gets "integrity points" for expressing what she truly believes, rather than what she probably knew the judges wanted to hear. That's really commendable (I really think it *is* ) _but it doesn't win contests._ 

Bottom line, if the corporation that *is* the "Miss America Pageant, *INC.*" doesn't want to be represented by that opinion (as evidenced by the "gay blogger" being a judge) then her integrity loses-kind of like the tennis player who hits a winning shot, and then points out that their toe was over the line: sure, they've got integrity, but they *lose*.

It's the way of the world, no more, no less....


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 20, 2009)

The question is quite charged by the current case in California. She was asked what she thought about same-sex marriage, not what she thought about equal rights under the law for same-sex couples. The means by which many jurisdictions have sought to equalize same-sex couples is by extending state marriage rights to them. Those who see marriage as a religious institution get caught in this issue.

I disagree with her answer, but religion and many other conventions are not as important to me as they are to her. If you're going to ask somebody a question like that, expect an answer that will disappoint somebody. She could have given an answer that would have pleased the questioner, won the pageant, and then be deemed unfit to serve by people who think Miss America is some kind of guiding light.

Personally, when I see somebody running around in a bikini and a sash, I don't think to myself, _I better run up and ask her a serious question about an issue of the day._


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 20, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Personally, when I see somebody running around in a bikini and a sash, I don't think to myself, _I better run up and ask her a serious question about an issue of the day._


 
See, that's where you and I are different.

My first thought is, "I need to learn more about her." Then I run over and start quizing her about her opinions on socio-economic issues to find out how open she is to free market anarchism.

Works every time.


-Rob


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So, she gets "integrity points" for expressing what she truly believes, rather than what she probably knew the judges wanted to hear. That's really commendable (I really think it *is* ) _but it doesn't win contests._
> 
> Bottom line, if the corporation that *is* the "Miss America Pageant, *INC.*" doesn't want to be represented by that opinion (as evidenced by the "gay blogger" being a judge) then her integrity loses-kind of like the tennis player who hits a winning shot, and then points out that their toe was over the line: sure, they've got integrity, but they *lose*.
> 
> It's the way of the world, no more, no less....


Perhaps, but integrity isn't a bad thing to have ... not in my experience. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2009)

I've never understood these pageants. Why judge their looks if you're going to ask them questions? Why judge their answers if you're gonna have them prance around in bathing suits? Why not eliminate the bathing suits and have them pose in lingerie?


----------



## Carol (Apr 21, 2009)

Brilliant business move.  She (and/or her handlers) found a way for her to be talked about whether or not she wins the pageant. Should only be a matter of days until she starts profiting from a group with an agenda against gay marriage, either locally in California or nationally.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Perhaps, but integrity isn't a bad thing to have ... not in my experience. :asian:


 

Mine either-the point I'm trying to make is that in life: in business, sports, or a beauty pageant, the position with the most integrity isn't necessarily the winning one. As martial artists,_some of us_-those that have studied strategy, or _or have fought for their lives_, or *both*, recognize that in order to survive, sometimes one has to adapt methods that might lack that kind of integrity...

...not that a beauty pageant is really one of those situations, and Carol is right-it was kind of a shrewd move. By next week she'll be a Fox News commentator-she certainly can't be any worse than the ones they have now...:lfao:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 21, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Personally, when I see somebody running around in a bikini and a sash, I don't think to myself, _I better run up and ask her a serious question about an issue of the day._


 
I'd like to amend this comment, having heard Hilton's post show online blog in which he called Miss California a "b." He asked her opinion. She gave it. Resorting to mysogyny in condemning her remarks is a disservice to equal rights.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 21, 2009)

This story kinda makes me sad.  It is sad we have to celebrate when someone has "integrity", it should be an everyday occurrence in our society but sadly it is not.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 21, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I don&#8217;t know if any of you watched the Miss. America Pageant (well I didn&#8217;t but&#8230 but Carrie Prejean, Miss California, showed impressive integrity.
> 
> During the show, one of the judges, a gay blogger, asked her, about her stance on same-sex marriage knowing she knew who he was (all contestants study judges so they know what they like or dislike) and she said, &#8220;I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
> Now that&#8217;s integrity! She knew he would not like that yet she told him the truth strait out. She was not insulting in any way, but she knew what would make an enemy out of him.
> ...


Yes, I agree she does show integrity. But would you be making a big deal out of this if she was showing integrity but expressing a belief you disagreed with?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 21, 2009)

Hilton said:
			
		

> "I am personally ... hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement.


 
So hurt that he called her a *B*? I'm a strong proponent of equal rights for same sex couples, but Mr Hilton doesn't represent my views on this issue. His behaviour is a liability to the movement.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 21, 2009)

Regardless of how anyone else might see you or how much pressure is on you, you shoul always be true to yourself.  Thats what I tell my children and what I do my best to be true to.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 21, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> His behaviour is a liability to the movement.



Perez Hilton is a liability to anyone and anything he comes into contact with.  He's a foul, mean-spirited clown.  I can't think of anything good that has come of him.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 21, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Perez Hilton is a liability to anyone and anything he comes into contact with.  He's a foul, mean-spirited clown.  I can't think of anything good that has come of him.



At the end of the day, he's just a gossip columnist.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 21, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> At the end of the day, he's just a gossip columnist.


 
I understand and agree with what you are saying, but Perez Hilton has hurt many people with his vile, cruel behavior. He deliberately and publicly outs closeted homosexuals in direct violation of their decisions about how they want to live their lives. People who are harming no one through their actions are directly harmed by his.

He is a monster. But even worse than his behavior, is the fact that people continue to give him attention. If people chose not to watch his behavior, he would fade into insignifigance over night. 

More depressing to me than his behavior here, or the contestant's answer to his question, is the fact that a prestigious organization chose to employ him as a judge. What made them think this was a good move? If they wanted to pander to equal rights, or even certain pro-homosexual aspects of their viewing audience, there are many reasonable respectable homosexuals they could have chosen from.

He is a despicable human being who brings suffering and pain to innocent people. He does not deserve a platform. He does not deserve a voice.

He deserves castigation, villification, and contempt.


-Rob


----------



## teekin (Apr 21, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> See, that's where you and I are different.
> 
> *My first thought is, "I need to learn more about her." *Then I run over and start quizing her about her opinions on socio-economic issues to find out how open she is to free market anarchism.
> 
> ...



Your _First_ thought Rob? You are _sooooo *lying*!!!_!! 4 or 5th maybe, but 1st, who are you trying to fool?
lori


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 21, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Your _First_ thought Rob? You are _sooooo *lying*!!!_!! 4 or 5th maybe, but 1st, who are you trying to fool?
> lori


 
Actually, my first thought is, "I love my wife very very much. She's the most beautiful woman in the world, _way_ more beautiful than _that_ hussy. I'm so glad I'm married to such a wonderful, intelligent woman who fulfills me in every way and makes my life worth living."

Then I spend the rest of the day writing her poetry, renting girl movies, cleaning the kitchen, and trying to think of ways to make her life easier.

What were we talking about?


-Rob


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 21, 2009)

Lisa said:


> This story kinda makes me sad. It is sad we have to celebrate when someone has "integrity", it should be an everyday occurrence in our society but sadly it is not.


 
I totally agree with you Lisa. I'm philosophically to the right of John Wayne. I mean, to ride, shoot strait, and speak the truth, philosophy. Corny yes, but I've seen alot in life. And while I see so much of the world actually does not even think that way, I still feel that is the way it ought to be.

There really was a time when a mans (and womens) word was enough. Where even if one did not agree, they had respect for each other's opinion and didn't go down to name calling.

I suspect those who do not have integrity, just like those who do not have any honesty, hate those that do and will do anything they can to pull them down to their level. 

Even, in this case, to get them to change their beliefs just for a crown.

Deaf


----------



## myusername (Apr 23, 2009)

Sorry but I don't see any "integrity" here I just see prejudice.

Being consistant with your views doesn't make you decent if your views are that other people should not have the same rights as yourself purely on account of their sexual orientation.

I don't think that it was appropriate for that judge to ask the question but her answer didn't make me think she had integrity! If she had been asked whether it was ok if a black man married a white woman and she had said "I don't wish to offend anyone here but in my view I don't believe black men should be allowed to marry white women" we would not be celebrating her integrity!

The one good thing about Hitler is, is that he lived his life by a consistant set of ethical principles!


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2009)

myusername said:


> .
> 
> I don't think that it was appropriate for that judge to ask the question but her answer didn't make me think she had integrity! If she had been asked whether it was ok if a black man married a white woman and she had said "I don't wish to offend anyone here but in my view I don't believe black men should be allowed to marry white women" we would not be celebrating her integrity!!


 
Well, unlike other years, contestants were asked a variety of questions about controversial topics, like their views on the TARP bailouts, and global warming. Within that context, the question _was_ appropriate. And her answer was within a mainstream of thought in America-whether or not that viewpoint is "appropriate," only time will tell-but it *was* a display of a sort of integrity, given that she knew that her answer would not necessarily be a popular one, or one that the judge who asked it wanted to hear, and also knowing that the judges knew enough about her to anticipate how she would answer-*that*, in my view, probably made the question itself somewhat unfair.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 23, 2009)

the questions are not supposed to be judged on wether or not you LIKE the answer, but how WELL they answer.


----------



## myusername (Apr 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Well, unlike other years, contestants were asked a variety of questions about controversial topics, like their views on the TARP bailouts, and global warming. Within that context, the question _was_ appropriate. And her answer was within a mainstream of thought in America-whether or not that viewpoint is "appropriate," only time will tell-but it *was* a display of a sort of integrity, given that she knew that her answer would not necessarily be a popular one, or one that the judge who asked it wanted to hear, and also knowing that the judges knew enough about her to anticipate how she would answer-*that*, in my view, probably made the question itself somewhat unfair.



Well a quick scan on the net gives me this definition of integrity

 "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty."

Now the key word here for me is "moral." How sound is her moral character? I think people here, are confusing integrity with a prejudice.

Sticking steadfastly to a prejudice does not demonstrate integrity it demonstrates ignorance.

If we were to use the logic of this thread on other people with prejudices and hurtful belief systems we could argue that Osama Bin Laden has integrity! He may be wrong but at least he stands by his murderous beliefs no matter how wrong they are! We could argue that peadophiles who claim that the child was asking for it have integrity because even when confronted with the facts of situation they still stand by their twisted viewpoint. We could argue that racists have integrity because no matter whether they are right or wrong they wont shift their ignorant viewpoint.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 23, 2009)

how do you know YOUR opinion is the right one and her's is wrong?

you dont. you THINK it is, but you dont KNOW it is.

please stop using terms like "ignorant" to describe this woman, it isnt accurate.


----------



## myusername (Apr 23, 2009)

If we were to substitute the word integrity for stubborness then I think you guys may be on to something!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I understand and agree with what you are saying, but Perez Hilton has hurt many people with his vile, cruel behavior. He deliberately and publicly outs closeted homosexuals in direct violation of their decisions about how they want to live their lives. People who are harming no one through their actions are directly harmed by his.



Agreed. When I made my gossip columnist remark, I was not dismissing your opinion. Rather I was calling attention to the power consumers give him. I'm only vaguely aware of the guy -- hadn't looked at his website until this story broke. I've heard his radio broadcasts here, and I tend to tune out the celeb gossip stuff. The only time I had seen him until now was on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice.

As Trump also owns Miss America, it'll be interesting to see if Trump puts him on the air again.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 23, 2009)

this was miss USA wasnt it?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> *...**that*, in my view, probably made the question itself somewhat unfair.



Exactly, I think he knew the answer he was going to get, and so the question was a set-up, and the pay-off was to call attention to Hilton, not to have a serious discussion about an important current issue.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 23, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Exactly, I think he knew the answer he was going to get, and so the question was a set-up, and the pay-off was to call attention to Hilton, not to have a serious discussion about an important current issue.


 
And I hope the Miss USA pagent officals now see they don't want an activist for a judge. Hilton was the problem, not Prejean. I hope they learn something from this. You can't be an unbiased judge if you are there for you own agenda.

Deaf


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> You can't be an unbiased judge if you are there for you own agenda.
> Deaf


 
Or if you're a soulless bastard who's claim to fame is the ruination of the lives of innocent people.


-Rob


----------



## Big Don (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Or if you're a soulless bastard who's claim to fame is the ruination of the lives of innocent people.
> 
> 
> -Rob


Believing people should be able to do what ever they want in their private life, and DEMANDING that that be allowed by all and sundry doesn't really fit well with demeaning opinions you don't like...


----------



## myusername (Apr 24, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> how do you know YOUR opinion is the right one and her's is wrong?
> 
> you dont. you THINK it is, but you dont KNOW it is.
> 
> please stop using terms like "ignorant" to describe this woman, it isnt accurate.



Because my opinion doesn't condone preventing people having the same rights as everybody else because of their sexual orientation.

Because my opinion is about celebrating the freedom for people to live the way they wish to live as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I honestly can not see how anybody can celebrate this womans prejudice against homesexuals by calling it integrity. We wouldn't be doing this if she was an anti-semite, we wouldn't be doing this if she was proposing that America and the west lived under Sharia Law, we wouldn't be doing this if she opposed inter-racial marriages. Expressing her prejudices in the face of losing the competition demonstrates her stubborness not her integrity.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 24, 2009)

myusername said:


> Because my opinion doesn't condone preventing people having the same rights as everybody else because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> Because my opinion is about celebrating the freedom for people to live the way they wish to live as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
> 
> I honestly can not see how anybody can celebrate this womans prejudice against homesexuals by calling it integrity. We wouldn't be doing this if she was an anti-semite, we wouldn't be doing this if she was proposing that America and the west lived under Sharia Law, we wouldn't be doing this if she opposed inter-racial marriages. Expressing her prejudices in the face of losing the competition demonstrates her stubborness not her integrity.


 So she is prejudiced and stubborn?...  I believe what she said is that it was the way she was _brought up_.  Sounds more like a factor of her religious upbringing.  If that is the case, then her so called prejudice is a matter of her faith.  Care to take a shot at anyone's faith here?  

By the way, having a strong belief in one's religious upbringing and sticking to all the doctrines (not just the ones you like) would, in my book, be considered having religious integrity. Not that I am implying Miss Cal. is anything like Mother T.  Just making an observation.


----------



## Carol (Apr 24, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> So she is prejudiced and stubborn?...  I believe what she said is that it was the way she was _brought up_.  Sounds more like a factor of her religious upbringing.  If that is the case, then her so called prejudice is a matter of her faith.  Care to take a shot at anyone's faith here?
> 
> By the way, having a strong belief in one's religious upbringing and sticking to all the doctrines (not just the ones you like) would, in my book, be considered having religious integrity. Not that I am implying Miss Cal. is anything like Mother T.  Just making an observation.



Personally I'm not going to take a shot at anyone's faith.

However, in terms of her upbringing, her grandmother Jeanette Coppola said this regarding the controversy:



> "I never knew there were so many gays out there!  I don't know why that gay guy Perez was even judging a contest with a bunch of girls. That doesn't make any sense. He should be judging a Chippendale's contest"


That to me reads as a denigrating family view towards gay folks in general, and not something read from Holy Gospel.

Personally I don't see this as an attack on Christians or Christianity.   There are many Christians that do not support the right to marry for same sex couples, yet there are others that do.  There are Christian churches in this country - including very old churches of well-established denominations - that can and will marry a same sex couple that wants to take legal and moral responsibility for one another as well as abide by the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity is not united by a dislike of homosexuality, it is united by a love of the Christ.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 24, 2009)

I believe that telling the truth even when you know it will harm you IS integrity. 

While Im all for making homo/hetero relationships equal in terms of economics, benefits, medical permissions, child rearing etc...those are all legal and civil issues. The whole "marriage" issue is about "mainstreaming" the gay lifestyle more than its about "equality" IMO. If laws were passed that allowed all the "benefits" of marriage to gays but didnt term it as "marriage" it would probably be unacceptable. To compare her to Hitler is unfair and cliche (_Reductio ad Hitlerum_...you loose), she didnt state that there should be any repression, illegal treatment or "damnation" of homosexuals..only that she believed that marriage was for the union of a man to a woman. Nothing like name calling and Hitler comparisons to bolster ones belief in "tollerance".

I respect her for choosing to tell the truth vs. what she knew the judge wanted to hear.

As the saying goes, &#8220;I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.&#8221; Hre right to her belief is as valid as anybody elses.


----------



## myusername (Apr 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I believe that telling the truth even when you know it will harm you IS integrity.
> 
> While Im all for making homo/hetero relationships equal in terms of economics, benefits, medical permissions, child rearing etc...those are all legal and civil issues. The whole "marriage" issue is about "mainstreaming" the gay lifestyle more than its about "equality" IMO. If laws were passed that allowed all the "benefits" of marriage to gays but didnt term it as "marriage" it would probably be unacceptable. To compare her to Hitler is unfair and cliche (_Reductio ad Hitlerum_...you loose), she didnt state that there should be any repression, illegal treatment or "damnation" of homosexuals..only that she believed that marriage was for the union of a man to a woman. Nothing like name calling and Hitler comparisons to bolster ones belief in "tollerance".
> 
> ...



Sorry mate but I never compared the lady to Hitler. What I did do was to suggest that if you applied the logic of this thread and this thread's definition of the word integrity to such people as Hitler you would have to say that that he had integrity also. The reason? Because he lived his life by a consistant set of ethical principles! Not once did I say that she was like Hitler, all I suggested was that Hitler lived his life by a set of ideas that in the face of overwhelming opposition and resistance he stuck to to the very end. I did this to satirise the absurdity of this thread's notion of integrity.

I admit it wasn't the best example. I much prefer the one I added in a later thread using this perception of integrity on people who steadfastly believe that America and the west should live under Sharia law. It is a better example because those people are standing for their beliefs because of religious fundamentalism!

By suggesting that I compared this lady to Hitler, when I clearly did not is unfair and cliche (Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument - *you lose!* - does that feel as annoying to you as it did when you _tried _to do it to me?)

You are quite incorrect though, she did state that their should be repression of homosexuals. By supporting the notion that marraige should only be for a man and a woman was advocating the repression of the rights of all the Christian homosexual couples who wish to and do marry. There are priests who will marry homosexuals but she supports the idea that they shouldn't be doing this.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 24, 2009)

myusername said:


> Sorry mate but I never compared the lady to Hitler. What I did do was to suggest that if you applied the logic of this thread and this thread's definition of the word integrity to such people as Hitler you would have to say that that he had integrity also. The reason? Because he lived his life by a consistant set of ethical principles! Not once did I say that she was like Hitler, all I suggested was that Hitler lived his life by a set of ideas that in the face of overwhelming opposition and resistance he stuck to to the very end. I did this to satirise the absurdity of this thread's notion of integrity.


 
THis thread's notion of integrity *is* the definition of "integrity."

Once again, from the very excellent _Merriam Webster's Collegiate Online English Language Technical Manual_ (that's a "dictionary, in engineer-speak :lol:



> *integrity*
> 
> One entry found.
> 
> ...


 
By this notion, of course, yes-_Hitler_ often displayed integrity, as do suicide bombers, KKK members, radical leftists, radical rightists, fundamentalist Christians, funadmentalist Islamists, Hassidic Jews, Buddhists, Marines, NFL players and the Amish. :lfao:


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 24, 2009)

This episode has been a fascinating study of just how quickly an idea that would have been the default opinion a few years ago is now considered controversial, hateful, intolerant, ignorant, and basically double-plus ungood.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 24, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> This episode has been a fascinating study of just how quickly an idea that would have been the default opinion a few years ago is now considered controversial, hateful, intolerant, ignorant, and basically double-plus ungood.


You left out how tolerant those who screech for tolerance are to those whose opinions they don't like...


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 24, 2009)

Big Don said:


> You left out how tolerant those who screech for tolerance are to those whose opinions they don't like...


 
True, but I assume that those who call for tolerance for their pet cause are doing so as a political tactic rather than out of any deep-seated love for tolerance in general.  They're lying to get what they want.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 24, 2009)

Cory, it is STILL the default opinion. Every single time gay marraige comes to a vote, it loses. It is only allowed now where it is because of judical fiat.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 24, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Cory, it is STILL the default opinion. Every single time gay marraige comes to a vote, it loses. It is only allowed now where it is because of judical fiat.


 

Actually, Vermont's legislature not only passed a measure allowing gay marriage, but over-rode their governor's veto to do so.


----------



## Carol (Apr 24, 2009)

Same-sex marriage stayed legal in Massachusetts because an attempt to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman failed to pass the 2006 Constitutional Convention.  

Interestingly,  the measure did not require a majority vote to advance, it simply needed 50 "for" votes.  This was not achieved; the vote on the measure was 45 for, 151 against.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot_1.html


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 24, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Cory, it is STILL the default opinion. Every single time gay marraige comes to a vote, it loses. It is only allowed now where it is because of judical fiat.


 
This isn't actually true. 

But even if it was, it would only demonstrate the inherent problem of any system based on the tyranny of the majority.

There was a time when _most_ americans were pro-slavery. Yet most americans now are strongly opposed to it. There was a time when _most_ americans were against desegregation, yet most americans now are for it. There was a time when _most _americans were in favor of manifest destiny, yet most americans now regret the treatment of the native americans.

Mob rule does not equal just rule.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 24, 2009)

I agree, I happen to support Gay marraige, and poly marraige too.

I am just pointing out then when the PEOPLE vote on it, gay marraige fails.

No, i was not just referring to judges when i said judicial fiat, state senates count in that too, I should have remembered that there are people here who  even when they KNOW what you meant, will act like they are proving you wrong or something for thier own entertainment.

I should have been more clear.


that doesnt change that RIGHT NOW, most americans are not pro-gay marraige


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 24, 2009)

The problem with the Miss USA fiasco, is that this woman was obviously punished for her perfectly reasonable view. Sadly this type of thing is becoming more and more prevalent.

Geanne Garafolo on MSNBC says that people who are attending the "Tea parties" are racists because they are protesting a black president and her staements don't even get challenged. Then this Hilton idiot punishes Miss California because she doesn't tow the line when it comes to the gay marriage debarcle. It seems that the majority are constantly being held to ransom by the minority.

Just let's go to an alternate universe for a second. A leader from the Fundamental Latter Day Saints is a judge of a major beauty pageant (I know it's a stretch). He asks the question "What do you think of plural marriage?" She answers "I believe a marriage should be between one man and one woman." You can bet your bollocks to a barn dance that this guy would never be allowed to judge again, if he in any way tried to punish her for her view.

I don't give a crap who marries who really. I have a gorgeous, fit, independant wife and wish everyone the same happiness as me. In fact, I want everyone to have equal protection including; polygamists, bygomists and young lovers of fifteen to be able to marry with parental consent. I want the government to stay out of all our lives. I just can't stand so called tolerant progressives who are tolerant only when considering a lifestyle that they are in favor of. 

This is what I say, legalize gay marriage federally, and every other type of marriage. Then let's stop all the "Gay Pride" nonsense. A few years ago, I was in Long Beach trying to get to work, but the streets were closed due to gay pride. What made it worse was that having been stuck in this mess I had a full frontal view of bearded men in lingerie and village people types in chaps with their *** hanging out. I'm glad I didn't have to explain this nonsense to a child as I'm sure many had to. Well later that month a friend of mine from was organizing a march with the local rugby team to be held in Long Beach he wanted it to be called "straight Pride" and he called the LB city for help. They shut him down instantly and said that his request was "ridiculous and intolerant". Oh dear, so gay want equal protection, but the LB city council don't want to extend that same protection to the majority straight populace.  

Just because I don't want draconian taxes and don't think Barack Obama is capable of being an effective Commander in Chief doesn'yt make me a racist. Using the same line of reasoning if any of us don't agree with gay marriage it doesn't make us homophobes. 

I wonder if Perez Hilton or Sean Penn have spoken out about the intolerance of Barack Obama as I believe he too doesn't agree with gay marriage? It's just a thought

Dom


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 24, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> No, i was not just referring to judges when i said judicial fiat, state senates count in that too, I should have remembered that there are people here who even when they KNOW what you meant, will act like they are proving you wrong or something for thier own entertainment.
> 
> I should have been more clear.


 
So now it's the fault of the people who reply to your posts for taking your statements at face value? I'm sorry, I'll fire up my mind reading machine next time.



> that doesnt change that RIGHT NOW, most *americans* are not pro-gay marraige


 
I haven't seen a single study that supports this statement. I've seen that most _voting americans who have shown up to decide on anti-gay marriage, or pro-"traditional" marriage ballot initiatives_ are not pro-gay marriage. But that's not the same thing.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 24, 2009)

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/42444722.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4917681.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1567690

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf


thats less than five minutes of not even trying hard.

Like I said, I disagree, but the FACT is that the majority of americans dont like the idea. Even in Oregon it failed at the voting booth.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 24, 2009)

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/42444722.html
Shows that "registered voters" don't support gay marriage. Makes no attempt to extrapolate that to all Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4917681.shtml
Six in ten Americans support "some form of legal recognition" for gay couples. The poll only included a little over a thousand adults chosen at random.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1567690
An "NPR poll," with no described methedology found that while a little over half of the people polled were against gay marriage, the respondents were split evenly on the idea of civil unions.

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf
Once again, about a thousand registered voters were polled and while the results showed that the respondents were against gay marriage, they were in favor of the state supreme court ruling which struck down a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman.

All of which proves the point I made earlier. There are no studies showing that _Americans_ in general are against gay marriage. Just that _voters_ are.

Your polls also showed that young voters are generally in favor of it. The times are changing.

Soon.


-Rob


----------



## elder999 (Apr 25, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I agree, I happen to support Gay marraige, and poly marraige too.
> 
> I am just pointing out then when the PEOPLE vote on it, gay marraige fails.
> 
> No, i was not just referring to judges when i said judicial fiat, state senates count in that too,


 
State legislatures _don't_ count in that, or they at least shouldn't. They're the elected representatives of the people-their votes are the people's votes, or are supposed to be, at least. Vermont's a small state, with a population of less than a million people. It's far more likely that those who voted were aware of the will of the majority of their constituency, and voted to follow that will. Anecdotal evidence of public reaction in Vermont seems to indicate that much, anyway.

In any case, you're probably correct about the "will of the plebiscite" in most instances, and, on a state by state basis, many states. I don't know that you're right about "most Americans," and, more to the point, I don't know that it matters: up until the 1967 case if _Loving v. VIrginia_, it would have been illegal for my wife and I to cohabitate in a variety of states, including New Mexico, though many of those laws remained largely unenforced in some places, like New Mexico. As it is, though, even though such laws were made unconstitutional, it took a couple of states more than 30 years to actually repeal the laws and remove them from their books. In any case, it's fairly certain that for a majority of voters in some of those states, their opinion was that races shouldn't mix, and such marriages should be illegal-more to the point, _it's their right to *still* hold such opinions, it's just not the law. _And, in point of fact, I believe in their right to opinions such as those, however contrary to my own they might be.

In the case of this woman-who, BTW, was first runner-up, and will *be* Miss USA, should the reigning Miss USA become Miss Universe-she expressed _her_ opinion, based on how she was raised and what she believed. That she knew she had to preface part of that opinion with a qualifier of "not wanting to offend anyone" demonstrates that she knew what she would say would not entirely well received, and her saying as much was a demonstration of integrity-just not a winning one.



Twin Fist said:


> I should have remembered that there are people here who even when they KNOW what you meant, will act like they are proving you wrong or something for thier own entertainment.


 

Well, no-I've said it before, when someone is, quite simply '*wrong*," I'm going to say something about it.More to the point, how am I supposed to KNOW what you meant, _other than what you *typed???* :lol:_

THough I'd be lying if I said I didn't find you....._entertaining._ :lol:

Judicial fiat" is *not* the same as a legislature passing a bill, and overriding a veto to make it a law. It's not even in the same universe. Interestingly, though, most of that "judicial fiat" that's taken place has been in response to measures _banning gay marriage_, and ruling that such measures are unconstitutional. This is, of course, the function of our judicial branch of government. It's ironic, though, that those states that have chosen to make "the will of the voters" law in regard to this, have consistently had that law shot down, only to make way for the very thing that they've been trying to keep from happening. 

Demonstrates a distinct lack of critical thinking on the part of the people who keep trying to do that, don't you think? :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 25, 2009)

I am not in favor or the government making decisions for people. I say le tthe people VOTE on it, and go with the result.

I would vote to allow it.

but it should still be the people's decision. Not some politician who pads his pockets with special interest money.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 25, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I am not in favor or the government making decisions for people. I say le tthe people VOTE on it, and go with the result.
> 
> I would vote to allow it.
> 
> but it should still be the people's decision. Not some politician who pads his pockets with special interest money.


 
By this logic, segregated schools would still exist in the south-and other places (though, I suppose, they *do* still exist, in some places)-as well as miscegenation laws (against interracial marriage). 

Both were fine products of the _tyranny of the majority_ that our government is meant to prevent.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 25, 2009)

in all likelyhood, they would not STILL exist and you know it as well as I do.

As someone said, the world is turning, and attitudes change with it.

and throwing the interracial marraige card doesnt fly with me Hoss, since I already dont think the government has any business telling people who they can or cant marry.....

which brings us round full circle on this thread.


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Brilliant business move.  She (and/or her handlers) found a way for her to be talked about whether or not she wins the pageant. Should only be a matter of days until she starts profiting from a group with an agenda against gay marriage, either locally in California or nationally.



9 days, to be precise:


> Carrie Prejean has joined up with the National Organization for Marriage as part of a $1.5 billion national ad campaign that       touts the right of Americans to share their opinion on gay marriage without backlash.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/beauty-queen-launches-campaign-gay-marriage/


----------



## Big Don (Apr 30, 2009)

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Yeah, there was a Republican majority in both the House and Senate in 96, but, not THAT big of one...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 30, 2009)

Big Don said:


> The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
> 
> Yeah, there was a Republican majority in both the House and Senate in 96, but, not THAT big of one...


 

Of course, as I've said before, having Bill Clinton pass a law _in defense of marriage_ is kind of like having Teddy Kennedy teach advanced life saving...:lfao:

(ditto most of thos Congressmen and Senators, from both sides of the aisle...)


----------



## Big Don (Apr 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Of course, as I've said before, having Bill Clinton pass a law _in defense of marriage_ is kind of like having Teddy Kennedy teach advanced life saving...:lfao:
> 
> (ditto most of thos Congressmen and Senators, from both sides of the aisle...)


I wish I had the photoshop skills to dress Teddy as a Life Guard...


----------

