Integrity

[myusername]

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, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Hre right to her belief is as valid as anybody elses.

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]

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.






Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire Date: 14th century 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility 2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness 3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...