# Contestant loses Miss USA for not being liberal enough. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798 "2009-04-21T01:14:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/241 "2009-04-30T01:57:34Z")
Quick, possibly irrelevant note: that notorious conservative rag _Newsweek_ is, in its short notes, actually sympathetic towards Miss California, and shakes its head at Hilton. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/242 "2009-04-30T13:05:29Z")
Miss California to appear in new National Organization for Marriage ad (NOM NOM), entitled “No Offense” – [link on CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/miss.california.ad/index.html). I can’t wait for the parodies. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/243 "2009-04-30T14:19:41Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > Here’s a good litmus test. Is there any reasonable opposition to gay marriage that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of gays? Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. The institution of marriage doesn’t exist simply to provide benefits such as tax breaks, inheritance rights, social approval, etc. simply because a couple may have a sexual relationship and a strong emotional bond. It has important social functions, and those functions are not served by extending marriage to include same sex relationships. You can redefine the word “leg” to include tails, but a dog still won’t have five legs. Society has the right to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/244 "2009-04-30T14:33:05Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. On this basis you could deny marriage to alcoholics, or even poor people. Are you saying we should deny legal rights to people because statistically they _might_ not have the best odds at raising children? Should we only allow people to marry who have the statistically _best_ odds at raising a child? That eliminates a lot of groups. Should we allow the top three to marry but deny all the rest? Five? > [@](#): > > The institution of marriage doesn’t exist simply to provide benefits such as tax breaks, inheritance rights, social approval, etc. simply because a couple may have a sexual relationship and a strong emotional bond. It has important social functions, and those functions are not served by extending marriage to include same sex relationships. You can redefine the word “leg” to include tails, but a dog still won’t have five legs. What social functions can a man/woman couple do that a man/man or woman/woman couple cannot? > [@](#): > > Society has the right to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality. But it doesn’t have the right to deny homosexuals basic human rights based solely on preference. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/245 "2009-04-30T14:35:35Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families. Er, you do know that two men or two women don’t make a baby, right? > [@](#): > > Society has the right to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality. The issue at hand is a political one. This requires participants to keep track of the distinction between “society” and “government”. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/246 "2009-04-30T14:36:38Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Miss California to appear in new National Organization for Marriage ad (NOM NOM), entitled “No Offense” – [link on CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/miss.california.ad/index.html). > > I can’t wait for the parodies. I figure at least one Miss Teen South Carolina mash-up will show up within a day or so… ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/247 "2009-04-30T14:41:12Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > On this basis you could deny marriage to alcoholics, or even poor people. Are you saying we should deny legal rights to people because statistically they _might_ not have the best odds at raising children? Should we only allow people to marry who have the statistically _best_ odds at raising a child? That eliminates a lot of groups. Should we allow the top three to marry but deny all the rest? Five? Alcoholism, poverty, etc. are irrelevant. > [@hotflungwok](#): > > But it doesn’t have the right to deny homosexuals basic human rights based solely on preference. Marriage is not a “basic human right.” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/248 "2009-04-30T14:43:23Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Alcoholism, poverty, etc. are irrelevant. Declaring the evidence against your position to be “irrelevant” is the text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, and equally convincing. > [@](#): > > Marriage is not a “basic human right.” Oh? Then misegenation laws were unobjectionable, in your world view? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/249 "2009-04-30T14:46:52Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Er, you do know that two men or two women don’t make a baby, right? You do realize that marriage is about family, and family is largely about children, and that this fact makes same-sex marriage a sad joke, don’t you? > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The issue at hand is a political one. This requires participants to keep track of the distinction between “society” and “government”. The issue at hand is a politcal and social one. All politics is ultimately about social issues. If both sides didn’t believe that same sex marriage has profound social consequences, then neither side would bother to argue about it. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/250 "2009-04-30T14:49:07Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Declaring the evidence against your position to be “irrelevant” is the text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, and equally convincing. He wasn’t presenting evidence against my position; he was merely introducing red herrings. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/251 "2009-04-30T14:50:27Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Oh? Then misegenation laws were unobjectionable, in your world view? If someone could come up with a sound reason for it, yes I would find them unobjectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/252 "2009-04-30T15:05:50Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You do realize that marriage is about family, and family is largely about children… Er, this is what you are required to **prove** to sustain your argument. You don’t get to simply **postulate** it. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > He wasn’t presenting evidence against my position; he was merely introducing red herrings. He was providing examples of why your position is logically untenable. You stuck your fingers in your ears and hummed loudly. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/253 "2009-04-30T16:36:09Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Alcoholism, poverty, etc. are irrelevant. Not according to your argument. You want to deny gays the right to marry because, according to some statistic I keep hearing about but have never seen, they cannot provide children with the absolute best chances at being raised. Why not deny other groups who do not provide the best chances for a child? Why just the gays? > [@](#): > > Marriage is not a “basic human right.” Oh? Why not? What gives men & women the right to marry, but not men & men or women & women? Why do they have this special right? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/254 "2009-04-30T16:59:47Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. There is no part of this paragraph that is remotely true. ---
**Author:** ![geezermom67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@geezermom67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geezermom67)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/255 "2009-04-30T17:07:02Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. When this fact was established, was it established by comparing traditional families to single parent families, or by comparing traditional families to families with two parents of the same gender? Has their been sufficient research done to really claim that traditional families are superior to two-parent same sex families? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/256 "2009-04-30T17:59:05Z")
Apparently Miss California believes in traditional marriage, but not traditional tits. Turns out the Miss California pagent payed for her implants. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/257 "2009-04-30T18:08:17Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. > > The institution of marriage doesn’t exist simply to provide benefits such as tax breaks, inheritance rights, social approval, etc. simply because a couple may have a sexual relationship and a strong emotional bond. It has important social functions, and those functions are not served by extending marriage to include same sex relationships. You can redefine the word “leg” to include tails, but a dog still won’t have five legs. > > Society has the right to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality. I agree, but there is the question of proof. Numerous posters have asked about what statistical proof there is of these propositions, and while I have perhaps overlooked them in this thread, I haven’t seen it. I’d surmise that there is no statistical proof because such propositions were taken as givens for so long that no proof was necessary. It seems fair to require such proof now that the matter is at issue. At the same time, it seems to me incumbent upon those arguing for SSM that they need to provide proof on their side of the argument too, which they haven’t done either. They wave their hands and call it a right, but it is a right that seems to have appeared out of thin air in the last twenty years. The comparison to slavery doesn’t sway me because at least as far back as the American Continental Congress in the 1770s there were delegates arguing that slavery was immoral. Yet it never occurred to anyone there that gays had the right to marry. If it was such an open and obvious legal right, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson et al would’ve thought of it, wouldn’t they? Bill Nye The Science Guy used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At the moment we have no proof that I’ve seen (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, certainly) that SSM benefits society, as heterosexual marriage clearly has. If we’re going to radically restructure marriage, it would seem that extraordinary proof of why it is beneficial to society to do that is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/258 "2009-04-30T18:46:17Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > At the same time, it seems to me incumbent upon those arguing for SSM that they need to provide proof on their side of the argument too, which they haven’t done either. Not that I blame you, but you can’t have read this thread very closely if you can say that. > [@](#): > > They wave their hands and call it a right, but it is a right that seems to have appeared out of thin air in the last twenty years. The 14th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to equal protection of the laws, was ratified in 1868. > [@](#): > > If it was such an open and obvious legal right, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson et al would’ve thought of it, wouldn’t they? The framers knew there were rights they hadn’t addressed in the Constitution. That’s stated in the 9th and 10th amendments. > [@](#): > > At the moment we have no proof that I’ve seen (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, certainly) that SSM benefits society, as heterosexual marriage clearly has. Under the right to equal protection, the burden is on the \*government \*to prove that there is a purpose to a discriminatory law. > [@](#): > > If we’re going to radically restructure marriage We’re not. Where did you get that idea from? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/259 "2009-04-30T18:56:59Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes. It is an established fact that children do best when they are raised in traditional families, i.e. a mother and a father. It isn’t impossible to raise good kids in other circumstances, but it does greatly decrease the odds. Promoting a form of marriage which would deprive children of that advantage at the very outset is obviously not in the best interests of society. No it isn’t. And if it were, it would be evidence in support of prohibiting gay adoption, not gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/260 "2009-04-30T19:04:43Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Marriage is not a “basic human right.” I don’t put this forward as a legal argument; I just think it’s very elegantly worded. For what it’s worth I think it’s ridiculous to not apply the same scrutiny to discrimination based on sexual orientation. [QUOTE=Chief Justice Warren] These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. **The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.** **Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.** Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). **To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.** The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=14)