Firstly I want to seize my only opportunity to correctly respond to what a woman said by saying “Yes, but was she hot?!”
Is this a veiled refence to Sarah Palin’s career?
Not at all. But if you’re going to insist that somehow the two groups are analogous, then that’s perhaps a good place to start. From the link I provided:
So, we’ve established biology plays a fairly important part in dictating a gay person’s sexual orientation. Now the onus is on you to demonstrate the same for these other groups. Happy Hunting.
When state after state, including California, by duly constitutional practices, asserts that gays have the right to marry each other, then yeah, she is making the case that people should not have equal rights and that is bigoted.
If and when the same happens about incest r polygamy or (I bet you barely resisted typing) bestiality, when those are asserted as rights by the People’s government representatives, then let’s talk about your straw man, err question.
I’m quite familiar, actually. I have a close family member (gay) who is very high up in one of the major high fashion modeling agencies. I think the prevalence of gays in the industry explains why so many models aren’t all that pretty.
My ideal standard is this:
-Anyone can call themselves married who wants to, and anyone can perform marriages who wants to. Five kids who are confused about playing at house and all decide to marry one another? Every bit as legit as someone whose ceremony is performed by a Cardinal.
-The government issues a document (I’d prefer to call it civil union, but I’ll be reasonably happy with some term like “marriage” or “civil marriage,” the latter of which is I think the term used in some European countries) to any two consenting adults who are not married (or civil unioned or whatever).
-Keep laws on the books about underage sex and about incestuous relationships that result in children.
-Eventually we work on polyamorous relationships and get the kinks out. (heh).
The thing is, you could allow civil marriage or SSM or whatever essentially by doing a find–>replace operation in the lawbooks, eliminating references to marriage being between a man and a woman. The change is super-easy to make: we have all the precedents, we know how it works, and we’ve spent decades already removing gender roles from marriage (no longer does the wife fail to inherit property after the husband’s death, e.g.).
Creating a legal structure for polyamory is very different and very complex. What happens in a three-way marriage of two straight women and one straight man if the man dies, for example? What about when all three participants are bisexual? If one of the women divorces the other woman, but wants to stay married to the man, what happens? How do you handle custody? There are myriad questions that will need to be settled by written law and by case law.
I have no problems with polyamory. Incest is icky, but if it’s two consenting adults and they’re not having kids, it’s not my business. If two folks are best friend bachelors and want to have power of attorney etc. for one another but don’t want to get it on in bed, I want them to have a legal structure for it. An adult child caring for an ailing parent may want essentially the same package of legal rights concerning that parent as a spouse would want, and I’d love to have that package available for the child and parent.
Everything in the previous paragraph except for polyamory can be solved via a simple civil union (or civil marriage if that’s more palatable) approach. Polyamory can’t be solved simply.
Thank you.
The question is not whether they are analagous, the question is whether one is “innate” and the other is not “innate.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “innate,” so I need to know what principles underly your claim that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is “innate.” I need to know what evidence is competent to show that a trait is “innate.”
Before, it seemed like you were claiming that homosexuality is “innate” because it varies on a continuum from person to person, as recognized by the APA. Now, it seems like you have abandoned that claim.
Without knowing how to demonstrate (to your satisfaction) that something is “innate,” it’s pretty much a waste of time to make the attempt.
So if I can show evidence that “biology plays a fairly important part” in dictating a particular desire, you will accept that such a desire is “innate”?
So if a person speaks out against rights which are recognized by multiple states or countries, then that person is a bigot?
I’m not one to agree with much of anything that Brazil says, but it seems pretty freakin’ obvious to me that a desire to have multiple sexual partners is at least as likely to have a biological cause as is a desire to have partners of one sex or the other. This article discusses the biological evidence for polygamous desires in both men and women; it’d stretch credulity to suggest that such desires don’t exist on a continuum.
How refreshing. Apparently lack of grace is still a handicap in beauty pageants.
I’d be fine with polygamy IF the laws governing it were written so as to ensure equality between the spouses (as it is currently, it’s just an excuse for lechers to amass harems) and some sense was made out of the laws that currently assume a person has only one spouse and don’t work with multiple spouses. The spouses also need to be able to legally consent.
I’d be fine with incestual marriage IF steps were taken to ensure that any offspring coming out of the relationship did not have any preventable or foreseeable birth defects. The spouses also need to be able to legally consent.
I’d be fine with pedophilic/hebephilic and bestial marriages IF it were possible for both spouses to legally consent. While there is room for debate about the proper legal age, I think there’s a fair chance it will never be lowered to include prepubescent children, nor will animals ever be considered able to give consent.
See a pattern here?
I don’t give a damn what people decide to do as long as it isn’t a situation in which someone is likely to be hurt or coerced. The only thing different about a gay marriage from a hetero marriage is the sexes of the persons involved. Anything else gets trickier, but who’s to say those tricks won’t be smoothed out later down the road? And if so, good on them.
I believe that opposite marriage should be compulsory.
Signed,
A homely, socially awkward drunk waiting for his hot, vivacious designated driver
To the small extent that I care about beauty pagents, it seems that these questions should be ones where either side of the issue is acceptable if articulately presented. I don’t think they would have accepted any articulate opposition to gay marriage so it wasn’t a fair question. Contrast that with the questions about economic policy.
A mere eight years ago, NO country in the entire world sanctioned gay marriages.
Are we to believe that anyone not enthusiastically in favor of something that didn’t exist ANYWHERE in the world a mere eight years ago must be a bigot?
In fact, a mere 17 years ago, if George H.W. Bush had suggested that a vote for Bill Clinton was a vote for gay marriage, Democrats would universally have scoffed at the very idea, and called Bush a paranoid.
Are we to believe that anyone not enthusiastic about something EVERY leading Democrat would have scoffed at just 17 years ago must be a bigot?
One last thing- President Barack Obama ALSO opposes gay marriage. IS he a contemptible bigot? Is Perez Hilton calling him a bitch? Why not?
Well, he said he does, as was necessary during the campaign. We won’t really know for sure until he gets a chance to sign or veto some relevant legislation.
We won’t really know then either, that will also likely be purely decided by politics and not personal belief.
If I were coaching someone in a beauty pageant–and I’d be quite a bit more qualified to coach the Olympic water polo team–I would train her to almost always dodge the question. I don’t think many contestants are likely to help themselves in the Q&A, but they can hurt themselves by sounding idiotic or, as we see here, saying something controversial.
Contestants usually sound idiotic when they’re trying to dance around the question and they end up rambling. So the best bet is to give a clear, well-stated, confidently-delivered, completely uncontroversial answer, even if it isn’t an answer to the question that was asked.
You could probably write out ten or so answers that could be massaged into sort of a response to just about anything. If they ask about gay marriage, go into the answer about how important it is to have respect for one another. If they ask about universal health care, give the answer about how all babies should have enough to eat. After she memorized the answers, you could practice by throwing out increasingly difficult questions for her to fit the answers to.
The judges aren’t going to be blown away, but they weren’t going to be anyway. This way, they would probably say, “Yeah, that was good, but it didn’t really answer the question,” which probably averages out to a safely middling score. The most important thing is not to wing it, and yet that’s what a lot of them seem to do.
Ah, so Obama is NOT really a bigot. He’s a lying sack of manure!
And remember, folks, this is from one of the Lightworker’s defenders!
I would say that starting off with judges already predisposed to like something isn’t going to give you a very fair account of its worth. I mean, if you have on one hand a known film lover who gives rave reviews every week, and on the other a person who is entirely unbothered by films in general, when they both come up to you and tell you how great a particular new film is, which opinion will you trust more? In the analogy, it would be fair to point out that the film lover (despite his lack of pickiness) has more exposure to and likely knowledge of the competition, as it were, but with gay guys it’s not as though they live in a world without women. Authority on that particular subject is a matter of experience, and they’ve got as much as experience as everyone else - they just don’t start off with the inclination to like.
And “non-dyke strain” seems like a bit of a regrettable statement. 
There were more than two contestants. If she had come out advocating slavery and lsot because of that would it still be sill to say “she deserved to lose” since we don’t know that eventual winner’s stance?
It certainly is a big black mark on their character. They may have some redeeming qualities, but bigotry sure is an ugly part of their personalities.
Do they need one? Do they have an official stance on racial bigotry? If not does this mean a racist shouldn’t be penalized for their racism in this contest?
Yes. Eight years is plenty of time to hear and understand the arguments of such a high profile issue.