Miss California chastised for having an opinion

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:00 am

KittieKop wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:The world would be a lot better if everyone were like me and just reject the idea of marriage in any capacity. Lifetime monogomy has never been natural in any human society.
Very true. Life-long marriage is certainly "unnatural." But some people are able to make it work.
Just when I think you can't say anything more absurd, you outdo yourself.

I started a long diatribe, but frankly I just don't have the energy to bang my head against that wall/
It's not absurd at all (that's probably why tampa and I both agree on it). In fact, it's pretty well established that our species' natural state is not one sexual partner for life. Marriage (first polygamous marriage and later one on one marriage) is something that society (churches and governments) introduced and forced on people in order to preserve social order (which has worked relatively well, all things considered).

This really isn't a controversial idea. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't get married and be monogamous thereafter (if that's what you are reacting to, because that's certainly my plan for the rest of my life), but I'm merely stating that the fact is that we as human animals are not naturally inclined to do this. We overcome our "natural" tendancies to be in monogamous marriages by way of societal pressures.

If we were natually inclined to have one life-long sexual partner, I suspect our divorce rate would probably be a helluva lot lower and the numbers of people who have had sex with more than one person in their life would probably about 90% lower than it is right now.

Do you now understand what I am saying and agree that my post actually made perfect sense?

If you are interested in learning more about this particular topic, I highly recommend "The Moral Animal." Very interesting book. Not political, just interesting science and history.

By the way ... I presume that everyone on this thread that is outraged by those meanie gay people "chastizing" the beauty queen for her words are going to be perfectly consistent with their assertions and speak out against KittieKop for his chastizement of my post? We'll see how that plays out, shall we? :wink:



GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by GrizinWashington » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:06 am

cats2506 wrote:
GrizinWashington wrote:
cats2506 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
cats2506 wrote:I suppose the Creator is discriminatory too, since same sex partners are naturally unable to have offspring to.

Why dont they petition for that right first, and once it is granted I will buy into the whole "gay marriage" think.
Are you opposed to heterosexual people who don't want to have kids (or are physically unable to have kids) getting married?
When you consider the natural and evolutionary things that have cause our species to become monogamous, reproduction and protection of the offspring are the principal reasons.

I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms, but that has nothing to do with marriage.

You really believe that heterosexual marriage has made our society monogamous??

Dude, turn off the 700 Club and take a gander at the real world.



And FWIW, this thread is an "Instant Classic"!! "The ESPN Classic channel would be re-rolling this baby 10 minutes after it's conclusion! I signed onto a sports message board and a beauty pageant busted out. AWEsome!!
No! Marriage by its very definition is monogamy. duh!

What are the roots of marriage in our society, and what is its pourpose and benifit to to our species as it has evolved.

Ive never seen the 700 club
I believe what you meant in your first line was that marriage is IN THEORY monogamous. Since we know that many, many married people stray, it is impossible to say that marriage is by definition monogamous.

I disagree that marriage was designed to aid child bearing/procreation. It was designed in part to aid child rearing, but that's a different issue. As for your question about it's benefits, marriage has had positive benefits to our society, particularly the social fabric of society. But I would challenge you to make a compelling argument that two men together or two women together don't provide the same benefits to society or child rearing.
I actually like your idea of civil unions, as long as they come with the exact same state and federal rights and responsibilities as our current marriages. In fact, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and that everyone should just get civil unions for legal purposes. If they wanted to get "married" under whatever belief system they have separately, that's up to them.
This fits my beliefs as well. I'm a Christian, and I chose to get married in a church. But I really don't see why the government is in that business at all. There should simply be civil unions under the law, and if -- for religious reasons -- a couple decides to "get married", they can have a pastor/priest/Rabbi/officiant conduct the "ceremony". But legally, a "ceremony" is all it would/should be.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:11 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:If she meant that she thinks that marriage should "only" be between a man and a woman, why would she say, "we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite?"
Who knows what that was supposed to mean ... it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (especially seeing as how we don't live in such a land).

Okay, let's just cut to the chase ... does anyone REALLY care what this woman thinks? And does anyone REALLY care what the gay guys who run the pageants said in response? Have we all wasted too much of our life trying to interpret the mangled words of a probably not-incredibly-bright beauty queen? Let's give her twenty years and fear her words only after she is annouced as a V.P. candidate. :wink:

She utilized her First Amendment rights to sorta kinda express an opinion, and others utilized their First Amendment rights to voice their disapproval of her words. The government is not censoring any parties involved, so it's all good.
And here I thought this was the last word on the subject! :lol: Come to find out, the thread wasn't even half over...


Montana State IS what "they" think Montana is.

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:39 pm

The current marriage rules apply to everyone in the United States equally.

Gays want the rules changed to fit their CHOICE.


It really is just like everyone that doesn't like a certain law (for me its the speed limit) they want it changed to fit them.

I think motorcycles should have the right to run down the highway at 120+ but the cops don't see it that way. They run speeds like this in Europe and the accident data proves that speed isn't a variable so why not?


Oh thats right, there are laws put forth by people that are clueless, but at least it makes them feel better about themselves.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by GrizinWashington » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:57 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:The current marriage rules apply to everyone in the United States equally.

Gays want the rules changed to fit their CHOICE.


It really is just like everyone that doesn't like a certain law (for me its the speed limit) they want it changed to fit them.

I think motorcycles should have the right to run down the highway at 120+ but the cops don't see it that way. They run speeds like this in Europe and the accident data proves that speed isn't a variable so why not?


Oh thats right, there are laws put forth by people that are clueless, but at least it makes them feel better about themselves.
Sorry. Your comparison of those laws is way off base. To make the comparison equal, there would have to be a law that states that married people can ride their bikes at 120 mph, but gay people cannot. That's the marriage law in our country now.

And if you're so anti-government, why the hell do you want government legislating something like marriage to begin with? $hit, talk about wasteful spending. Think of the money that is spent (on both sides) on this issue. Hell, we'd cut our deficit in half if we could eliminate the spending on marriage.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:48 pm

It doesn't cost our government anything right now but it would if they were to change things, so thank the gays for spending more of MY money.

Also, the way marriage is in this country is fair for everyone from birth. You all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, I dont have the right to marry a guy.

Its fair, you know it and your correction as to my speed limit reference is once again, laughable.

I bet you wish someone in the government could figure out how to argue your point so you didnt seem so foolish..........dont you?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3274
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Grizlaw » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:04 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:It doesn't cost our government anything right now ...
Sure it does. If you think the institution of marriage doesn't cost the government anything, I suggest that you take a look at the Montana Supreme Court's docket, and take note of the percentage of the cases heard by the court that are divorce cases.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by GrizinWashington » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:09 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:It doesn't cost our government anything right now but it would if they were to change things, so thank the gays for spending more of MY money.

Also, the way marriage is in this country is fair for everyone from birth. You all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, I dont have the right to marry a guy.

Its fair, you know it and your correction as to my speed limit reference is once again, laughable.

I bet you wish someone in the government could figure out how to argue your point so you didnt seem so foolish..........dont you?
Huh.

I'm actually starting to believe you really ARE this stupid, and that it's not just a persona....


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:32 pm

Who said it was a personna?

I still stand by the comments I made.

It is fair for everyone across the board. If you want special treatment then you probably feel that it isn't fair.

There is only one side to this topic and even Miss California gets it.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

Sportin' Life
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: MSO

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Sportin' Life » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:17 pm

A lot of this thread reminds me of when the Dixie Chicks were chastised for voicing their opinions, except the exact same arguments are being made by the opposite sides.


"GD it, PETAns piss me off!
Were never gonna end up with a stupid eagle or a faggy bobcat as a mascot!"
Cartman

User avatar
longhorn_22
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7592
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Billings/Bozeman

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by longhorn_22 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:26 pm

Sportin' Life wrote:A lot of this thread reminds me of when the Dixie Chicks were chastised for voicing their opinions, except the exact same arguments are being made by the opposite sides.
You're right but don't deflect from the topic at hand. Don't reverse the sides.
And can you imagine the uproar if they said the same things publicly about Obama? Good God.



Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3274
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Grizlaw » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:34 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:You're right but don't deflect from the topic at hand. Don't reverse the sides.
longhorn_22 wrote: And can you imagine the uproar if they said the same things publicly about Obama? Good God.
Do as I say, not as I do, I guess? :roll:


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

User avatar
longhorn_22
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7592
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Billings/Bozeman

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by longhorn_22 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:39 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:You're right but don't deflect from the topic at hand. Don't reverse the sides.
longhorn_22 wrote: And can you imagine the uproar if they said the same things publicly about Obama? Good God.
Do as I say, not as I do, I guess? :roll:
Sure? :roll:
i would have added a wink to that original post but it might have taken away from the effect.
Last edited by longhorn_22 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:
Sportin' Life wrote:A lot of this thread reminds me of when the Dixie Chicks were chastised for voicing their opinions, except the exact same arguments are being made by the opposite sides.
You're right but don't deflect from the topic at hand. Don't reverse the sides.
And can you imagine the uproar if they said the same things publicly about Obama? Good God.
If Homer said something like this on The Simpson's, it would be hilarious.

Give it a try ... read it in a Homer voice. Good stuff.



User avatar
longhorn_22
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7592
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Billings/Bozeman

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by longhorn_22 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:43 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:
Sportin' Life wrote:A lot of this thread reminds me of when the Dixie Chicks were chastised for voicing their opinions, except the exact same arguments are being made by the opposite sides.
You're right but don't deflect from the topic at hand. Don't reverse the sides.
And can you imagine the uproar if they said the same things publicly about Obama? Good God.
If Homer said something like this on The Simpson's, it would be hilarious.

Give it a try ... read it in a Homer voice. Good stuff.
It was a joke. I just didn't add the wink.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:47 pm

Then I read it perfectly as intended. It was funny.

And Sportin' makes the point of the whole thread ... it's amazing how many people pretend to be totally against public figures catching grief for the things they say ... yet not a peep along those same lines comes from these same people when people who they disagree with (Obama, Hitchens, Sharpton, Jackson, Frank, Dodd, etc.) catch grief for saying things that draw ire. In fact, many of those same people will be actively giving the grief!

Methinks there's not a whole lot of sincerity in these "thou shalt not give grief to public figures who offer opinions" convictions, but merely agreement with Miss California on this issue.

Miss CA expressed her opinion. And other people expressed their opinions of what she said. It's all good, and it's all perfectly fine.

And at the end of the day, if anybody is influenced one way or another by what Miss (insert state here -- and any judges of the contests, for that matter) has to say about any issue of any importance, gay marriage is the least of their problems.



Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3274
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Grizlaw » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:50 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:Sure? :roll:
i would have added a wink to that original post but it might have taken away from the effect.
Depends on what effect you were trying for, I guess.

If you were trying to make a serious and ironically hypocritical statement, then I agree -- adding a wink would've taken away from the effect. ;)

If you were trying to make a joke, I think adding a wink would've made your intent more clear.

But, whatever. If it was a joke, it was a joke. Sorry I missed it the first time.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:01 pm

Sportin' Life wrote:A lot of this thread reminds me of when the Dixie Chicks were chastised for voicing their opinions, except the exact same arguments are being made by the opposite sides.

I could have swore that Miss California said what she said in the UNITED STATES.



Surely American citizens on foreign soil DURING A WAR criticizing the president, can only be justified in a certain type of mind under completely different circumstances.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3274
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Grizlaw » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:12 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote: I could have swore that Miss California said what she said in the UNITED STATES.



Surely American citizens on foreign soil DURING A WAR criticizing the president, can only be justified in a certain type of mind under completely different circumstances.
If pretending like the whole world wouldn't have heard the Dixie Chicks' comments regardless of whose soil they were standing on when they said it makes you feel better about that weak-ass argument, then more power to you, I guess. :roll:

The rest of us are going to continue recognizing that both the Dixie Chicks and Miss California are entitled to voice their opinions.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

Sportin' Life
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: MSO

Re: Miss California chastised for having an opinion

Post by Sportin' Life » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:20 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:Sure? :roll:
i would have added a wink to that original post but it might have taken away from the effect.
Depends on what effect you were trying for, I guess.

If you were trying to make a serious and ironically hypocritical statement, then I agree -- adding a wink would've taken away from the effect. ;)

If you were trying to make a joke, I think adding a wink would've made your intent more clear.

But, whatever. If it was a joke, it was a joke. Sorry I missed it the first time.
Would Swift have been a better or worse writer with emoticons?

















:wink:


"GD it, PETAns piss me off!
Were never gonna end up with a stupid eagle or a faggy bobcat as a mascot!"
Cartman

Post Reply