# Everything Else > Arts & Entertainment >  The Miss USA Pagent

## FFLady

Well - what do you folks think? Did Miss California's "answer" on gay marriage cost her the crown????? Do you care? 

I for one, am glad she is standing up for her beliefs, and didn't let the "pagentry" get in the way of her feelings.....

----------


## Thunder

Another one already?  Geez, time went by so fast.  What was her answer?

----------


## sooners83

Someone I work with showed me one of them said

The bible states the first relationship was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (or something like that)

I thought that was pretty funny

----------


## westsidesooner

I didn't watch the pagent, but I've seen countless clips of the "question" in question.  So take my answer with the  knowledge that I didn't see all the competition, therefore I don't know if that particular question "cost" her the crown.  She is knockdown gorgous...so she didnt lose it on looks.  I am disappointed that someone can get to that level in a competition, then stumble over her answer.  She later acknowledged that she almost gave a different answer to be politically correct.  Which might have led to the fumbling sound to her answer.  Kinda sad. Miss USA is supposed to represent the best America has to offer.  That includes speaking skills.  I'm glad she answered with her heart too.  And damn shes beautiful.  Congratulations to Miss North Carolina.

----------


## MadMonk

Perez Hilton asked her an opinion question and because he didn't like the the answer, in a post on his blog he called her a "stupid b**ch".  He's such a class act.   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Luke

Someone on TV actually said they oppose gay marriage?  The HUMANITY!!!!!

----------


## ronronnie1

I didn't even come away with a sense that she actually answered the question.  She talked about the "country" she's from and how she prefers opposite marriage to same sex?  If anything she should have lost due to her inablity to form a sentence.

----------


## Richard at Remax

Bible says marriage is between a man and woman so I'll stick to that

----------


## Richard at Remax

* not trying to start a religous arguement btw

----------


## NativeOkie

The question should not have been asked.
Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to.

also why is a homosexual judging a Miss USA?
 He does not even like girls.

----------


## davidmilford26

I'm with you Native. Miss California lost the crown due to this question. Perez Hilton gave her 0 points for her answer on gay marriage. Just because your gay, shouldn't give you the right to score someone a 0 on a gay question. There were plenty of other questions that were controversial, yet many actors are backing Perez Hilton. This means there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.

----------


## TaoMaas

> Miss California lost the crown due to this question.


  Has anybody really said that besides Perez?  Frankly, I think he's trying to make his one vote more important than it may have really been.  Miss California's answer was awkward, at best.  Miss North Carolina's was only slightly better...but she was better.

----------


## westsidesooner

> I didn't even come away with a sense that she actually answered the question.  She talked about the "country" she's from and how she prefers opposite marriage to same sex?  If anything she should have lost due to her inablity to form a sentence.


Ditto




> also why is a homosexual judging a Miss USA?
>  He does not even like girls.


Who better to judge them then......he more than anyone should have been unbiased.  And the few gay men I know, know more about women (and how they think) than I ever will.  Birds of a feather thing I guess.  They'd Probably make great wingmen

That said I cant stand Perez Hilton....but Im not in charge of picking judges.  Maybe the complaints should be directed at whomever did.

----------


## OKCMallen

She gave her opinion thoughtfully, and even accidentally touched on a Constitutionally GREAT issue- that states can do what they want to a degree and that's a beautiful thing in our country.  That we can choose to live where we want with differing laws is awesome.

She delivered it halfway articulately, recognized that people could differ, and gave her opinion and how she was raised, which differs 100% from my opinion.  And I wasn't offended in the least.  Reasonable people can differ on this one, I think...  This question probably had no place in a pageant, IMO.

"don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to."

----------


## Luke

> This question probably had no place in a pageant, IMO.


That's what I was thinking. What possible way does this question have anything to do with Miss USA?

Whatever.

----------


## Matt

> This means there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.


Um, no, that is not what this means.  At all.

----------


## MadMonk

> Um, no, that is not what this means. At all.


I agree. I wish more people would realize that if you publicly voice an unpopular opinion, there are frequently consequences (Dixie Chicks anyone?). That's not the same as the government limiting your free speech.

----------


## progressiveboy

> Perez Hilton asked her an opinion question and because he didn't like the the answer, in a post on his blog he called her a "stupid b**ch".  He's such a class act.


 This seems to be more and more common these days. Someone voices their own personal opinion and then the other person gets royally angered as if they are saying, "How dare you" not agree with my opinion. People are becoming more combative and irrational these days. I think it just is the sign of the times and shows many people are not capable of tolerating any one else's right to their own opinion.

----------


## Mr. T in OKC

> Bible says marriage is between a man and woman so I'll stick to that



The Bible also says its okay to keep slaves.  Going to stick with that as well?

----------


## Mr. T in OKC

> This seems to be more and more common these days. Someone voices their own personal opinion and then the other person gets royally angered as if they are saying, "How dare you" not agree with my opinion. People are becoming more combative and irrational these days. I think it just is the sign of the times and shows many people are not capable of tolerating any one else's right to their own opinion.


I see your point.  I also see the other side.  Just a few decades ago people had the opinion that African Americans shouldn't go to certain universities or compete in sports with Whites.  So I can see how a person can be disgusted with someone else's opinion.  I do think Perez Hilton went too far though.

----------


## BailJumper

I wish she would have said something like "I'm not going to sacrifice my core beliefs for political correctness." Trust me, her words will probably land her something much bigger (financially and otherwise) because of her public stance. I hope she continues to not back down.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> This seems to be more and more common these days. Someone voices their own personal opinion and then the other person gets royally angered as if they are saying, "How dare you" not agree with my opinion. People are becoming more combative and irrational these days. I think it just is the sign of the times and shows many people are not capable of tolerating any one else's right to their own opinion.


I agree.  People used to get insulted by rudeness.  Now, they get insulted if someone simply doesn't agree with them and then they go on the attack.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> I didn't even come away with a sense that she actually answered the question.  She talked about the "country" she's from and how she prefers opposite marriage to same sex?  If anything she should have lost due to her inablity to form a sentence.



If you don't think she actually answered the question, I can't imagine what you were listening to.  Not only did she answer the question, she gave her reason why she felt that way.  I thought she showed great grace under pressure.  That wasn't a legitimate question. She was ambushed - not questioned - and she kept her composure as well as anyone could expect under the circumstances.

----------


## Stan Silliman

She shouldn't feel bad. There are some people who don't even agree with ME.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> She shouldn't feel bad. There are some people who don't even agree with ME.


Stan, I am sure that isn't true.  :Ohno:

----------


## ronronnie1

> The Bible also says its okay to keep slaves.  Going to stick with that as well?


OMG thank you!!  

I hate when people pick and choose what parts of their bible they're willing to follow, and what parts they simply consider out of date.  

And as far as Miss Whatever's opinions, people have the right to be biggots, but don't forget people also have the right to call them on it.

p.s.  I can't STAND Perez Pigface Hilton.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> OMG thank you!!  
> 
> I hate when people pick and choose what parts of their bible they're willing to follow, and what parts they simply consider out of date.  
> 
> And as far as Miss Whatever's opinions, people have the right to be biggots, but don't forget people also have the right to call them on it.
> 
> p.s.  I can't STAND Perez Pigface Hilton.


You think this lady is a bigot because she is opposed to same sex marriage?  So is Obama.  I guess you think he is a bigot, too?  So does Hillary.  Bigot?

----------


## Easy180

> You think this lady is a bigot because she is opposed to same sex marriage?  So is Obama.  I guess you think he is a bigot, too?  So does Hillary.  Bigot?


Obama and Clinton just say that for political reasons...If the polls start showing the majority favor it they would flip in a heartbeat

And so would 90% of the other folks whose income depends solely on votes

----------


## GWB

> She shouldn't feel bad. There are some people who don't even agree with ME.


True.  :Doh:

----------


## ronronnie1

> You think this lady is a bigot because she is opposed to same sex marriage?  So is Obama.  I guess you think he is a bigot, too?  So does Hillary.  Bigot?


Yeah, I think Ms. Whatever is a bigot.  Hilary and Obama?  Like someone said before, they're whatever they think the voters want them to be.

----------


## PennyQuilts

Courageous sidestep.  You really add a lot of brain power to the board.

----------


## ronronnie1

:Wink:   thanx.  You too sweetheart.

----------


## GWB

> Yeah, I think Ms. Whatever is a bigot.  Hilary and Obama?  *Like someone said before, they're whatever they think the voters want them to be.*


 :Congrats:   I think that's the most honest statement made by a liberal on this forum.  The sad thing is, no one seems bothered by it.  He's still their messiah and he can do no wrong.   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## ronronnie1

^^^Okay, first off I'm not "a liberal."  I'm a registered republican.  The difference between you and me is that I can think for myself and don't need an R or D next to a candidate before I think it's okay to vote for them.  I prefered Obama to McGramps, so sue me.

Class dismissed.

----------


## GWB

> ^^^Okay, first off I'm not "a liberal."  I'm a registered republican.  The difference between you and me is that I can think for myself and don't need an R or D next to a candidate before I think it's okay to vote for them.  I prefered Obama to McGramps, so sue me.
> 
> Class dismissed.


Yes, it's OK to vote for whoever you want, I agree with you.  However, anyone who claims to be a republican, and votes for the most liberal presidential candidate in decades--how is that consistent with being a republican?  There's plenty of liberals and RINO's with an R next to their name.   Don't be embarrassed to come out of the closet and admit you're a liberal.  It's quite common nowadays.

----------


## PennyQuilts

In Oklahoma, you have to choose a party to vore in primaries.  Doesn't mean you are a rank and file.

----------


## TaoMaas

Miss California's answer could be viewed as honesty...or as a loose cannon.  She was in a contest to select a person to represent the Miss USA pageant.  From the pageant's point of view, do they want someone with some diplomacy or not?

----------


## joel228

While her answer will not be held up as an example of great rhetorical ability, I thought she kept her composure and gave an honest answer.

She said that others have the right to their own opinion, but that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.  How are some of you defining that as bigotry?

----------


## NativeOkie

> ^^^Okay, first off I'm not "a liberal."  I'm a registered republican.  The difference between you and me is that I can think for myself and don't need an R or D next to a candidate before I think it's okay to vote for them.  I prefered Obama to McGramps, so sue me.
> 
> Class dismissed.


We won't sue you, By the time your Pres. Choice is thru with you, you won't have any money left or a constitution to base the suit upon.

----------


## OKCMallen

> While her answer will not be held up as an example of great rhetorical ability, I thought she kept her composure and gave an honest answer.
> 
> She said that others have the right to their own opinion, but that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.  How are some of you defining that as bigotry?


I think her answer is an incorrect opinion personally, but seriously.  The outrage is ridiculous.  The majority of the country agrees with her.

----------


## PennyQuilts

The outrage and name calling is just evidence of the societal neutering of our individuality.  If you aren't politically correct, someone is going to be throwing a tantrum. "Wrong" thoughts are just so dangerous and immoral, afterall.  Get with the program!  

Pass the vanilla pudding.

----------


## GWB

> Miss California's answer could be viewed as honesty...or as a loose cannon.  She was in a contest to select a person to represent the Miss USA pageant.  From the pageant's point of view, do they want someone with some diplomacy or not?


So, does Obama's answer regarding this issue make him a "loose cannon" or was he just being "honest"?

*In a 2007 Chicago Tribune interview, Barack Obama said, Im a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue ... my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.*

How is that much different than what Miss California said?

*"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but thats how I was raised.* 

Source:  TheHill.com - Obama and Miss California

Perhaps another poster said it correctly, "Obama just said that for political reasons".  In other words, he lied.  I think most people would agree with that, even his supporters.  What say you?

----------


## GWB

> *I think her answer is an incorrect opinion* personally, but seriously.  The outrage is ridiculous.  The majority of the country agrees with her.


Her opinion is incorrect?  According to who?  Who decides who's opinion is correct and who's opinion is incorrect?  How about we all have our own opinions, and simply disagree with those who's opinions are different than our own?  Now that's a thought!   :Tiphat:

----------


## PennyQuilts

I think that unless his values are dissimilar to the majority of Americans, President Obama told the truth.  For all his reported socialist leanings, Mr. Obama has lived his personal life pretty mainstream.  One wife, two kids, support his family, be a good dad, etc.  Nothing in his personal life suggests to me that he has anything other than a traditional view of marriage.  Just because he is a liberal doesn't mean that he doesn't have this view of marriage.  This is certainly not a defining value to the extent that respect for gay people might be.   Moreover, he was raised in Kansas by white, middleclass parents and his wife was raised in the African American culture, which as I understand it, is pretty conservative on this issue.

----------


## TaoMaas

> What say you?



I say it was two different elections.  Obama took his position and won.  Miss California gave her position and lost.  Same answer...different outcomes.  That's life.

----------


## TaoMaas

> If you aren't politically correct, someone is going to be throwing a tantrum.



It's always been that way, except we used to call it "courtesy" or "diplomacy" instead of "politically correct".  Only the terminology has changed.

----------


## Bulldog

Has anyone asked why that fool was on the panel and allowed to ask such a controversial question of only one candidate? Now ask yourself what is fair regardless of your stance on the issue.

----------


## GWB

> I say it was two different elections.  Obama took his position and won.  Miss California gave her position and lost.  Same answer...different outcomes.  That's life.


I'm not complaining about the outcome of it, and neither is Miss California.  She's going to get rich from this, and she'll be in demand as a motivational speaker, so it's all good for her.  She isn't bitter, unlike the jerk who attacked her verbally for stating her honest opinion.

Now, how about answering my question? 

*So, does Obama's answer regarding this issue make him a "loose cannon" or was he just being "honest"?*

Another question, if you so chose to answer.  You said "Obama took his position and won".  Do you think he was being honest or just giving the politically expedient answer to gain favor with the traditionalists?

----------


## TaoMaas

> Now, how about answering my question? 
> 
> *So, does Obama's answer regarding this issue make him a "loose cannon" or was he just being "honest"?*
> 
> Another question, if you so chose to answer.  You said "Obama took his position and won".  Do you think he was being honest or just giving the politically expedient answer to gain favor with the traditionalists?


I think he was being honest.  I think that in taking the position he did, he ran the risk of alienating more voters than he stood to gain.

----------


## GWB

> I think that unless his values are dissimilar to the majority of Americans, President Obama told the truth.  For all his reported socialist leanings, Mr. Obama has lived his personal life pretty mainstream.  One wife, two kids, support his family, be a good dad, etc.  Nothing in his personal life suggests to me that he has anything other than a traditional view of marriage.  Just because he is a liberal doesn't mean that he doesn't have this view of marriage.  This is certainly not a defining value to the extent that respect for gay people might be.   Moreover, he was raised in Kansas by white, middleclass parents and his his wife was raised in the African American culture, which as I understand it, is pretty conservative on this issue.


Not sure what you mean by living his life mainstream.  Sure, he comes across as a decent guy, and I'm sure he is.  But, let's not forget who is circle of friends are (or were), or where he attended church for 20 years.  Would you sit under the preaching of someone who spewed out hatred and racism week after week?  I know you wouldn't.  

Obama's political views are among the most liberal in politics today.  It's no secret he was rated the most liberal senator in congress when he was serving in the senate.  Maybe Obama sincerely believes what he said regarding marriage between a man and woman, the reality is, not everyone believes him, and for good reason.  He's been known to say one thing, but behind doors he's been "caught" saying the opposite at times.  I think many liberals believe Obama said what he felt was the politically expedient answer at the time.  Time will tell.

----------


## PennyQuilts

I'm just saying that notwithstanding his political leanings, his personal/family life gives every indication of being pretty traditional.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> It's always been that way, except we used to call it "courtesy" or "diplomacy" instead of "politically correct".  Only the terminology has changed.


I absolutely do not agree with that.  I have a number of Aussie friends and they speak their mind without giving it another thought.  They can't believe how Americans ***** foot around saying anything controversial.   I recall that it used to be that way, here.  You couldn't even have aired "All in the Family," TV show, these days.  People would go ape ****, notwithstanding the "lesson" the series was handing out.

----------


## TaoMaas

If you'll remember, people went pretty crazy over "All in the Family" when it aired.  It was very controversial.

----------


## OKCMallen

> Her opinion is incorrect?  According to who?  Who decides who's opinion is correct and who's opinion is incorrect?  How about we all have our own opinions, and simply disagree with those who's opinions are different than our own?  Now that's a thought!


You're right; allow me to rephrase.

I think her opinion regarding homosexual civil unions leads to an unconstitutional conclusion, and that in my lifetime, we will decide this issue and it will comport with MY opinion.

She's not wrong to HAVE the opinion.  She's not wrong to deliver it or to support it.  But I think it's ultimately objectively wrong.

I think it's retardulous that Perez Hilton was allowed to ask such a hot-button controversial question.  I think it's further retardulous that her stance cost her points in competition because she delivered it, for the most part, gracefully.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> You're right; allow me to rephrase.
> 
> I think her opinion regarding homosexual civil unions leads to an unconstitutional conclusion, and that in my lifetime, we will decide this issue and it will comport with MY opinion.
> 
> She's not wrong to HAVE the opinion.  She's not wrong to deliver it or to support it.  But I think it's ultimately objectively wrong.
> 
> I think it's retardulous that Perez Hilton was allowed to ask such a hot-button controversial question.  I think it's further retardulous that her stance cost her points in competition because she delivered it, for the most part, gracefully.


Well said.   :Congrats:   :Congrats:   :Congrats:

----------


## PennyQuilts

> If you'll remember, people went pretty crazy over "All in the Family" when it aired.  It was very controversial.


Yes, I recall the controversy and that was not the best analogy.  I think the difference is that if someone in real life had some of the things that Archie Bunker said, back then, people might not have liked it but they would have at least recognized that people had the right to say what they wanted to.  These days, people would go into orbit.  The thought and speech police are out in force.  

Good people have always objected to recognized bigotry.  The point is that back in the day, people had manners and a sense of boundary.  These days, people think they are morally on the high ground yet act like savages.  I am not saying people couldn't and shouldn't look someone in the eye and tell them they disagree.  What I object to is people going off on tangents, attacking people in general (their politics, their religion, their ethics, etc.).  It is one thing to say, "I think what you said is pure bull****."  It is another thing to say, "You are a horrible person, clearly a bigot, I know everything about you based on what you just said and I bet you are a closet racist, too."  See what I mean?  

We've quit being grown ups and don't know how to address a disagreement without dragging in all kinds of assumptions.  I can't believe that so many people think they know everything about others based on a statement or two - and how many feel perfectly justified in making personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them.

----------


## NativeOkie

One place I differ with you Mallen.

We will not decide this in your lifetime, it has been decided before your lifetime.
If you hold a Biblical worldview it was decided by a higher power long ago.
take a breath continue on...
If you hold a natural selection world view it was decided long ago a species does not survive on Homosexual reproduction.
It is not an equal rights issue. Civil unions have rights, no need to change a national culture for the wishes of less than 5% of the the population.
I stand by what I said at the beginning of this thread, don't ask questions you don't or may not want the answer to.

----------


## workman45

Last night Donald Trump said how pleased he was with all of the publicity this had created.  I think that fairly well sums up the reason these kinds of "Bone heads" are chosen as judges. Set up the situation that creates the controversy, reap the publicity and mouth platitudes to cover yourself. Can you spell "shrewd businessman"?

----------


## OKCMallen

> One place I differ with you Mallen.
> 
> We will not decide this in your lifetime, it has been decided before your lifetime.
> If you hold a Biblical worldview it was decided by a higher power long ago.
> take a breath continue on...
> If you hold a natural selection world view it was decided long ago a species does not survive on Homosexual reproduction.
> It is not an equal rights issue. Civil unions have rights, no need to change a national culture for the wishes of less than 5% of the the population.
> I stand by what I said at the beginning of this thread, don't ask questions you don't or may not want the answer to.


I'll tell you what else was decided, and we can agree to disagree after this:

1. One of our government's foundational goals, a guiding philosophy, is to protect the minority from an oppressive majority.  Changing things to protect 5% from disparate treatment is what it's all about....under your rationale, there was no reason to bring civil rights to African Americans because they're less than 15% of the population (last time I checked it was around 13% I think).  There's another country that readily comes to mind that was oppressive toward a section of their society that held different religious views, and that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

2. One of our government's foundational goals, a guiding philosophy, was to not have a national religion.  The second you use the Bible as rationale to pass an unconstitutional law, you're over the line Smokey.  All it takes is ONE SCOTUS holding, just ONE, to define sexual orientation as a suspect class and it's all over.  And honestly, when you think about it, if you can have a suspect class based on how old you are (a statutorily-conceived class as to employment) or the color of your skin and how your hair grows (race)....then I don't think that a permanent sexual orientation that is in the minority is that far behind.

Those two things are intertwined.  The SCOTUS and executive branches help to protect minorities because they can never, by definition, get a majority in the legislature.  

Personally, I'm always surprised at how strongly people feel about an issue that does not affect their lives.  Honestly, allowing gay marriage in Oklahoma would pretty much not affect me in any tangible way whatsoever....not sure how it would anyone.  (On the other side of that coin, having a civil union isn't exactly the most wonderful thing in the world.  Most of the things you "get" out of having a government-recognized union aren't really all that special or unattainable through normal contract...)


Haha ok, back to how ridiculous the outrage is.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> Those two things are intertwined.  The SCOTUS and executive branches help to protect minorities because they can never, by definition, get a majority in the legislature.


Not true.  You'd have to make the argument that no one would elect a minority unless they were a member of that group. That dog won't hunt.  It might be harder to get a majority but it is certainly possible.  




> Personally, I'm always surprised at how strongly people feel about an issue that does not affect their lives.  Honestly, allowing gay marriage in Oklahoma would pretty much not affect me in any tangible way whatsoever....not sure how it would anyone.


Stop and think about what that does to the the number of people getting social security benefits (which burden an already fragile system that was never structured with the addition of this group envisioned); Insurance benefits (which drive up costs for others);  more marriages mean more divorces and more custody and visitation cases (which means more court resources expended  - GALs, interpreters, judges, bailiffs are just some of the costs that affect everyone - and they are considerable).  I'm not arguing one way or the other, right now, about same sex marriage.  However, to say it doesn't affect fellow citizens in a tangible way is simply untrue.  It would be HUGELY expensive, right off the bat.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> Stop and think about what that does to the the number of people getting social security benefits (which burden an already fragile system that was never structured with the addition of this group envisioned); Insurance benefits (which drive up costs for others);  more marriages mean more divorces and more custody and visitation cases (which means more court resources expended  - GALs, interpreters, judges, bailiffs are just some of the costs that affect everyone - and they are considerable).  I'm not arguing one way or the other, right now, about same sex marriage.  However, to say it doesn't affect fellow citizens in a tangible way is simply untrue.  It would be HUGELY expensive, right off the bat.


As opposed to if all those same people were to marry opposite sex partners?

----------


## OKCMallen

> Not true.  You'd have to make the argument that no one would elect a minority unless they were a member of that group. That dog won't hunt.  It might be harder to get a majority but it is certainly possible.


Look how long it took for a black president.  Jewish president?  Asian?  That dog very clearly hunts.  Majorities try to stay in the majority.  To deny this is ridiculous.  We have made recent strides to put away some of our ugly racist past by electing a minority into the White House, but we have a long way to go.  E.g.- blacks might be overrepresented demographically in a governing body (state-sized and up) from time to time, but they are NEVER a majority.  Same for any minority.  It's a general TREND, not an ABSOLUTE thing.




> Stop and think about what that does to the the number of people getting social security benefits (which burden an already fragile system that was never structured with the addition of this group envisioned);


SS is currently already unsustainable.  Just how many gay marriages do you think there are?  SS is (supposedly) based on the idea that these people PAID IN ALREADY.  That money should be forfeited to the government instead of paid to their partner?  You're advocating a forfeiture of their money because they're gay.




> Insurance benefits (which drive up costs for others);


Whoa.  Know what happens with most employer-provided insurance plans when you add a spouse/kiddos to it?  YOU PAY MORE IN.  The individuals are (again, supposedly) paying for it.  And I'm sure that is a cost that anyone would be willing to sustain.




> more marriages mean more divorces and more custody and visitation cases (which means more court resources expended  - GALs, interpreters, judges, bailiffs are just some of the costs that affect everyone - and they are considerable).


Yes, there would be a very fractional increase in court cases.  No, the costs are NOT considerable to add on a little capacity.  These people are ALREADY paying taxes for these things...yet they NEVER use them in this capacity.  We should be thanking them for the free money.  




> I'm not arguing one way or the other, right now, about same sex marriage.  However, to say it doesn't affect fellow citizens in a tangible way is simply untrue.  It would be HUGELY expensive, right off the bat.


It would not be hugely expensive whatsoever, and in about every case I can think of, the gay person(s) would have to pay for their benefits (like everyone else) or are already providing tax dollars for those benefits but do not get to utilize those resources (like everyone else).

Anyway, I appreciate your point of view.  In a tangible sense, I sincerely doubt my insurance or taxes would increase by this.  We ought to start another thread though if we're going to continue to talk about it.  But again, I do appreciate what you're saying.

----------


## Mr. T in OKC

> Stop and think about what that does to the the number of people getting social security benefits (which burden an already fragile system that was never structured with the addition of this group envisioned); Insurance benefits (which drive up costs for others);  more marriages mean more divorces and more custody and visitation cases (which means more court resources expended  - GALs, interpreters, judges, bailiffs are just some of the costs that affect everyone - and they are considerable).  I'm not arguing one way or the other, right now, about same sex marriage.  However, to say it doesn't affect fellow citizens in a tangible way is simply untrue.  It would be HUGELY expensive, right off the bat.



Finally, I can tell my friends not to get married for the sake of the economy.  Then we'll go to the strip club and stimulate the economy a little more.  lol.  

Well, I guess only heterosexuals should be allowed to be such a drain.

----------


## OKCMallen

> As opposed to if all those same people were to marry opposite sex partners?


DING!   :Bright Idea:  :Bow: 


They're allowed to marry, get divorced, be on insurance plans right now...BUT ONLY IF YOU MARRY WHO WE TELL YOU YOU CAN MARRY.

Besides the idea that- meh, it will cost too much so you can't have rights - doesn't fly.  (I know you didn't say that, but people use your colorable arguments as an excuse to deny these rights.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> As opposed to if all those same people were to marry opposite sex partners?


What a weird question.  Think that is going to happen?

----------


## PennyQuilts

> Look how long it took for a black president.  Jewish president?  Asian?  That dog very clearly hunts.  Majorities try to stay in the majority.  To deny this is ridiculous.  We have made recent strides to put away some of our ugly racist past by electing a minority into the White House, but we have a long way to go.  E.g.- blacks might be overrepresented demographically in a governing body (state-sized and up) from time to time, but they are NEVER a majority.  Same for any minority.  It's a general TREND, not an ABSOLUTE thing.


Go back and read what YOU wrote.  Something about it being the definition of something or other.  It was sloppy writing, no offense.  If you go back and clean it up, you can say what you meant to say but what you DID write didn't logically follow.  if you mean it is very difficult for a minority to get a majority, you'd get no argument.  But that isn't what you said.  




> SS is currently already unsustainable.  Just how many gay marriages do you think there are?  SS is (supposedly) based on the idea that these people PAID IN ALREADY.  That money should be forfeited to the government instead of paid to their partner?  You're advocating a forfeiture of their money because they're gay.


Pull your head out.  I didn't advocate anything.  Sorry - don't mean to be snarky but people are just so quick to run with the football without paying attention to what was said.  Go back and READ what I wrote.  I specifically said I was just responding to the discussion of whether there are tangible effects - NOT my position on same sex marriage.  But while we are on the subject of costs - do you actually think they don't make predictions of who pays in and who gets benefits when they set the benefits?  I know you are not suggesting there is some money tree out there that will cough up the money just because it is fair.  They set the SS benefits based on predictions of how many marriages there would be, etc.  Change the underlying numbers and you've got trouble.  That is just a fact.  You may not like the fact but there it is.  Same with insurance benefits.  That is a tangible effect on other people.  Which is all I wrote.  




> Whoa.  Know what happens with most employer-provided insurance plans when you add a spouse/kiddos to it?  YOU PAY MORE IN.  The individuals are (again, supposedly) paying for it.  And I'm sure that is a cost that anyone would be willing to sustain.


So you are agreeing that there is a tangible effect on other people?  End of discussion because that is all I was pointing out.  It may nor may not be much (I'd bet it would be considerable) but that wasn't the point.  It is tangible if it is nothing more than a dollar a week.  




> Yes, there would be a very fractional increase in court cases.  No, the costs are NOT considerable to add on a little capacity.  These people are ALREADY paying taxes for these things...yet they NEVER use them in this capacity.  We should be thanking them for the free money.


Do you have ANY idea what it costs to have those types  of cases in court?  I'm betting not.  I make a good living doing GAL work and I am just one of many, many, many in a overloaded court system.   

And yes, I absolutely agree that we should be thanking people, certainly gay people who have given far more than they've gotten (except AIDS public health care costs but I am not being snarky - just beating someone to the punch on pointing that out), for paying into a system when they get less from than they give in.  You get no argument from me on that.  

However, the fact that they are already paying in but not getting benefits is beside the point in the narrow scope of this discussion and why I wrote what I wrote.  Plenty of childless people pay taxes for schools.  Plenty of people pay taxes to support indigent health care.  The point is that when these programs are put together, they take all that into account and make predictions about how the numbers are going to go in the future.  If there are more people taking out of a system, they will either have to reduce benefits or increase taxes.  You agree, yes?  And that is a tangible effect on other people - yes?  

My post was not about what was fair or just or right or wrong.  _It was pointing out that the was a false statement that the creation of same sex marriage has no tangible effect on others._  As a society, we have to decide if it is worth it.  Agreed?  The financial effect is one factor of many.  You can't just ignore it when old people are relying on social security, children need health care, etc.  But I never discussed my position on same sex marriage.  What I was doing was pointing out sloppy arguments.  

Can't fault you for your passion and good heart, though.  I appreciate your courteous response.

----------


## NativeOkie

Mr. Mallen Or Ms. Mallen,

I must answer a couple of statements you made.
To equate same sex marriage with the Civil rights struggle of the 60's is not examining oranges from the same tree and is actually an offensive attempt to rewrite history.

When Mrs Parks stepped on to the bus, everyone knew she was Black and a female therefore she should know where to sit.
It was discrimination by observation alone based upon the fact her parents were both African American and there is no way on earth for her to be born Asian or Irish.

Say a mother has a son born from a white man and later has a son from a black man the boys are brothers yet in 1964 one brother would have been singled out, how? by observation alone.

No you suggested that people are Homosexual as "permanent"  orientation.
 Yet I personally know as well as you people who were Heterosexual and even had families who became Homosexual. 
I also know people who have made the transition in the opposite direction once gay and now straight.
We are pro choice after all.
Mom has two sons one ends up straight the other gay can you by observation discriminate one against the other?

Before blood shoots out of your eyes in rage let me finish.

I mentioned the Bible because so many of our founders and documents are based upon or quote the book.
If you think the Book is indeed what it claims to be then the Almighty (he /she) will not need to agree with the SCOTUS or the UN or the Senate Or House.
He /She stands alone.
I could have cited the Quaran which has zero tolerance for Homosexuals let alone same sex marriage.

I don't mind Homosexuals being in the minority Its good for the survival of the species.
That was a joke.

But be cautious in making every minority cause equal to African American civil rights.

----------


## ronronnie1

"Yet I personally know as well as you people who were Heterosexual and even had families who became Homosexual. "

That statement right there disqualified anything else you may have to say.  That and that whole bible b.s. you spew.

We don't live in a theoracy.  GET IT?

----------


## Thunder

> "Yet I personally know as well as you people who were Heterosexual and even had families who became Homosexual. "


They was most likely already a homosexual.  A lot of them try to do what is right and what is accepted by their family, friends, and the society as a whole.  They end up getting married and possibly have children.  Some suffer until they die and some finally break free to be the way they truely are by nature.

It is really sad for the homosexuals to deny who they are.  They fight it every day, some commit suicide, and it will never stop until the majority of this country wake up and break free from the bible that stirs hate (in a way) toward the homosexuals.

----------


## Karried

I was switching channels and happened upon 'My Redneck Wedding' and it occured to me that a great majority here would think that a marriage between two ignorant barefoot high school dropout kids (one of which is most likely pregnant) would be highly superior to a union between a same sex couple who is educated, professional, loving and caring.   That is so scary.

----------


## NativeOkie

> "Yet I personally know as well as you people who were Heterosexual and even had families who became Homosexual. "
> 
> That statement right there disqualified anything else you may have to say.  That and that whole bible b.s. you spew.
> 
> We don't live in a theoracy.  GET IT?


The individuals I personally know who were once Gay and are now straight have been straight many years.
One lady now is married and she is a wonderful mom.

So here is the question, if they just came out and were always gay as you some suggest in the cases I cite were they always straight and just accepted it?
why can the choice only be one direction?

that was my point.

second I never quoted scriptures or did the usual Bible thumping you are used to hearing.
As a matter of fact Christianity and Judaism are far more tolerant in this area than Islam. Every friday people are executed in the public square in the country whose King Obama bowed before.

If you saw me across a room you would instantly know if I am White or Black Asian or Middle Eastern. 
You would not know if I am Straight or Gay.

That is why it does not equate as civil rights discrimination.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> What a weird question.  Think that is going to happen?


Your original premise for which I ask the question was "weird" — or odd. Of all the reasons against same-sex marriage, that has to be the weakest and oddest of all arguments.




> *Stop and think about what that does to the the number of people getting social security benefits (which burden an already fragile system that was never structured with the addition of this group envisioned); Insurance benefits (which drive up costs for others);  more marriages mean more divorces and more custody and visitation cases (which means more court resources expended  - GALs, interpreters, judges, bailiffs are just some of the costs that affect everyone - and they are considerable).*  I'm not arguing one way or the other, right now, about same sex marriage.  However, to say it doesn't affect fellow citizens in a tangible way is simply untrue.  *It would be HUGELY expensive*, right off the bat.


You seem to be suggesting by your argument that the country can't afford all those people to get married. Your argument doesn't draw a distinction between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages. To draw it to its conclusion, marriage is a bad thing because it costs our society a lot of money. So, I'm not sure what your "weird" argument's point is.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> Your original premise for which I ask the question was "weird"  or odd. Of all the reasons against same-sex marriage, that has to be the weakest and oddest of all arguments.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting by your argument that the country can't afford all those people to get married. Your argument doesn't draw a distinction between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages. To draw it to its conclusion, marriage is a bad thing because it costs our society a lot of money. So, I'm not sure what your "weird" argument's point is.


So many people bringing their own stuff the table.  The system was set up to consider heterosexual marriages so, no, I am NOT suggesting that we can't afford traditional marriage.  That would be absurd.  My whole point was that by changing the beneficiaries by adding same sex marriages, we're looking at a whole different landscape than what was envisioned when the system was created.  

In terms of simply deciding whether it is a good idea, finances has to enter into it.  Some people on the fence may just decide it is flat out impractical, no matter whether it is fair or not fair.  Other people may becide that the values part of it trump whether we can afford it or if it will tank all the people currently depending on these benefits.  

In a perfect world, when we were eight, these things don't matter.  But when you look at whether grandma is going to be able to depend on her social security vs. allowing same sex marriages, there are a lot harder calls to make.  It is not a black and white issue.  No matter what decision is made, someone's ox gets gored.  

If it tanks the system so that it is not helpful to anyone, is that the "right" thing to do in the name of "social justice?"  Pretending this issue isn't out there makes it easier to make the call.  But that is somewhat cowardly, if you ask me.  It is a lot harder when you have to deal with all the ramifications.  We aren't children to pick our happy facts and this is a complex issue.  

BTW, I suspect the number of divorces in long term marriages that skyrocketed also threw a kink in the system they weren't counting on so I don't want to suggest it hasn't adapted in the past - but I am sure this has weakened the foundation.  For example, my first husband is entitled to ss benefits from me because we were married a long time.  So instead of one marriage, at my death there will be two husbands collecting benefits.  Personally, I don't think that is fair to the rest of society but there you go.  I suspect that was done to protect long term wives thrown over for a sweet young thing after many years.  I get that and don't want them on the street.  But it still affects the SS system.  So maybe the system can adapt but it is already in trouble.  

And you'd end up with tangible effects on everyone and pretending you didn't isn't realistic.  I'm not making this stuff up.  Blast me for pointing it out if you have to but be honest that you are just attacking the messenger.

----------


## Of Sound Mind

I think you illustrate an important point. Traditional marriage, between a man and a woman _for life_, may have been what the system was based on. But —*and that's a big _but_ — the bigger threat to traditional marriage and this system it's purportedly based on is divorce more than same-sex marriage. There is overwhelmingly more people impacted by divorce than by same-sex marriage.

I wasn't blasting the messenger. I was challenging the message. You make some important points, but I think it has less to do with same-sex marriages specifically and more to do with non-traditional marriages, which would more prevalently include second and subsequent marriages by way of divorces.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> I think you illustrate an important point. Traditional marriage, between a man and a woman _for life_, may have been what the system was based on. But *and that's a big _but_  the bigger threat to traditional marriage and this system it's purportedly based on is divorce more than same-sex marriage. There is overwhelmingly more people impacted by divorce than by same-sex marriage.



Agreed!

----------


## Stan Silliman

What if we took the government out the marriage business altogether? No civil ceremonies, no marriage licences, no blood tests. How would that work? Then add to that no government sponsored spousal privileges. No states passing laws restricting or sanctioning who can marry who. 

Marriage in a church or setting of your choosing performed by someone deemed to be qualified.

That should satisfy both the libs and the servs. To the servs it's one less piece of government interference. To the libs it's marrying who you want without a lot of hassle.

Basically you can live with who you want, call yourself married, file your tax returns joint or separate with no advantage either way and your social security dies when you die. If you have insurance anyone can be named a beneficiary. 

Then when a vacuous beauty contestant is asked how the state feels about her marrying her brother, she can answer the state has no say in the manner and it's really nobody's business.

----------


## Luke

> What if we took the government out the marriage business altogether? No civil ceremonies, no marriage licences, no blood tests. How would that work? Then add to that no government sponsored spousal privileges. No states passing laws restricting or sanctioning who can marry who. 
> 
> Marriage in a church or setting of your choosing performed by someone deemed to be qualified.
> 
> That should satisfy both the libs and the servs. To the servs it's one less piece of government interference. To the libs it's marrying who you want without a lot of hassle.
> 
> Basically you can live with who you want, call yourself married, file your tax returns joint or separate with no advantage either way and your social security dies when you die. If you have insurance anyone can be named a beneficiary. 
> 
> Then when a vacuous beauty contestant is asked how the state feels about her marrying her brother, she can answer the state has no say in the manner and it's really nobody's business.


Now you sound like my man Ron Paul!

I'm all for this.

----------


## GWB

> What if we took the government out the marriage business altogether? No civil ceremonies, no marriage licences, no blood tests. How would that work? Then add to that no government sponsored spousal privileges. No states passing laws restricting or sanctioning who can marry who. 
> 
> Marriage in a church or setting of your choosing performed by someone deemed to be qualified.
> 
> That should satisfy both the libs and the servs. To the servs it's one less piece of government interference. To the libs it's marrying who you want without a lot of hassle.
> 
> Basically you can live with who you want, call yourself married, file your tax returns joint or separate with no advantage either way and your social security dies when you die. If you have insurance anyone can be named a beneficiary. 
> 
> Then when a vacuous beauty contestant is asked how the state feels about her marrying her brother, she can answer the state has no say in the manner and it's really nobody's business.


That's brilliant, Stan!  :Smiley199:   Did you just now come up with that?   :Wink:

----------


## PennyQuilts

What about the kids, folks?  We already know that the greatest single factor for children living in poverty is an unwed mother.  It is fine and dandy to say that all these guys are going to stick around and care for their kids and that a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper.  

You all know that is bull**** unless you are 20 years old and under.

Economic incentives to stay married go a long way to encourage two people to work things out.  

If you take marriage out of the equation, you will abruptly place people from 18 - 98 in shacking up situations and the religious aspect is absolutely the least of the considerations.  

Young people who don't know squat about finances and who have no real eye to the long term future that means nothing to them at age 25 will be spitting out babies without a clue how to protect themselves and their children, financially.  Do you really think they are going to be setting up contracts to cover the kids?  Arrangements to have pensions go to their spouse?  On and on.  All the legal protections that come with marriage would have to be done voluntarily and probably for a fee that young people - who are the ones usually starting families - will have to pony up.  

Right now, I deal with parents of kids - some married and some unmarried.  The ones going through divorces are in a hell on earth - but that passes.  The ones who aren't married aren't going through divorces - just break ups - but the kids' standard of living is much, much, MUCH lower USUALLY.  The best those tykes can hope for is that the custodial parent has parents with good jobs.  Parents who are still together, btw.  

Every time you have a child support action, you have to have paternity tests because the courts aren't going to take the word of unmarried people.  And with no real record that they were "married," how many people will be more tempted to stray or otherwise put barriers in the marriage?

You guys are talking like marriage is just an emotional commitment that only effects him and her (or him and him/her and her) and when it ends, you should be able to walk away.  La di da, what the hell planet are you living on?  It is a contract intended to provide protections to people who are making decisions to live with someone for emotional reasons and to protect the most vulnerable people among us - our children.  A marriage is first and foremost about the spouses but it is the cornerstone of our society.  It dictates who has rights to finances, who can make medical decisions, who has the right to support, etc.  All the rights and protections that gay people point out they are being excluded from.  

Marriage is not going steady.  It is a legal institution.

----------


## NativeOkie

Marriage is not going steady. It is a legal institution.

ECO I am reaffirming my fan status.
You would be perfect if it were not for that pagan thing.
 :Wink: 

guys beware we may move back in state and run for office.

----------


## PennyQuilts

Go Pagans!  Pass the incense...

----------


## Stan Silliman

Is marriage the cornerstone of society or is FAMILY the cornerstone of our society? 

Of course the female lawyer would defend the status quo system. So much legal ramifications attached to the institution of marriage it is hard for her to see us existing without it. 

Marriage is a social institution and to the extent it is enforced by the laws of society and government protection it can be called a socialist institution. Those who realize the family needs government to enforce the family unit are socialists.  

If we had a society that truly separated church from state it would work better. By that I mean no prayers at state run basketball games and no politicizing from the pulpit. No legislation based on religious tenets and no religious questions at beauty contests.

----------


## PennyQuilts

Stan, I'm not buying most of your post, sorry.

----------


## Stan Silliman

> Stan, I'm not buying most of your post, sorry.


Even if offered a good discount?

----------


## PennyQuilts

So this is interesting:  Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act | Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The article starts out like this:

<<As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," which says states are not required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. 

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a "valid exercise of Congress' power" that is saving taxpayers money. >>

Surprise!

This is also from the article:

<<Here's what the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other groups said in a joint statement on Friday: 

*We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act... The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory. 

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government's discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states.* >>

----------

