Pink_Ranger Wrote:
...he has a point when he says "When YOUR 'opinion' gets in the way of my rights, privileges and protections, I'm supposed to smile and be nice? Hell no!".
That's right.
Pink_Ranger Wrote:
The struggle that gays and lesbians are weathering now is no different than the civil rights movement of decades ago.
That's wrong.
I
caught this early this morning.
You see, one was based on whether white people and black people are equal as human beings. The other is based on whether legal marriage is allowed for all couples. This is Equal humans vs wed legally; Not white vs black. This is not the same thing at all.
People just make that correlation because it is a civil rights issue. Gay people aren't being oppressed
(and if so, much less so), persecuted, or otherwise simply because other groups feel that they are inferior to them. Gays are being discriminated against because it's weird to be acting like some types of the wild primate.
=====
So, if this is in fact a civil matter, gays
should be happy, being allowed to be legally wed, and benefiting from the same privileges as opposite sex couples
(ideally). Instead, what we see happening, is that they're challenging the definition of marriage. Which then turns this into a church vs state issue.
It's to the point now no doubt, that it impedes on conventional religious beliefs about what a marriage should consist of.
Which logically, I can't conceive should be necessary to give everybody what they want. Challenging the definition of marriage is out of bounds for the mission they want to accomplish beyond the civil union.
Pink_Ranger Wrote:
The Miss America winner is judged based on the opinions of a panel. Everyone's opinion of beauty, intellect, grace, talent, etc are all different. So why does his opinion on one issue matter?
Because she has a conventional ideological standpoint on what marriage is. One that the majority of Earths population understands and accepts. He opposes that ideology instead of accepting it as...the truth. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. BUT, a growing population believes that it should not alienate same sex partners at the same time. Which is also right.
I think that since she made note of that fact, and recognized both standpoints on the matter respectfully, she should not have been penalized for the answer she gave.
Pink_Ranger Wrote:
He's not the one being judged in a competition by a panel of his peers. She is. You can sugar coat your response all you want. "No offense, but marriage is between a man and a woman." "No offense, but Asian people only belong in Asia." Would the last sentence fly if she said it? Absolutely not, so why should the first be okay? Also he has every right to be an emotional advocate for gay rights. His life is directly affected by the decisions of strangers.
- Couldn't it be that she actually meant not to offend anyone though? That seems to be the most objective approach to me, without being naive at least.
- The Asian example wouldn't work because it's racist, and territorial.
- He sure does, and I'd support that stance.
Pink_Ranger Wrote:
Pretty much agree with the rest.
{{{I see your message is now erased. I'm working while I'm sitting here so I didn't hit post message earlier. If for some reason you want me to erase my message as well, I will no problem. later}}}
