Miss California?

[Rubystars]

I didn't say anything about sending Americans home. I have no idea where you read that but you certainly do have a big imagination.

[protege]

No, but you did post about national purity. There's no such thing as a "true American." We aren't all white, nor did we all come from the same place.

[linguist]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.
.

just going back a few pages, the posts that had either questions directly addressed to you or asking you to support your answers that you ignored were numbers 338, 345, 350, 356, 359, 360, 369, and 372.

[the_std]

If I go to France, I want to see mostly French people, not Arabs and Pakistanis.

This is something you do a lot of. Who cares what nationality of people you want to see in a given country? You talk as if your opinion gives you a right to tell them what to do with their lives. And a dark-skinned person of Arab lineage born in France is a French person. You really are scared of things that don't fit into your little world view, aren't you?

[AdminAssistant]

Look, I'm as much a fan of Europe, especially France, as anybody. But the fact is that for many centuries, especially Britain and France, were imperial fuckheads that were cutting up the world map and parsing things out as they liked. Now members of their former Empires are "coming home", so to speak.

Europe has long been a place of multi-culturalism. Especially Paris. In fact, it was due to that multi-culturalism that many of the great art forms of the late 19th and early 20th century developed. Groups of artists huddled together in Parisian cafes (Swiss during the wars) drinking pastiche and sharing ideas.

[BroomJockey]

Give me the post numbers of the ones I supposedly "ignored" and I'll respond to them.

How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.

As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

[smileyeagle1021]

Just because one behavior you are involved in is deviant doesn't mean all the other behaviors you engage in are deviant. Surely you're not a one dimensional person .

No, I'm not a one dimensional person. That said, a large part of what defines me is the values of my family. Growing up I was taught that the two most important things in your life are to first get a good education and get a good career so you can second find your 'soulmate' and start your new family with them. So when you've called my second life goal to be based on deviant desire, your saying that a very large part of me is deviant.
Even ignoring that, I would like to believe myself to be a whole, one which is greater than the sum of the parts. Take one part away and the rest is useless. Homosexuality may not define my whole character, but it can't be separated from it. There is no such thing as Smiley the community service worker, and Smiley the homosexual, and Smiley the night auditor, and Smiley the friend, there is just Smiley the person. By saying one part of me is deviant, and my argument that one part of me can't be separated from the rest, then the whole is deviant... but you've also said another part is a good person, which would make the whole a good person. Looking at it that way, do you see how it seems to be a contradiction to me when you say "you're a good person even if I think you do bad things" (I know that's not your exact words, but close enough)

I'm not sure why Canada wasn't affected as badly as the US in the recession.

I can't see how gay marriage has anything to do with the recession.

It doesn't, I only brought it up as a counter argument to those who claim that allowing gay marriage will bring God's wrath etc. etc. on that nation, and if that were the case, why is it that with the current economic crisis those nations that do condone homosexuality aren't being harder hit because one would assume that if God truly did disapprove of nations condoning homosexuality surely He could use this economic crisis as a way of punishing those nations. But so far it appears that isn't what He is doing.

ETA-
Re: crime rates- I know it's completely anicdotal, but my mother was terrified of walking alone at night in Reno during the 90's and she lived and worked in a safer neighborhood. Now she has no problem walking alone at night and even feels safe walking alone where I live and I live in a 'bad' neighborhood. I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

[protege]

I don't know if it means crime has gone down, but a lot of people I know feel safer now than a decade ago... that's go to count for something.

Well, within the past decade or so, crime in Pittsburgh has gone down a bit. During the early 1990s, we had the gang wars to deal with. Seemed like every night you'd hear news reports of someone getting shot in a drive-by I can remember driving through some areas at night...and having all the lights set to green. Hell, you could do 55+ through there, and nobody would say a thing.

That went on a few years, and then suddenly stopped. Did the crime magically go away? Nope, by then, many of the gang members were either dead or in jail. Also, the city knocked down several of the abandoned buildings being used as crack houses. As if that wasn't enough, some areas have been redeveloped, and most of the "scum" has been pushed out.

Gang activity still goes on, and violent crime is on the rise again, but is nowhere near what it once was. Still, you won't see me walking through the projects any time soon. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid

[Boozy]

This thread is drifting a bit too much for my liking. It's already 40 pages long. Let's start new threads if we want to discuss crime rates and "national purity". The original topic here is Miss California's views on gay marriage.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.

Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars

[Rubystars]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions. So what exactly are the questions I missed? I promise to do my best to answer them.

[Rubystars]

Alright, let's do it!

As we can see by the evidence laid before us:
1) There is no proof of any negative effect of 'condoning' homosexuality on the nation
2) When it comes to violent crime, the rates are actually DOWN.
Therefore
3) There is no proof that anything negative will happen should gay marriage become legal nation-wide.

I don't agree with the government's condoning homosexuality because I believe it to be immoral. I feel like if gay marriage is made legal, then it gives a sort of official legitimacy or declaration of normalcy to that lifestyle which I don't think it deserves to have.

Furthermore, there is undeniable inequality given that Heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they may be in love with while Homosexuals cannot.

I think that the two types of relationships (heterosexual and homosexual) will always be unequal in fact, because one is normal and the other abnormal.

Therefore, I find that Miss California's opinion, while she is entitled to have it, should not in any way effect the creation or lack thereof of legislation.

We can now expect counter-point from Rubystars

I hope this post is adequate.

[BroomJockey]

I've tried to respond to every point that people have made but I might have missed some. I've noticed that even when I try to be thorough and answer everything it seems like people are accusing me of not answering questions.

We accuse you of that because you answer the question you want to, not the question that was actually asked. As for the other, that was covered.

just going back a few pages, the posts that had either questions directly addressed to you or asking you to support your answers that you ignored were numbers 338, 345, 350, 356, 359, 360, 369, and 372.

BUT, Boozy has asked us to confine it strictly to Miss California, and her comments, and whether it's discrimination that she didn't win after making her statement. So, everyone, focus on that, which, actually, means our own views of gay marriage are now irrelevant to the debate! Reboot!

[Boozy]

Actually, I really don't mind the debate about gay marriage continuing. I was just concerned because the discussion was veering into crime rates and racial issues. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Rubystars]

How about the first time I posted that link? And every time someone's said "You're avoiding the question." And did you look at the chart? It's less than a .5/100,000 increase compared to then. And it's still trending downwards.

Could you give me a post number for when you posted your link or just post it again please? I'm trying to tie up the loose ends here and I'm basically one against everyone else here so I might've been a little prone to missing some posts. It's not deliberate, it's just that I might've skimmed over too much trying to catch up. Sorry.

As for before the 50s, well, lesse, I mean, the early 40s, I could see your point. I mean, of course it was safe walking the streets. EVERYONE WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. And then everyone was just so damned glad to be home after that, I could see it being safe then, too. 30s? Nothing going on there, I mean, just you know, the Great Depression. Perfectly wonderful time to be alive. Roses and puppies for everyone.

Your part about the depression here actually made me laugh a little. Thanks for that.

My dad told me when he was a kid in the 50s they went out and played and their parents never worried about them getting abducted, and they would leave their bikes outside of a store without any kind of chain and come back and they would still be there, etc. He told me lots of things like this. Other people who grew up in the same time period also told me many similar stories about that time in America.

It's true that it's anecdotal (one of the weakest forms of evidence) but I have no real reason to think these people are lying.