BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum
The World Beyond BetterMost => The Culture Tent => Topic started by: injest on April 20, 2009, 11:54:45 pm
-
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc (http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc)
LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton may have been crowned Miss USA 2009 on Sunday, but on Monday, it was Miss California Carrie Prejean's answer to a question about same-sex marriage from celebrity blogger and pageant judge Perez Hilton that was the night's biggest story.
During the show, Perez asked Carrie, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
VIEW THE PHOTOS: The Latest Star Sightings
"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," Carrie said to a mix of boos and applause. "No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."
Carrie's answer to the hot button question cost her the crown - at least according to Perez.
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Hollywood Blondes
"The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. "Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA."
Keith Lewis, Co-Executive Director of the Miss California USA and Miss California Teen USA said in statement to Access Hollywood that he respects Carrie's opinion, even if it differs with his.
"I am proud of Carrie Prejean's beauty and placement at the 2009 Miss USA pageant. I support Carrie's right to express her personal beliefs even if they do not coincide with my own," Keith told Access. "I believe the subject of gay marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it has created."
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Gay & Lesbian Hollywood
PerezHilton.com initially reported that Keith was "personally saddened and hurt" by Carrie's comments. Keith told Access he did not release a statement to the celebrity blogger.
A rep for Shanna Moakler , who inherited the Miss USA title in 1995 when Miss USA Chelsi Smith was crowned Miss Universe, told Perez that she "supports Keith's views 100%."
On Monday morning, Miss California talked to Billy Bush for "The Billy Bush Show" and Access Hollywood. To listen to Billy's interview where Carrie revealed that a member of her family is a gay rights activist, CLICK HERE!
-
Gossip Blogger Perez Hilton's Comments About Miss California
Miss California's Response to Perez Hilton
-
Miss CA is apparently a fundamentalist Christian.
She is attending San Diego Christian College, a college that was started by Tim LeHeye (of "Left Behind" infamy) and Henry Morris (of the "Genesis Flood") for the express purpose of promoting "biblical" (read "young Earth") creationism in higher education. Their doctrinal statement:
http://www.sdcc.edu/About.aspx?ID=46
Her opinion - that the Bible condones her words:
It's not about being politically correct, it's about being biblically correct."
A former Ms. California, now a pastor, wrote a bit to dispel Miss CA's ignorance about the Bible:
http://www.psr.edu/news/former-miss-california-defends-same-sex-marriage
-
A former Ms. California, now a pastor, wrote a bit to dispel Miss CA's ignorance about the Bible:
http://www.psr.edu/news/former-miss-california-defends-same-sex-marriage
very interesting.
-
Perez Hilton is being so classy... ::)
like no one has a right to disagree. Why ask the question? just to make sure to introduce the subject? a photo op? what?
-
I find two matters disturbing about this incident :
1) the introduction of political material into the qualification process in the selection of the winner. It is clear to me that Perez Hilton ( whose real name is Mario Levandeira - http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/web-celeb-25-tech-media_cx_de_06webceleb_0123top_slides_3.html ) used political criteria in order to disqualify a candidate.
2) the subsequent name calling trashing of the loosing candidate by the judge
I listened carefully via the miracle of You Tube to Miss CA's answers, and although she and I disagree on the subject of same sex marriage, I do not see her comments as homophobic. She was merely stating what HER preferences were, not the preferences that she would impose on the rest of us. The intolerant bigot in this sad episode is the Mario Levandeira character.
-
I find two matters disturbing about this incident :
1) the introduction of political material into the qualification process in the selection of the winner. It is clear to me that Perez Hilton ( whose real name is Mario Levandeira - http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/web-celeb-25-tech-media_cx_de_06webceleb_0123top_slides_3.html ) used political criteria in order to disqualify a candidate.
2) the subsequent name calling trashing of the loosing candidate by the judge
I listened carefully via the miracle of You Tube to Miss CA's answers, and although she and I disagree on the subject of same sex marriage, I do not see her comments as homophobic. She was merely stating what HER preferences were, not the preferences that she would impose on the rest of us. The intolerant bigot in this sad episode is the Mario Levandeira character.
yes, she was very polite. I think it is a gotcha question....if you don't agree, you either have to lie and betray your own principles or tell the truth and get sanctioned.
-
Well, she gets thumbs up for being honest. But if she's in a "scholarship" contest to try to become a woman who represents all Americans, perhaps she might have been a little more discreet or diplomatic Her answer was basically double-talk though. She said she was glad people have the choice (which is uninformed - only a few states grant this and CA is not one of them) but then didn't believe that they should have a choice.
Beauty queens and their answers ::)
I don't particularly like Perez either but he asked a question that is currently a hot topic, important to him and many other Americans (this is a Miss USA contest) as a civil rights issue and Miss CA decided being outspoken about her religious beliefs to a gay judge was the better part of valor. And he judged her accordingly. Few judges in any contest are unbiased or objective. This is from another board which I thought relevant:
Look at it this way: she more or less told him he deserved to be treated like a second class citizen to his face. While his reaction may be more than was strictly necessary, surely you admit that many people would react the same way to the same stimulus.
How do you think, say, Rush Limbaugh would react if a beauty queen announced that she thought it was immoral for Christian marriage to be legal? What if she beamed as she received thunderous applause for her statement? I think it is fair to suggest that his reaction would have been even more extreme than Perez's.
If you feel that Perez's reaction was unwarranted, would you feel that the same reaction would have been unwarranted if the beauty queen had made the same statement about Christians instead of homosexuals?
-
yes I would.
definitely.
-
I found that article about the former Miss CA, now a pastor, very enlightening, showing the hypocracy of these people who wave the bible to enhance their cause, but choose to ignore what does not.
Not being familiar or watching the comlete Miss America contest, I am curious to know if ALL of the contestants were asked the same question.
If it is to be an equal competition, if they all were'nt asked it, then it shows a fault in the judging.
I think the question was tacky, but then again, I think all of these beauty contests are tacky, reagardless of what questions are asked or what answers are given.
To make so many headlines about some pretty girl in a beauty contest, making such a statement, is typical of the media today. The would have been more productive making headlines about a statement made by someone with much significance and credentials.
So she lost the contest......so she had an opinion about same sex marriage.......who the F""K should give a dam.
-
I don't think the question was out of line. I haven't watched that many pageants, but from what I remember, the contestants are always prattling on about what they'd like to accomplish and it's always something grand and political like achieving world peace or ending world hunger, etc...Fielding a question about gay marriage tactfully should have be a piece of cake for someone with alleged poise and grace under pressure.
Next.
-
I don't think the question was out of line. I haven't watched that many pageants, but from what I remember, the contestants are always prattling on about what they'd like to accomplish and it's always something grand and political like achieving world peace or ending world hunger, etc...Fielding a question about gay marriage tactfully should have be a piece of cake for someone with alleged poise and grace under pressure.
Next.
she DID handle it with poise. Hilton just didn't like her answer..this is not about the delivery of the answer.
-
I don't think the question was out of line. I haven't watched that many pageants, but from what I remember, the contestants are always prattling on about what they'd like to accomplish and it's always something grand and political like achieving world peace or ending world hunger, etc...Fielding a question about gay marriage tactfully should have be a piece of cake for someone with alleged poise and grace under pressure.
Next.
Maybe I started typing in Greek yesterday and didn't realize it? ::) ???
Please notice the subject of my sentence. Perhaps she did have poise, in that she didn't stutter, but obviously she did not manage to 'field the question tactfully' (i.e. be diplomatic without actually saying anything to offend one group or the other).
And before I'm lambasted, of course she has a right to her opinion, but homophobic opinions aren't going to win her crowns with gay judges. She's young yet; she'll figure it out.
-
Maybe I started typing in Greek yesterday and didn't realize it? ::) ???
Please notice the subject of my sentence. Perhaps she did have poise, in that she didn't stutter, but obviously she did not manage to 'field the question tactfully' (i.e. be diplomatic without actually saying anything to offend one group or the other).
And before I'm lambasted, of course she has a right to her opinion, but homophobic opinions aren't going to win her crowns with gay judges. She's young yet; she'll figure it out.
what exactly did she say that was not tactful in your opinion?
transcript:
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
-
what exactly did she say that was not tactful in your opinion?
transcript:
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Remove the part I highlighted and she'd have been fine. The first couple of sentences are true, more or less, if you look at it on a state-by-state basis.
tact:
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.
-
so merely stating she is for straight marriage only (in answer to a specific question) is tacky because there are people that are not in agreement with it?
since when has cultural or religious differences been 'tacky'?? and if the issue is so sensitive why ask it?
-
so merely stating she is for straight marriage only (in answer to a specific question) is tacky because there are people that are not in agreement with it?
since when has cultural or religious differences been 'tacky'?? and if the issue is so sensitive why ask it?
To my knowledge, there is no relationship between the words tact and tacky and I checked one dictionary for the etymology; of course I could be mistaken.
I did not say her answer was tacky; I said it lacked tact, which I defined before.
As for why ask the question? You'd have to ask the guy who asked it.
-
she DID handle it with poise. Hilton just didn't like her answer..this is not about the delivery of the answer.
She was poised and perfect and even smiled when the crowd applauded her religious ignorance and bigotry.
IMO, how she says something doesn't improve what she is saying.
-
She was poised and perfect and even smiled when the crowd applauded her religious ignorance and bigotry.
IMO, how she says something doesn't improve what she is saying.
again...is having a differing opinion not allowed?
-
To my knowledge, there is no relationship between the words tact and tacky and I checked one dictionary for the etymology; of course I could be mistaken.
I did not say her answer was tacky; I said it lacked tact, which I defined before.
As for why ask the question? You'd have to ask the guy who asked it.
ok, putting the parsing of words aside ::) ::)
you didn't answer my question as to what exactly she said that was lacking in tact.
-
To my knowledge, there is no relationship between the words tact and tacky and I checked one dictionary for the etymology; of course I could be mistaken.
did you seriously? you went to the effort of looking up the word? do you do that for every word you use? you dont' think that is a little overboard for a casual conversation?
I am so glad I never went to one of the meetings, there is simply no way I could ever live up to the impossible standards
-
ok, putting the parsing of words aside ::) ::)
you didn't answer my question as to what exactly she said that was lacking in tact.
Remove the part I highlighted and she'd have been fine. The first couple of sentences are true, more or less, if you look at it on a state-by-state basis.
tact:
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.
I think Lynne answered your question here Jess. If she had missed the one sentence out, it would have been more tactful.
-
did you seriously? you went to the effort of looking up the word? do you do that for every word you use? you dont' think that is a little overboard for a casual conversation?
I am so glad I never went to one of the meetings, there is simply no way I could ever live up to the impossible standards
Like me, perhaps Lynne doube checked after you talked about tacky when she mentioned tact. I did that, as I wanted to check my understanding of tact v tacky.
-
again...is having a differing opinion not allowed?
She is trying to represent America. It was a Miss USA contest. You tell me if bigotry against a portion of the American population is a good representation of the U.S. and something the judges should reward.
-
Her opinion - that the Bible condones her words:
It's not about being politically correct, it's about being biblically correct."
Well, I think the fundamentalist Miss California and those who applauded her might possibly - nay, probably - benefit from pondering the following passage from the Bible:
"As a golden ring in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman who is without discretion."
Proverbs 11:22
-
She is trying to represent America. It was a Miss USA contest. You tell me if bigotry against a portion of the American population is a good representation of the U.S. and something the judges should reward.
its bigotry to have a differing opinion?
-
its bigotry to have a differing opinion?
You can have a different opinion Jess. Doesn't mean a differing opinion can't be bigoted.
Let's put her words another way and you tell me if she's bigoted or not.
"I am glad black people have the choice to vote in this country, but I personally, no offense to anyone, think voting should only belong to white people, that's the way I was raised."
She smiles, the crowd applauds. ::)
-
But if she's in a "scholarship" contest to try to become a woman who represents all Americans,
Look at it this way: she more or less told him he deserved to be treated like a second class citizen to his face.
How do you think, say, Rush Limbaugh would react
1) Beauty pageant winners represent no one but themselves and those who run that particular pageant. Not that I give a hoot, but it appears to me that the "Miss USA" contest is just a cheaper, less luxurious version of "Miss America" - both of which are tacky anachronistic demeaning cattle shows.
2) No, Ms Prejean (CA) did not tell Mr Lavandeira (Hilton) that he was a second class anything, and he amply demonstrated that he is a world class ninny with an IQ in the lower double digits.
Ms Prejean simply stated that for HER a "marriage" was between a man and woman, but she was delighted to live in the USA where people have a CHOICE. That statement rather STRONGLY IMPLIES that she is neutral on whether Lavandeira marries a man or woman or remains single.
I for one would just like to see fewer pictures of Lavandeira, and hear much less of his grating voice.
3) I sincerely doubt that I will ever care how Rush Limbaugh reacts to anything involved in beauty pageants. :laugh:
It would appear to me that there are those who are bound and determined to demonize Ms Prejean in spite of the facts - willful denial?
-
1) Beauty pageant winners represent no one but themselves and those who run that particular pageant. Not that I give a hoot, but it appears to me that the "Miss USA" contest is just a cheaper, less luxurious version of "Miss America" - both of which are tacky anachronistic demeaning cattle shows.
Yes, so? She's running on her own - having won an earlier state contest - to be Miss USA. Be a representative of the USA - on this level.
2) No, Ms Prejean (CA) did not tell Mr Lavandeira (Hilton) that he was a second class anything, and he amply demonstrated that he is a world class ninny with an IQ in the lower double digits.
What do you call telling a gay man that she believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Sounds like she believes gays don't deserve to have a marriage and thus are 2nd class citizens. Pretty obvious to me.
Ms Prejean simply stated that for HER a "marriage" was between a man and woman, but she was delighted to live in the USA where people have a CHOICE.
Which is a dubious claim considering her response was of a "ninny with an IQ in the lower double digits" since she apparently didn't have a clue that not EVERYONE in the USA has this choice.
That statement rather STRONGLY IMPLIES that she is neutral on whether Lavandeira marries a man or woman or remains single.
This statement strongly implies that while she says one thing, she really believes another.
3) I sincerely doubt that I will ever care how Rush Limbaugh reacts to anything involved in beauty pageants.
But you did get the point, right?
-
1) Yes, so? She's running on her own - having won an earlier state contest - to be Miss USA. Be a representative of the USA - on this level.
2) What do you call telling a gay man that she believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Sounds like she believes gays don't deserve to have a marriage and thus are 2nd class citizens. Pretty obvious to me.
3) Which is a dubious claim considering her response was of a "ninny with an IQ in the lower double digits" since she apparently didn't have a clue that not EVERYONE in the USA has this choice.
1) I am puzzled as to why you continue to conflate an beauty contest with an entire nation. "Miss USA" represents no one but the people who put on, run, or sponsor that pageant.
2) Prejean told Lavandeira that for HER "marriage" is between a man and a woman - I take that to mean, she will not be marrying a woman in the near future. Prejean said nothing about Lavandeira's own choices. Seems glaringly obvious to me.
3) Prejean said that she was glad she lived in the USA where we have a choice (in the marriage matter). We do, there are several states which now allow same sex marriage. She is technically correct, and if Lavandeira wishes to marry someone of his gender, he can use the procedures used by many and journey to one of those states, establish residency, and marry.
-
1) I am puzzled as to why you continue to conflate an beauty contest with an entire nation. "Miss USA" represents no one but the people who put on, run, or sponsor that pageant.
And I wonder why you believe that when something is advertised as a Miss USA pageant that they're not meant to represent anything.
2) Prejean told Lavandeira that for HER "marriage" is between a man and a woman - I take that to mean, she will not be marrying a woman in the near future. Prejean said nothing about Lavandeira's own choices. Seems glaringly obvious to me.
Let me remind you of her own words: "...and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman..."
3) Prejean said that she was glad she lived in the USA where we have a choice (in the marriage matter). We do, there are several states which now allow same sex marriage.
"Several" states? Out of 50? C'mon Bill that's really reaching. And considering California itself recently voted against it quite infamously, I think it's quite right to say the exact opposite. That the majority of Americans don't have this right. So she is "technically" incorrect.
-
1)And I wonder why you believe that when something is advertised as a Miss USA pageant that they're not meant to represent anything.
2)Let me remind you of her own words: "...and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman..."
3) "Several" states? Out of 50? C'mon Bill that's really reaching. And considering California itself recently voted against it quite infamously, I think it's quite right to say the exact opposite. That the majority of Americans don't have this right. So she is "technically" incorrect.
1) :laugh: Anyone can create a pageant and call it what you wish, and if you have enough sponsors with deep enough pockets, it can gain publicity. But that doesn't mean that the winner of the pageant represents anyone other than those who gain directly from the pageant. Representation in a Republic is only done by elected officials or their legally appointed stand in.
2) "in my country", did Prejean mean to refer to the US as a whole? or Prejean's own circle of family, church, friends and community?
I caught her words as well when I listened to the You Tube several times. I view them within the context of her entire statement where she rejoices in marriage "choices" and her subsequent statements to the media, so it is clear to me that in that regard the word "country" is a misspeak.
Robert E Lee referred to his home state of Virginia as his "country" when he declared he would not fight against Virginia when declining Lincoln's offer to command Union armies in early 1861 - the Civil War would have been over by that summer if Lee had assumed command of the Union's armies.
I think that if Prejean wished to comment that in her opinion same sex marriage was wrong for everyone, she could have easily said that clearly. As it was, she offered a type of tolerance that was not offered to those who disagreed with her. As I said earlier, the person who came across as an angry bigot, was Lavandeira, not Prejean.
3) Prejean said nothing about the "majority" of Americans having choice, but they technically do. Under the federal system, anyone can establish residency in another state, if someone from say CA who wished to marry a same sex partner wished to do that, they could. CA is under no obligation to recognize that out of state same sex marriage, yet, but it is still technically a marriage in the other state.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTCZupFCvc[/youtube]
Miss California Responds on Campbell Brown
-
1) :laugh: Anyone can create a pageant and call it what you wish, and if you have enough sponsors with deep enough pockets, it can gain publicity. But that doesn't mean that the winner of the pageant represents anyone other than those who gain directly from the pageant. Representation in a Republic is only done by elected officials or their legally appointed stand in.
From the Miss USA website:
although some women compete in both Miss USA and Miss America, the two systems are completely separate. Miss USA goes on to represent her country at the Miss Universe competition.
2) "in my country", did Prejean mean to refer to the US as a whole? or Prejean's own circle of family, church, friends and community?
::) I mean, it's such common usage to refer to your circle of family and friends as a 'country'. C'mon Bill again, you're really reaching.
I think that if Prejean wished to comment that in her opinion same sex marriage was wrong for everyone, she could have easily said that clearly. As it was, she offered a type of tolerance that was not offered to those who disagreed with her. As I said earlier, the person who came across as an angry bigot, was Lavandeira, not Prejean.
Um, no, Miss CA came across as the bigot, not Perez. He came across at being really angry at a bigot.
3) Prejean said nothing about the "majority" of Americans having choice, but they technically do. Under the federal system, anyone can establish residency in another state, if someone from say CA who wished to marry a same sex partner wished to do that, they could. CA is under no obligation to recognize that out of state same sex marriage, yet, but it is still technically a marriage in the other state.
Again, reaching reeeeeeeeeeeeaaally far this time, Bill. Basically you're saying she's "technically" correct that we all have choice in this country because if you have 2nd class citizenship where you live and don't like it, you can just move. ::)
Gosh, so why are gays trying to get marriage rights in the country? They can all just move.
-
From the Miss USA website:
although some women compete in both Miss USA and Miss America, the two systems are completely separate. Miss USA goes on to represent her country at the Miss Universe competition.
1) ::) I mean, it's such common usage to refer to your circle of family and friends as a 'country'. C'mon Bill again, you're really reaching.
2) Again, reaching reeeeeeeeeeeeaaally far this time, Bill. Basically you're saying she's "technically" correct that we all have choice in this country because if you have 2nd class citizenship where you live and don't like it, you can just move. ::)
I will defer to your superior knowledge of "pageantry", but I can assure you that very few Americans believe that Miss USA or Miss America represent them. :)
There is reaching and there is "REACHING". In this case, Prejean immediately qualified her remarks and has subsequently continued to NOT opine that same sex marriage should be illegal. So, I am giving her a small "reach" and a small benefit of a doubt. However, if she had unqualifiedly stated she was against same sex marriage, we would be having a different conversation.
IMO the only way for your point to be valid is to assume that she DID NOT know at the time of her initial statement that same sex marriage is now available in a handful of states. If she believed that same sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states, then your point is valid.
And as far as the Lavandeira calling Prejean names such as C*** AND B****, that is not a reflection of justifiable or excusable outrage, it is simply a reflection of an arrogant mentality that is not interested in dialog.
In the final analysis, at least for me, I think that there is only so much that can reasonably be said about the opinions or outbursts of beauty pageant contestants and gossip bloggers. Add up their IQ's and give the money to charity. They have both had their Warholian 15 + minutes of fame, and they both should be grateful to live in a country that gives mediocrities such opportunities.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTCZupFCvc[/youtube]
Miss California Responds on Campbell Brown
I notice she avoided the question that the previous Miss CA, an ordained pastor, told her she was wrong about the bible. She skipped over that and went on to say she was 'true' to her faith. She doesn't acknowledge at all she is wrong about her faith or what the bible says.
How embarrassing for her that her ignorance is showing.
-
I will defer to your superior knowledge of "pageantry", but I can assure you that very few Americans believe that Miss USA or Miss America represent them. :)
Oh, I agree, but unfortunately, we're not everyone.
There is reaching and there is "REACHING". In this case, Prejean immediately qualified her remarks and has subsequently continued to NOT opine that same sex marriage should be illegal. So, I am giving her a small "reach" and a small benefit of a doubt. However, if she had unqualifiedly stated she was against same sex marriage, we would be having a different conversation.
Called 'damage control'.
IMO the only way for your point to be valid is to assume that she DID NOT know at the time of her initial statement that same sex marriage is now available in a handful of states. If she believed that same sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states, then your point is valid.
So, she's just ignorant and a bigot?
And as far as the Lavandeira calling Prejean names such as C*** AND B****, that is not a reflection of justifiable or excusable outrage, it is simply a reflection of an arrogant mentality that is not interested in dialog.
He did not call her that onstage. It wasn't until after. And honestly, Bill is there any chance of dialogue with someone believes you don't deserve the same rights as they?
-
1) So, she's just ignorant and a bigot?
2) And honestly, Bill is there any chance of dialogue with someone believes you don't deserve the same rights as they?
1) I don't know, but I do think that there are groups of people who are assuming a great deal about her, with few facts, in order to demonize her. As I said, I am giving her, because of her qualified statements, a small benefit of the doubt.
2) The question assumes that they understand that we are talking about "rights", they genuinely may not understand this, and may upon understanding change their minds. But, the tactics and outbursts of people like Lavandeira make this process MUCH more difficult.
-
Oh, she'll be fine.
;)
Hell, she can become the spokesperson for the Proposition 8 people.
:laugh:
-
You can have a different opinion Jess. Doesn't mean a differing opinion can't be bigoted.
Let's put her words another way and you tell me if she's bigoted or not.
"I am glad black people have the choice to vote in this country, but I personally, no offense to anyone, think voting should only belong to white people, that's the way I was raised."
She smiles, the crowd applauds. ::)
I think it is a mistake to compare race with sexual orientation. (feel free to call me bigoted)
-
I notice she avoided the question that the previous Miss CA, an ordained pastor, told her she was wrong about the bible. She skipped over that and went on to say she was 'true' to her faith. She doesn't acknowledge at all she is wrong about her faith or what the bible says.
How embarrassing for her that her ignorance is showing.
I thought she did fine.
some people do not agree with same sex marriage...move on with your life...do you really think you are going to win any friends or change her mind by calling her foul names or ignorant?
I have been thinking about this today..seems the left sees the world in black and white...there is NO grey areas except about sex.....THERE they have ALL kinds of grey areas, it is all 'do whatever, whenever, with whoever anytime' it ain't nobodies business...
yet they wont' let a conservative even have the right to an unapproved opinion.
and they wonder why the people of California voted down Prop 8
-
did you seriously? you went to the effort of looking up the word? do you do that for every word you use? you dont' think that is a little overboard for a casual conversation?
I am so glad I never went to one of the meetings, there is simply no way I could ever live up to the impossible standards
I actually did, but it wasn't specifically for the benefit of having a conversation with you, casual or otherwise. I wanted to make sure that I had not called her tacky because that was not my intention and I did not my words twisted or misconstrued. And I'm satisfied that I didn't call her tacky, despite your reply implying as much. I said she lacked tact, which is completely different.
And I still say that she lacked tact. Tactful people are able to provide non-answers to direct questions and thereby not offend anyone, at which she failed miserably. This does not mean she is a bad person - of course she has the right to her own opinions, bigoted and misguided as they are. But it won't get her very far in a world where tact and diplomacy are helpful attributes.
-
Black and white?
:laugh:
Pot......................
-
did you seriously? you went to the effort of looking up the word? do you do that for every word you use? you dont' think that is a little overboard for a casual conversation?
I am so glad I never went to one of the meetings, there is simply no way I could ever live up to the impossible standards
I thank you for that.
;)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
I actually did, but it wasn't specifically for the benefit of having a conversation with you, casual or otherwise. I wanted to make sure that I had not called her tacky because that was not my intention and I did not my words twisted or misconstrued. And I'm satisfied that I didn't call her tacky, despite your reply implying as much. I said she lacked tact, which is completely different.
And I still say that she lacked tact. Tactful people are able to provide non-answers to direct questions and thereby not offend anyone, at which she failed miserably. This does not mean she is a bad person - of course she has the right to her own opinions, bigoted and misguided as they are. But it won't get her very far in a world where tact and diplomacy are helpful attributes.
I think her answer WAS polite and tactful. Too bad Perez got his panties in a wad but whatever! I think there are more important issues to deal with in the world. At least this kept him busy for a while, he obviously needs something.
-
to save time
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactful (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactful)
tact⋅ful /ˈtæktfəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [takt-fuhl] Show IPA
–adjective having or manifesting tact: a tactful person; a tactful reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1860–65; tact + -ful
Related forms:
tact⋅ful⋅ly, adverb
tact⋅ful⋅ness, noun
Synonyms:
See diplomatic.
-
I think it is a mistake to compare race with sexual orientation. (feel free to call me bigoted)
But I wasn't. I was comparing civil rights to civil rights.
-
I have a truly serious question here:
How did Mario Lavandeira get to be a judge of the Miss USA pageant?
-
I thought she did fine.
some people do not agree with same sex marriage...move on with your life...do you really think you are going to win any friends or change her mind by calling her foul names or ignorant?
You gotta call ignorance what it is, Jess. There's no way to sugarcoat bigotry and we shouldn't try. I think if enough people say it and keep saying it, perhaps it will open some eyes at best or at worst, label bigotry as the ignorance that it is.
I have been thinking about this today..seems the left sees the world in black and white...there is NO grey areas except about sex.....THERE they have ALL kinds of grey areas, it is all 'do whatever, whenever, with whoever anytime' it ain't nobodies business...
yet they wont' let a conservative even have the right to an unapproved opinion.
When it comes to civil rights, Jess I totally agree with calling out anyone whenever there is an attempt to keep people from having them by trying to soft-sell it under the guise of as - oh, I don't know, a pretty blonde girl with a nice Christian upbringing, maybe?
-
I have a truly serious question here:
How did Mario Lavandeira get to be a judge of the Miss USA pageant?
:laugh: :laugh:
No serious questions allowed!
-
1) I don't know, but I do think that there are groups of people who are assuming a great deal about her, with few facts, in order to demonize her. As I said, I am giving her, because of her qualified statements, a small benefit of the doubt.
Well she has come out several times and said she was just being honest, and so I have no reason to doubt her honesty and thus the fact that she is indeed, a bigot.
2) The question assumes that they understand that we are talking about "rights", they genuinely may not understand this, and may upon understanding change their minds. But, the tactics and outbursts of people like Lavandeira make this process MUCH more difficult.
It already is a hard process Bill. She doesn't have any reasonable understanding of why she believes what she believes. They are all based on her religious beliefs - which, as that pastor pointed out - are already skewed. Her brand of religion teaches her that gay people are abominations and thus are not 'normal' people. Thus, she feels that only what is normal is what should be allowed.
This isn't anything you can reason with. She has to make the decision to overcome her learned bigotry or she will continue to hold onto these beliefs, illogical though they are.
-
she has a right to her beliefs. You can disagree that doesnt' make HER a bigot...that makes YOU intolerant.
-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I dont see a lot of hatred or intolerance in her comments. She merely stated what SHE believes...she made it clear IMO that she was talking for her own circle.
-
I would not call her a bigot. Its more that she believes what she has been taught, and is honest enough to be honest about it.
In the description of bigot...it mentions "hatred" and "intollerance".....from what I can see she has not mentioned or acted with either.
There are many subjects that people have formed an opinion of, because they believe in what they have been taught or what they have read, from flying saucers, evolution or whether white bread is better than brown bread.
Whether she learnt it from the bible, or read it in a dietry book she like most of us form an opinion and believe it, and we state our belief if we are asked, just like she did.
It doesnt make her a bigot.
-
she has a right to her beliefs. You can disagree that doesnt' make HER a bigot...that makes YOU intolerant.
Yes. She can believe whatever she likes. But sorry Jess her religious beliefs do make her a bigot because they're about keeping other people from having their civil rights.
You need to ask yourself why she doesn't think gay people should get married.
Yes, it makes me intolerant. No one should tolerate bigotry.
-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)
I dont see a lot of hatred or intolerance in her comments.
OK, but I sure did. So did Perez. She doesn't have to go up there ranting and raving like a KKK Grand Dragon to say just as intolerant comments.
She merely stated what SHE believes...she made it clear IMO that she was talking for her own circle.
She didn't make it clear to me, Jess. She said "country". So you can go with Bill and believe she 'misspoke', but I don't have to believe that.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices[/b]
This fits Miss CA very well.
-
I would not call her a bigot. Its more that she believes what she has been taught, and is honest enough to be honest about it.
In the description of bigot...it mentions "hatred" and "intollerance".....from what I can see she has not mentioned or acted with either.
There are many subjects that people have formed an opinion of, because they believe in what they have been taught or what they have read, from flying saucers, evolution or whether white bread is better than brown bread.
Whether she learnt it from the bible, or read it in a dietry book she like most of us form an opinion and believe it, and we state our belief if we are asked, just like she did.
It doesnt make her a bigot.
I'm afraid it does, Katie. If someone sticks to their beliefs about another group in society based on nothing more reasonable or logical than what has been told to them in their religious texts or family stories, without actually making their decision based on the reality of that group, then what can one conclude that she is - per Jess' printed definition of the word 'bigot' - that despite being an adult with full mental capacities, and the fact that gay people deserve equal rights - she is "obstinately devoted" to her own prejudices.
So back and read my post where I compared her opinion on gay marriage - a civil right - to voting rights for black people - another civil right - and then come back and tell me if you still think her opinion is not bigoted.
-
I'm afraid it does, Katie. If someone sticks to their beliefs about another group in society based on nothing more reasonable or logical than what has been told to them in their religious texts or family stories, without actually making their decision based on the reality of that group, then what can one conclude that she is - per Jess' printed definition of the word 'bigot' - that despite being an adult with full mental capacities, and the fact that gay people deserve equal rights - she is "obstinately devoted" to her own prejudices.
So back and read my post where I compared her opinion on gay marriage - a civil right - to voting rights for black people - another civil right - and then come back and tell me if you still think her opinion is not bigoted.
I read it. I still dont' consider her a bigot, I consider her honest and forthright.
-
I read it. I still dont' consider her a bigot, I consider her honest and forthright.
You can be an honest and forthright bigot, Jess.
-
For goodness sake. ::) She's not a bigot for expressing her opinion on an exicitable topic. It may not be a opinion that everyone shares (not even every gay person is pro gay marriage). She was asked what she thought about the subject and gave her answer in an articulate and respectful manner. What she said in no way makes her a bigot.
The response/reaction of the judge, however, was completely out of line and damaged the fight for gay acceptance in the public mainstream. she said nothing that warrented his childish tantrum and foul mouthed, acerbic reaction. A simple, 'we disagree' would have been sufficient.
How do you figure? If she said the same thing about black people would you still think she wasn't being a bigot?
It's just that simple. Replace gay people with blacks or Jews or any ethnicity of your choice and let me know what you think.
No one is a bigot for honestly expressing their opinions. But their opinions can certainly make them a bigot.
-
Well while we are quoting the dictonary heres another one.....
opinion
2 entries found.
opinion
self–opinion
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective
synonyms opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment mean a judgment one holds as true. opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. view suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. belief implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. conviction applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. persuasion suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. sentiment suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.
I dont see the word bigot anwhere in here....I do see, belief, and that in my opinion is where her answer comes from.
-
How do you figure? If she said the same thing about black people would you still think she wasn't being a bigot?
It's just that simple. Replace gay people with blacks or Jews or any ethnicity of your choice and let me know what you think.
No one is a bigot for honestly expressing their opinions. But their opinions can certainly make them a bigot.
Very well stated Del. Nice post.
-
I think that I might split hairs on this discussion about bigotry.
I would definitely characterize her statement as bigoted.
That said, though, she is young, and if she's anything like I was at that age, she still believes the mullarkey she's been spoon-fed her whole life by her parents, the church, society, etc. To call her a bigot is pretty harsh for someone who I doubt has learned to actually think for herself yet.
Let's check back in with her with she's 30 or 40, see if this was a learning experience.
-
I think that I might split hairs on this discussion about bigotry.
I would definitely characterize her statement as bigoted.
That said, though, she is young, and if she's anything like I was at that age, she still believes the mullarkey she's been spoon-fed her whole life by her parents, the church, society, etc. To call her a bigot is pretty harsh for someone who I doubt has learned to actually think for herself yet.
Let's check back in with her with she's 30 or 40, see if this was a learning experience.
or will the incredibly harsh overreacting of some people make her believe what her parents, church, etc were correct?
if Perez had had any class at all...and instead called her on it in an intelligent rational manner; how much more likely would she have been to listen? the overreaction of Perez and his ilk, drives moderates away and confirms the stereotypes the true bigots hold.
-
or will the incredibly harsh overreacting of some people make her believe what her parents, church, etc were correct?
if Perez had had any class at all...and instead called her on it in an intelligent rational manner; how much more likely would she have been to listen? the overreaction of Perez and his ilk, drives moderates away and confirms the stereotypes the true bigots hold.
Yes I was thinking along the same lines........Perez has probably done more harm to the cause than she would have.
-
Well she has come out several times and said she was just being honest, and so I have no reason to doubt her honesty and thus the fact that she is indeed, a bigot.
It already is a hard process Bill. She doesn't have any reasonable understanding of why she believes what she believes. They are all based on her religious beliefs - which, as that pastor pointed out - are already skewed. Her brand of religion teaches her that gay people are abominations and thus are not 'normal' people. Thus, she feels that only what is normal is what should be allowed.
This isn't anything you can reason with. She has to make the decision to overcome her learned bigotry or she will continue to hold onto these beliefs, illogical though they are.
again, and again you and others make assumptions about Ms Prejean. Talk about "rush to judgement"!
I am looking for the rhetorical "smoking gun" that tells me she is the bigot that several people have agreed that she is - and I can't find it.
If she is not in favor of same sex marriage, that means that I disagree with her, but it doesn't make her a bigot.
If she holds gays up to derision and scorn, a la radio talk show host Michael Savage who also opposes same sex marriage, then she would be a bigot.
Until then I will make the assumption that she does not understand that a discussion of same sex marriage is really a discussion of civil rights, and I will assume that she can be witnessed to and her heart changed. I could be wrong and fail, but assuming that she is a bigot guarantees failure.
-
or will the incredibly harsh overreacting of some people make her believe what her parents, church, etc were correct?
if Perez had had any class at all...and instead called her on it in an intelligent rational manner; how much more likely would she have been to listen? the overreaction of Perez and his ilk, drives moderates away and confirms the stereotypes the true bigots hold.
Very well stated Jess. Nice post.
-
Good that she lost!
maybe she will now open her heart to humanity...
yes or no...
Au revoir,
hugs!
-
How do you figure? If she said the same thing about black people would you still think she wasn't being a bigot?
It's just that simple. Replace gay people with blacks or Jews or any ethnicity of your choice and let me know what you think.
No one is a bigot for honestly expressing their opinions. But their opinions can certainly make them a bigot.
It IS just that simple. For reasonable thinking people anyway... ;)
I just want to say how impressed I am with your amazing patience, Del. I get way too emotional dealing with the right, while reading this thread I must have started three replies that I'm sure if I had posted them, they would have been deleted and gotten me banned from the forum.
I can't believe that people are defending religious homophobia on a BbM forum. :o
-
:laugh: :laugh:
No serious questions allowed!
hahahahah. Seriously, everybody knows Mario, and everyone should have assumed that he was going to ask a question about gay marriage. Considering how much of a big news item it has been. The problem is that SOMEBODY didn't coach Miss California in a more politically correct answer and she went with her Bible - er, gut.
Is she a bigot? Only to the extent that fundamentalist Christians don't believe in civil rights for gays, and she happens to be one of them. Maybe her previous pageants didn't reveal the fact that she belongs to an intolerant minority group, but chances are something was going to trip her up if she started Bible thumping at an inconvenient moment.
-
How do you figure? If she said the same thing about black people would you still think she wasn't being a bigot?
It's just that simple. Replace gay people with blacks or Jews or any ethnicity of your choice and let me know what you think.
No one is a bigot for honestly expressing their opinions. But their opinions can certainly make them a bigot.
Unfortunately for gays, being intolerant of their civil rights is not yet politically incorrect. It's politically incorrect to be intolerant of blacks, since it's been 50 years since they got full civil rights enforced, but for gays it is still a battle. Hating gays and not wanting them to have full civil rights is the last acceptable bigotry in America.
-
Unfortunately for gays, being intolerant of their civil rights is not yet politically incorrect. It's politically incorrect to be intolerant of blacks, since it's been 50 years since they got full civil rights enforced, but for gays it is still a battle. Hating gays and not wanting them to have full civil rights is the last acceptable bigotry in America.
Sigh.
The following letter to the editor was published in this morning's Metro (Monday, 4/27/09).
Black struggle has no gay empathy.
(Via e-mail). As a black male, I'm highly disgusted and insulted by the article "Gay Marriage the Next Battle Front?" Being bumptious to convince Americans of gay marriage is very selfish. The slogan "gay is the new black" is a smack in the face to every black American. Martin Luther King, Jr., JKF, RFK and Malcolm X did not die for gay rights. You are born black no matter what, you can't be born gay because it's a volunteer conduct and it's not biologically proven. Employers discriminate against blacks in the workplace, not gays. Police brutality affects black people the most, not gay people. And to equate the fallacy of gay struggles with civil rights struggles of African-Americans ... there is no comparison and they can never feel a black person's pain.
(Signed) Tyrone Jones
I'm not going to bother commenting. The ignorance and logical inconsistency speak for themselves.
Note: The elipsis following "African-Americans" is in the original. I didn't edit anything out of the text.
-
the fact that the youth vote is strongly in favor of granting rights to GLBT and ushering out the old bigotry (Miss California notwithstanding) means that it is only a matter of time before full civil rights are granted in all states.
-
My assessment of Prejean is that her statement is not homophobic or bigoted. She has said nothing different than what ALL of the candidates said during the general election: "no same sex marriage." She did NOT say "no civil rights for sexual minorities." The part she alluded to in mentioning the handful of states--and could have clarified--was that there are alternatives to marriage. Some people here fail to realize that there are people out there, both hetero and homo who think there are other ways besides marriage for sexual minorities to achieve legal parity in this country.
Moreover, the current gay dogma says that if you're not for SS marriage, that means you hate us. That's just not true, and its a pretty lame stance to take. As I have said a gazillion times, we have to stop beating people over the head with the homophobe stick if we're going to make progress. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't win by running around calling white people names.
-
It IS just that simple. For reasonable thinking people anyway... ;)
I just want to say how impressed I am with your amazing patience, Del. I get way too emotional dealing with the right, while reading this thread I must have started three replies that I'm sure if I had posted them, they would have been deleted and gotten me banned from the forum.
I can't believe that people are defending religious homophobia on a BbM forum. :o
Me neither.
-
Hey Oilgun......I take offence when you insinuate that people here are "defending religious homophobia on this forum".
I for one, do not defend any type of homophobia, whether it be religious, ingnorence, social or whatever.
We are talking about whether the term bigot applies to this person, not whether we agree with her opinion.
"Bigot" is a very strong tag to put on someone, it's meaning conjures up words such as "hatred" and "violence", which there has been no signs of from this particular person.
-
Hey Oilgun......I take offence when you insinuate that people here are "defending religious homophobia on this forum".
I for one, do not defend any type of homophobia, whether it be religious, ingnorence, social or whatever.
We are talking about whether the term bigot applies to this person, not whether we agree with her opinion.
"Bigot" is a very strong tag to put on someone, it's meaning conjures up words such as "hatred" and "violence", which there has been no signs of from this particular person.
Perhaps it does to you Katie, but I've grown up around bigots. I have friends/relatives who are bigots. Most of them are nice, friendly, honest and upfront. Those traits still don't change the fact that they are bigots. Don't labor under the mistaken idea that bigots are slavering, abuse-yelling skinheads, sheet wearing KKK members or "God Hates Fags" poster waving Phelps zombies. Majority of them are perfectly nice people who went to the polls and voted down gay marriage proposals because they think gays are "sick" and "abnormal" because of their "ick" factor or because of their religious upbringing.
-
Perhaps it does to you Katie, but I've grown up around bigots. I have friends/relatives who are bigots. Most of them are nice, friendly, honest and upfront. Those traits still don't change the fact that they are bigots. Don't labor under the mistaken idea that bigots are slavering, abuse-yelling skinheads, sheet wearing KKK members or "God Hates Fags" poster waving Phelps zombies. Majority of them are perfectly nice people who went to the polls and voted down gay marriage proposals because they think gays are "sick" and "abnormal" because of their "ick" factor or because of their religious upbringing.
and for you the audacity of not agreeing with your point of view makes people bigots. That sounds bigoted to me. you are clinging to your opinion. you are expressing hatred.
People have a right to their thoughts.
-
dictionary check:
Del is using the term correctly. Bigotry is focusing a hatred or dislike against a class of people for holding a belief different from one's own or for an innate quality they exhibit That applies to disliking blacks for the color of their skin, Asians for having an epicanthic fold, and gays for having sexual desire for the same sex. See also: intolerance.
It would be somewhat arguable that one may dislike someone for exhibiting intolerance - pretty much the only people who WOULD like a bigot are those who agree with him. or her.
-
Majority of them are perfectly nice people who went to the polls and voted down gay marriage proposals because they think gays are "sick" and "abnormal" because of their "ick" factor or because of their religious upbringing.
You are making generalizations that don't hold up under even a casual analysis of the Prop 8 election and the exit polls.
It is a remarkable stretch to say that all people who went to the polls and voted for Prop 8 voted that way because they "think gays are sick and abnormal - because of their ick factor or because of their religious upbringing"
included among the main reasons Obama handily carried CA handily but Prop 8 passed are:
1) Revulsion among moderate liberals and independents towards the tactics of the Anti Prop 8 campaign - the same types of angry labellings, sneerings, and sweeping generalizations were the rule among the anti Prop 8 supporters that we see here coming from some of those who condemn Ms Prejean as a bigot. In fact, Mr Lavandeira (aka Hilton) must have written the campaign manual for the anti Prop 8 folks, as he sounds just like them.
2) An increasing discomfort among both conservatives and moderates when public policy is being made by the Judiciary. In this case the Supremes in CA overturned a previous referendum in which the voters of CA by very wide margins disapproved of same sex marriage.
-
You are making generalizations that don't hold up under even a casual analysis of the Prop 8 election and the exit polls.
It is a remarkable stretch to say that all people who went to the polls and voted for Prop 8 voted that way because they "think gays are sick and abnormal - because of their ick factor or because of their religious upbringing"
included among the main reasons Obama handily carried CA handily but Prop 8 passed are:
1) Revulsion among moderate liberals and independents towards the tactics of the Anti Prop 8 campaign - the same types of angry labellings, sneerings, and sweeping generalizations were the rule among the anti Prop 8 supporters that we see here coming from some of those who condemn Ms Prejean as a bigot. In fact, Mr Lavandeira (aka Hilton) must have written the campaign manual for the anti Prop 8 folks, as he sounds just like them.
2) An increasing discomfort among both conservatives and moderates when public policy is being made by the Judiciary. In this case the Supremes in CA overturned a previous referendum in which the voters of CA by very wide margins disapproved of same sex marriage.
add in some VERY bad judgement by supporters of gay marriage...for example the teacher that took her elementary school class to her wedding as a field trip, playing into the oppositions belief that if gay marriage were to remain legal more such things would happen.
-
add in some VERY bad judgement by supporters of gay marriage...for example the teacher that took her elementary school class to her wedding as a field trip, playing into the oppositions belief that if gay marriage were to remain legal more such things would happen.
there seemed to be an astonishing lack of practical political instincts in the Anti Prop 8 campaign in CA, and among their supporters. hopefully same sex marriage advocates have viewed this as a teachable moment and the lessons of their remarkable failure have been learned.
-
hopefully same sex marriage advocates have viewed this as a teachable moment and the lessons of their remarkable failure have been learned.
That's what I'm hoping. The Gay Party made plenty of mis-steps.
-
That Miss California did not deserve to be a crown... as she is a bigot to humanity!
And since someone says:
Hating gays and not wanting them to have full civil rights is the last acceptable bigotry in America. , may I add that much needs to be down yet to be accepted as a gay person even in the USA! And much more in Islam, etc., and even in non-religious regimes like China who placed gays in prison (and maybe totured them or murdered them) for their recent Olympics!
Also, may it be noted that the USA, Canada and some other nations should be ashamed to what they did to First Nations and still do, unfortunately.
Any news...
au revoir,
hugs!
-
You are making generalizations that don't hold up under even a casual analysis of the Prop 8 election and the exit polls.
It is a remarkable stretch to say that all people who went to the polls and voted for Prop 8 voted that way because they "think gays are sick and abnormal - because of their ick factor or because of their religious upbringing"
included among the main reasons Obama handily carried CA handily but Prop 8 passed are:
1) Revulsion among moderate liberals and independents towards the tactics of the Anti Prop 8 campaign - the same types of angry labellings, sneerings, and sweeping generalizations were the rule among the anti Prop 8 supporters that we see here coming from some of those who condemn Ms Prejean as a bigot. In fact, Mr Lavandeira (aka Hilton) must have written the campaign manual for the anti Prop 8 folks, as he sounds just like them.
2) An increasing discomfort among both conservatives and moderates when public policy is being made by the Judiciary. In this case the Supremes in CA overturned a previous referendum in which the voters of CA by very wide margins disapproved of same sex marriage.
I wasn't just speaking of California. Don't forget, voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins. What mistakes were made there?
-
I wasn't just speaking of California. Don't forget, voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins. What mistakes were made there?
I don't know, I was discussing the Prop 8 vote in CA in relation to the tactics used against Ms Prejean. Please enlighten us on the dynamics of the voting in the 11 states you mentioned.
-
I wasn't just speaking of California. Don't forget, voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins. What mistakes were made there?
I do not see this as a state-by-state problem when it comes to the strategic direction and tactical approaches of the Gay Party, rather I see a number of systemic problems that have contributed to these failures. These are in no specific order.
- Villanizing the portion of the population who are against sexual minorities. Trying to shame people en masse into doing the right thing rarely works. A more effective approach would be to offer enlightenment.
- Attacking people's faith and religions. This approach fails because its not the faith or religion that is the problem, its the specific doctrines of individual denominations and congregations. Rather than producing endless litanies of all the historical dirt done by various religions, it would be more effective to focus on the parts of the doctrine that relates specifically to sexual minorities. There are plenty of theological writings out there by clerics in various faiths that can provide (or be a jumping off point) sufficient arguments to doctrine-based objections to sexual minorities.
- Confusing the core objective of civil rights with emotional objectives: "its about love." No, its not about love. Its never been about love. Its about equal standing under the law.
- Too much emphasis on what has been done to us, rather than on what we need going forward. Yes, defining the problem is important. But there are too many communications out there that do nothing but lay blame.
- Overstating the state of affairs for sexual minorities. We are not oppressed, persecuted, etc. What I perceive is that we are inconvenienced and discriminated against. Oppression and persecution look more like what's going on in Muslim countries; e.g., arrests, honor killings, murders, and executions.
- The "marriage or bust" philosophy. As one poster here on Bettermost reported, New Zealand has managed to achieve legal parity for sexual minorities via civil unions. If they could do it, we can too.
- Blurring the line between civil rights and social acceptance.
-
- Villanizing the portion of the population who are against sexual minorities. Trying to shame people en masse into doing the right thing rarely works. A more effective approach would be to offer enlightenment.
- Attacking people's faith and religions. This approach fails because its not the faith or religion that is the problem, its the specific doctrines of individual denominations and congregations.
And one can't shame a person who has a heart-felt belief in a particular religion--Christian, Muslim, et. all. This 'shaming' backfires because it doesn't consist of logical arguments or discussion of that part of a religious doctrine which may be open for interpretation. I'm thinking specifically of homosexuality. Instead, the resorting to name calling, wagging fingers at someone, and/or down right making fun of one's religious beliefs isn't healthy in a country where more than not have a faith based foundation. Then, to top it off, to have the likes of Perez Hilton or Jeanine Garofalo dress someone down because he or she happens to stand on principles similar with a MAJORITY of the populace, it is no wonder more states are following the footsteps of California and we are further from same-sex equal rights then we were a couple years ago.
- Confusing the core objective of civil rights with emotional objectives: "its about love." No, its not about love. Its never been about love. Its about equal standing under the law.
But Milo, as we have seen here repeatedly, it isn't about equal standing under the law. If that were the platform, those equal rights would have come easy. People need to get over with the cry baby mantra of, "well, If I can't be married just like my mom and dad, I don't want it". Thing is, most of the people that cling to this don't even have partners. They are so fuckin' busy trying to force acceptance of them because they have held such a chip on their shoulders or they were badgered or made fun of at one point in their life, they become blinded by the 'rights' issue, and seem to have the inability to settle down with one person for the long term.
- Too much emphasis on what has been done to us, rather than on what we need going forward. Yes, defining the problem is important. But there are too many communications out there that do nothing but lay blame.
Gotta make up for lost time. I'm sure there will be some sort of organized reparations effort at the end of the day. Perhaps a second career for Barney Frank.
- Overstating the state of affairs for sexual minorities. We are not oppressed, persecuted, etc. What I perceive is that we are inconvenienced and discriminated against. Oppression and persecution look more like what's going on in Muslim countries; e.g., arrests, honor killings, murders, and executions.
No, we aren't persecuted or oppressed. Clinging to this ridiculous notion makes it very easy for those opponents to roll their eyes and mutter, "whatever". If there is so much oppression and persecution, where is it? I have been in the law enforcement field for many years, and I ain't seein' it and statistics aren't there to back up such claims. Yeah, there is inconvenience and discrimination in two areas--legal rights of married couples (I didn't say marriage) and the right to serve in the armed forces. IMO, we still have these inconveniences because of the tact with which most gay rights proponents and lefties insist we take.
- The "marriage or bust" philosophy. As one poster here on Bettermost reported, New Zealand has managed to achieve legal parity for sexual minorities via civil unions. If they could do it, we can too.
You don't get it, Milo. It's gotta be marriage. People can't think a man and women equals marriage. They must not see a difference and need to think whenever the term marriage is used, one shouldn't assume anything. Hmmmmm. Feel good politics and not a damn thing about equal rights.
- Blurring the line between civil rights and social acceptance.
No amount of legislating can get a person to accept another. Forget the acceptance, lets move on to legal rights. Once that is outta the way, if one expects to be accepted, one has to be accepting.
Brad
-
Gotta make up for lost time. I'm sure there will be some sort of organized reparations effort at the end of the day. Perhaps a second career for Barney Frank.
BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAHA!!!!
Then I'll be getting whatever Barney Frank can negotiate PLUS my 40 acres and a mule.
WOOOHOOO!!!!!
-
BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAHA!!!!
Then I'll be getting whatever Barney Frank can negotiate PLUS my 40 acres and a mule.
WOOOHOOO!!!!!
Shit Milo, you could scare up some Japanese in your lineage and hit the jackpot.
Brad
-
People need to get over with the cry baby mantra of, "well, If I can't be married just like my mom and dad, I don't want it". Thing is, most of the people that cling to this don't even have partners. They are so fuckin' busy trying to force acceptance of them because they have held such a chip on their shoulders or they were badgered or made fun of at one point in their life, they become blinded by the 'rights' issue, and seem to have the inability to settle down with one person for the long term.
wha? That's a bit of a blanket statement there Brad. So if someone is single they can't have an opinion or campaign about gay marriage? And if they do they are all bitter and loveless? C'mon! Generalise much?
I don't agree with much of what you said above (although some of it I did agree with), but hey thats your opinion but I HAD to mention this bit...
-
BWAAAHAAHAAHAHAAAHA!!!!
Then I'll be getting whatever Barney Frank can negotiate PLUS my 40 acres and a mule.
WOOOHOOO!!!!!
mules are way overrated...you know that, right? you should hold out for a good draft horse...maybe a ox.
-
I don't know, I was discussing the Prop 8 vote in CA in relation to the tactics used against Ms Prejean. Please enlighten us on the dynamics of the voting in the 11 states you mentioned.
I simply said that nice bigoted people went to the polls and voted down gay marriage - in many states. You jumped in with the mistakes gays made in California re Prop 8. OK, but that says nothing about the action of gays in the other states. You believe 'mistakes' doomed Prop 8 in California, I was simply asking why you think the vote went against gays in other states.
-
How Perez Hilton and Gang Hurt Gay Marriage Supporters
B. Daniel Blatt
B. Daniel Blatt blogs at GayPatriot.
April 28, 2009
Had I known gay marriage advocates would react with vitriol and venom to the passage of California’s Proposition 8 (amending the state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to its traditional meaning: one man and one woman), I might have left my ballot blank on that issue and not voted “no,” as I had. No sooner did it become clear that a majority of voters in the Golden State approved the initiative than angry activists, mostly in Los Angeles, took to the streets to protest the popular result.
More than just blowing off steam from their understandable frustration at the loss, the protesters vilified those on the winning side of the issue. They demonized Mormons, marching from West Hollywood to their temple in Westwood, carrying placards slandering the church and hurling slogans demeaning its members, labeling them “scum” and calling them “ vile.” All because Mormons were among the most generous supporters of the campaign to pass Prop 8.
Bill Rosendahl, an openly gay L.A. city councilman, called the faith a “ perversion of Christianity.” The name-calling didn’t stop there. The disappointed opponents of Proposition 8 referred to the successful initiatives as “Prop H8″ or “Prop Hate.”
As they called their adversaries haters, they acted out their own hate on proponents of the measure. Other activists defaced a church in Chino Hills, California. When an elderly woman in Palm Springs tried to demonstrate her satisfaction with the election result, opponents harassed her, pulling the cross she was carrying out of her hands, throwing it to the ground, and stomping on it.
Even the New York Times took notice: “Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.”
Camille Paglia, a pro-gay, left-of-center scholar and cultural commentator, faulted those activists for launching a “program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons,” comparing their behavior to an “adolescent tantrum.”
I did not want to be associated with such hatred, hence my consideration that maybe I shouldn’t have voted the same way on the initiative as I had. But then I realized that most of those who joined me in opposition to Proposition 8 did not support such public vilification of supporters. They did not leap to label them as “vile” individuals practicing a “perverted” faith.
The animus of various gay marriage advocates extended beyond the immediate aftermath of the election. Accepting an Oscar for his performance as pioneering gay politician Harvey Milk, Sean Penn said those who voted for Proposition 8 should be ashamed of their actions.
Thus, it was nothing new when celebrity blogger Perez Hilton slurred Carrie Prejean, Miss California, calling her a “bitch” for stating her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hilton was just continuing a practice begun at least six months previously; he was just another prominent gay marriage advocate publicly slandering supporters of traditional marriage.
At the Miss USA pageant where he was a judge, Hilton asked Miss Prejean if she thought states should follow Vermont’s lead in recognizing same-sex marriage. Her civil response was not to his liking:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
Miss Prejean lost the title to Kristen Dalton, Miss North Carolina. Hilton said, “She lost it because of that question. … She was definitely the front-runner before that.” On his ballot, he gave her a zero for that answer.
Hilton, as we all know, did not limit his criticism to this low mark. Immediately after the competition, he made a video blog calling Prejean’s response “the worst answer in pageant history” and saying she lost “ because she’s a dumb bitch.” He called her response “awful.” With such words, he suggests he finds it offensive when someone civilly expresses an opinion different than his own.
And while her opinion may not be his own, it does reflect that of a majority of the citizens of the state she represented as well as a larger majority of the nation.
We may not agree with her, but should at least respect her for stating her opinion without insulting gay people. We cannot, however, say the same for Mr. Hilton. He did not limit his slurs to allegations of her stupidity and comparisons to female dogs.
And yet while many in the media — including, to their credit, a number of left-of-center pundits and bloggers — took Hilton to task for his remarks, the controversy gave him a larger platform. He appeared on Larry King Live. Watching Larry King toss softball questions to Hilton, I wondered if the CNN host would have been as respectful of a social conservative who had gained prominence for calling gay people “perverts.”
To be sure, Hilton did apologize, but later retracted that apology, claiming he was justified in the smear.
By contrast, in various TV appearances after the pageant, Prejean showed great poise, saying she wouldn’t have changed her answer to the question even if it would have earned her the crown. She refused to attack Hilton personally. As a result, she has found quite a following. Indeed, she appears to have gained more prominence than the pageant’s winner. (A Google search for “Carrie Prejean” yields nearly 200,000 more hits than does one for “Kristen Dalton.”)
While Prejean has gained a following on the right, the gay left has largely been silent on Hilton, with a few even defending his name-calling. A number of gay people have, however, taken him to task. Gay Republican blogger Dennis Sanders said Hilton was “giving aid and comfort to the anti-gay side, because now Prejean will be seen a brave and devout woman standing her ground against the mean-spirited gays,” adding that “we need to be able to show some respect for people at times, even when they disagree with us.”
Such criticism was not limited to right-of-center gays. At the left-of-center blog Queerty, Japhy Grant offered an equally harsh assessment:
At the same time, beyond simple snobbery is the fact that images do matter and even from a short remove, this debate is a ludicrous one. Prejean’s certainly not the first person to state that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and Hilton’s decision to call her a “bitch” is ratings worthy, but I’m not terribly sure it does any good for the gay community.
Here in brief is the case against thoughtless, knee-jerk outrage: It’s incredibly easy to call anyone you dislike a homophobe and a bigot. Heck, we use the phrases fairly liberally ourselves from time to time, but when the conversation ends at “you are a bad person,” you’re only making yourself feel better and further solidifying the impression that the differences you have are intractable.
It may make Perez Hilton feel better to slur a woman with whom he disagrees on state recognition of same-sex marriage, but it does little to promote that cause. Indeed, it sets it back.
Gay marriage advocates can learn a lot from Carrie Prejean. She made her case simply and without acrimony. Perez Hilton, by contrast, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Unfortunately, for those of us who favor a serious debate on gay marriage, Perez Hilton is not a lone voice in the wilderness slamming those who favor the traditional definition of marriage. He has merely gained more attention for his barbs.
I still believe I did the right thing in voting against Proposition 8. But when my fellow opponents behave as did Mr. Hilton this month and as did the protesters last fall, I feel less comfortable being associated with such prominent opponents of the initiative.
If such rhetoric alienates a gay man with lesbian friends who have sought state recognition of their marriages, how will it impact those lacking a personal connection to the issue?
Perez Hilton may have gotten a lot of media attention for his antics, but his rhetoric is nothing new. It’s just another example of the coarsening of public discourse on controversial subjects. And the debate on gay marriage seems to have attracted a more vitriolic exchange than other subjects.
For those who favor a serious conversation about changing the definition of this social institution central to our culture, the prevalence of such vitriol only serves to deepen our disappointment with popular culture.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-perez-hilton-and-gang-hurt-gay-marriage-supporters/
-
How Perez Hilton and Gang Hurt Gay Marriage Supporters
B. Daniel Blatt
B. Daniel Blatt blogs at GayPatriot.
April 28, 2009
Had I known gay marriage advocates would react with vitriol and venom to the passage of California’s Proposition 8 (amending the state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to its traditional meaning: one man and one woman), I might have left my ballot blank on that issue and not voted “no,” as I had. No sooner did it become clear that a majority of voters in the Golden State approved the initiative than angry activists, mostly in Los Angeles, took to the streets to protest the popular result.
More than just blowing off steam from their understandable frustration at the loss, the protesters vilified those on the winning side of the issue. They demonized Mormons, marching from West Hollywood to their temple in Westwood, carrying placards slandering the church and hurling slogans demeaning its members, labeling them “scum” and calling them “ vile.” All because Mormons were among the most generous supporters of the campaign to pass Prop 8.
Bill Rosendahl, an openly gay L.A. city councilman, called the faith a “ perversion of Christianity.” The name-calling didn’t stop there. The disappointed opponents of Proposition 8 referred to the successful initiatives as “Prop H8″ or “Prop Hate.”
As they called their adversaries haters, they acted out their own hate on proponents of the measure. Other activists defaced a church in Chino Hills, California. When an elderly woman in Palm Springs tried to demonstrate her satisfaction with the election result, opponents harassed her, pulling the cross she was carrying out of her hands, throwing it to the ground, and stomping on it.
Even the New York Times took notice: “Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.”
Camille Paglia, a pro-gay, left-of-center scholar and cultural commentator, faulted those activists for launching a “program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons,” comparing their behavior to an “adolescent tantrum.”
I did not want to be associated with such hatred, hence my consideration that maybe I shouldn’t have voted the same way on the initiative as I had. But then I realized that most of those who joined me in opposition to Proposition 8 did not support such public vilification of supporters. They did not leap to label them as “vile” individuals practicing a “perverted” faith.
The animus of various gay marriage advocates extended beyond the immediate aftermath of the election. Accepting an Oscar for his performance as pioneering gay politician Harvey Milk, Sean Penn said those who voted for Proposition 8 should be ashamed of their actions.
Thus, it was nothing new when celebrity blogger Perez Hilton slurred Carrie Prejean, Miss California, calling her a “bitch” for stating her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hilton was just continuing a practice begun at least six months previously; he was just another prominent gay marriage advocate publicly slandering supporters of traditional marriage.
At the Miss USA pageant where he was a judge, Hilton asked Miss Prejean if she thought states should follow Vermont’s lead in recognizing same-sex marriage. Her civil response was not to his liking:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
Miss Prejean lost the title to Kristen Dalton, Miss North Carolina. Hilton said, “She lost it because of that question. … She was definitely the front-runner before that.” On his ballot, he gave her a zero for that answer.
Hilton, as we all know, did not limit his criticism to this low mark. Immediately after the competition, he made a video blog calling Prejean’s response “the worst answer in pageant history” and saying she lost “ because she’s a dumb bitch.” He called her response “awful.” With such words, he suggests he finds it offensive when someone civilly expresses an opinion different than his own.
And while her opinion may not be his own, it does reflect that of a majority of the citizens of the state she represented as well as a larger majority of the nation.
We may not agree with her, but should at least respect her for stating her opinion without insulting gay people. We cannot, however, say the same for Mr. Hilton. He did not limit his slurs to allegations of her stupidity and comparisons to female dogs.
And yet while many in the media — including, to their credit, a number of left-of-center pundits and bloggers — took Hilton to task for his remarks, the controversy gave him a larger platform. He appeared on Larry King Live. Watching Larry King toss softball questions to Hilton, I wondered if the CNN host would have been as respectful of a social conservative who had gained prominence for calling gay people “perverts.”
To be sure, Hilton did apologize, but later retracted that apology, claiming he was justified in the smear.
By contrast, in various TV appearances after the pageant, Prejean showed great poise, saying she wouldn’t have changed her answer to the question even if it would have earned her the crown. She refused to attack Hilton personally. As a result, she has found quite a following. Indeed, she appears to have gained more prominence than the pageant’s winner. (A Google search for “Carrie Prejean” yields nearly 200,000 more hits than does one for “Kristen Dalton.”)
While Prejean has gained a following on the right, the gay left has largely been silent on Hilton, with a few even defending his name-calling. A number of gay people have, however, taken him to task. Gay Republican blogger Dennis Sanders said Hilton was “giving aid and comfort to the anti-gay side, because now Prejean will be seen a brave and devout woman standing her ground against the mean-spirited gays,” adding that “we need to be able to show some respect for people at times, even when they disagree with us.”
Such criticism was not limited to right-of-center gays. At the left-of-center blog Queerty, Japhy Grant offered an equally harsh assessment:
At the same time, beyond simple snobbery is the fact that images do matter and even from a short remove, this debate is a ludicrous one. Prejean’s certainly not the first person to state that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and Hilton’s decision to call her a “bitch” is ratings worthy, but I’m not terribly sure it does any good for the gay community.
Here in brief is the case against thoughtless, knee-jerk outrage: It’s incredibly easy to call anyone you dislike a homophobe and a bigot. Heck, we use the phrases fairly liberally ourselves from time to time, but when the conversation ends at “you are a bad person,” you’re only making yourself feel better and further solidifying the impression that the differences you have are intractable.
It may make Perez Hilton feel better to slur a woman with whom he disagrees on state recognition of same-sex marriage, but it does little to promote that cause. Indeed, it sets it back.
Gay marriage advocates can learn a lot from Carrie Prejean. She made her case simply and without acrimony. Perez Hilton, by contrast, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Unfortunately, for those of us who favor a serious debate on gay marriage, Perez Hilton is not a lone voice in the wilderness slamming those who favor the traditional definition of marriage. He has merely gained more attention for his barbs.
I still believe I did the right thing in voting against Proposition 8. But when my fellow opponents behave as did Mr. Hilton this month and as did the protesters last fall, I feel less comfortable being associated with such prominent opponents of the initiative.
If such rhetoric alienates a gay man with lesbian friends who have sought state recognition of their marriages, how will it impact those lacking a personal connection to the issue?
Perez Hilton may have gotten a lot of media attention for his antics, but his rhetoric is nothing new. It’s just another example of the coarsening of public discourse on controversial subjects. And the debate on gay marriage seems to have attracted a more vitriolic exchange than other subjects.
For those who favor a serious conversation about changing the definition of this social institution central to our culture, the prevalence of such vitriol only serves to deepen our disappointment with popular culture.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-perez-hilton-and-gang-hurt-gay-marriage-supporters/
[shrug] John Q. Public will get over it. Minorities of all kinds have tried hard for many many years to let the majority know that one or more people do not represent a whole group. Women have been fighting that fight for centuries - just because one group of women are XYZ doesn't mean all of us are - and the blacks who participated in the race riots in the 60's didn't represent all who were fighting for Civil Rights. Americans will learn to accept a group as a whole knowing that there are always some in the same group who may have a more offensive/aggressive stance/behavior.
Americans have learned this before with the African Americans, we're doing it now with women, we can do the same with gays.
-
I think what a lot of us are forgetting here with Miss CA....is the fact that she was forced to state her opinion on same sex marriage, if front of millions of people.
Most of us, have the opportunity to keep some of our opinions to ourselves. We can do that by steering clear of conversations about a subject. We can all sit here stating words like bigot and homophobic and racist and other derogative tags on others, when at the same time, we ourselves keep opinions, that if said out in the open, we too could be tagged with similar terms.
Are there no gays who are racist, are there not blacks who are homophobic, how many of us have laughed at a joke which is racist, are we all so bloody perfect ourselves.
Miss CA did not march in protests for Prop 8, she did not invoke anger or hatred, for all we know, she may not have even voted one way or the other.
She was an innocent victim of a sinister attempt to make a poliitical statement at a beauty pageant. Dont anyone tell me,that Perez Hilton had not researched her religious beliefs, and would have assumed the answer to the question, before he asked it.
Would he have asked a black girl about civil rights or racial discrimination?....whatever her answer, she would have upset some members of the community, somehow,somewhere, and the press would have had a field day with that.
All of us have opinions on a lot of things, but we can voice that opinion as we wish, where we wish, and if we wish... that girl did not have that same opportunity.
-
I think what a lot of us are forgetting here with Miss CA....is the fact that she was forced to state her opinion on same sex marriage, if front of millions of people.
No one made her get up on a stage and try to be Miss USA. The judges ask these kinds of questions. This is not unusual, not unexpected and gay marriage is a pertinent topic. Her PR people might have educated her a bit better, but perhaps she didn't want to be educated.
-
No one made her get up on a stage and try to be Miss USA. The judges ask these kinds of questions. This is not unusual, not unexpected and gay marriage is a pertinent topic. Her PR people might have educated her a bit better, but perhaps she didn't want to be educated.
What is it like to be so dam perfect?
-
With such words, he suggests he finds it offensive when someone civilly expresses an opinion different than his own.
Here in brief is the case against thoughtless, knee-jerk outrage: It’s incredibly easy to call anyone you dislike a homophobe and a bigot. Heck, we use the phrases fairly liberally ourselves from time to time, but when the conversation ends at “you are a bad person,” you’re only making yourself feel better and further solidifying the impression that the differences you have are intractable.
yep.
-
Pffft. Because Pajamas Media and the evangelical right CARE SO MUCH ABOUT GAYS.
-
No one made her get up on a stage and try to be Miss USA. The judges ask these kinds of questions. This is not unusual, not unexpected and gay marriage is a pertinent topic. Her PR people might have educated her a bit better, but perhaps she didn't want to be educated.
or perhaps she has enough character to not lie to get ahead...an unpopular concept I know.
she did NOT do anything wrong..period. She was asked her opinion and she gave it.
-
I think what a lot of us are forgetting here with Miss CA....is the fact that she was forced to state her opinion on same sex marriage, if front of millions of people.
that is correct, and Mr Lavandeira used this "poisoned pill" as an excuse to mark her score in that category down to zero, ensuring that Ms Prejean would not be Miss USA.
who put him up to it?
and what were their motivations?
-
OMG, a dozen pages of posts about that born-again bimbo? I'm off to bed, pronto! :laugh:
-
OMG, a dozen pages of posts about that born-again bimbo? I'm off to bed, pronto! :laugh:
kinda says it all doesn't it, Brokeplex?
-
kinda says it all doesn't it, Brokeplex?
or maybe it says very little?
-
or maybe it says very little?
I wonder if some in the gay community don't WANT to get past the homophobia...what would they blame for all their problems if they have no one to point to? I mean, right now they can blame their problems on the mean Christians that wont' let them get married (although as Brad points out, few HAVE partners to get married to...)
they continually shoot themselves in the foot....and then scream it is everyone elses fault...until they see the beam in their own eye, they'll never get that mote out of the Christians eyes..
and I am not talking about anyone here, I am talking about the protesters in California.
-
I wonder if some in the gay community don't WANT to get past the homophobia...what would they blame for all their problems if they have no one to point to? I mean, right now they can blame their problems on the mean Christians that wont' let them get married (although as Brad points out, few HAVE partners to get married to...)
they continually shoot themselves in the foot....and then scream it is everyone elses fault...until they see the beam in their own eye, they'll never get that mote out of the Christians eyes..
and I am not talking about anyone here, I am talking about the protesters in California.
interesting question, but I sincerely believe that by overwhelming margins, gays just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity with a minimal amount of interference from the government, churches, neighbors, community leaders or activists.
there is that so called SMOG vote / opinion that no one seems be able to get a handle on.
SMOG - silent majority of gays
-
interesting question, but I sincerely believe that by overwhelming margins, gays just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity with a minimal amount of interference from the government, churches, neighbors, community leaders or activists.
there is that so called SMOG vote / opinion that no one seems be able to get a handle on.
SMOG - silent majority of gays
that's what I said..SOME in the community...
-
I wonder if some in the gay community don't WANT to get past the homophobia...what would they blame for all their problems if they have no one to point to? I mean, right now they can blame their problems on the mean Christians that wont' let them get married (although as Brad points out, few HAVE partners to get married to...)
they continually shoot themselves in the foot....and then scream it is everyone elses fault...until they see the beam in their own eye, they'll never get that mote out of the Christians eyes..
and I am not talking about anyone here, I am talking about the protesters in California.
Well, as usual, I don't agree. In my opinion, even if not one single gay person actually wanted to get married, it's still wrong (again IMO) from a legal standpoint to discriminate based on sexual orientation...whether we're talking about marriage rights or any other. The right should be there, period. Take advantage of it (or not) at your own discretion.
This argument is analogous (again, and growing tiresome) to freeing the slaves during the Civil War Era. Do you think most slaves wanted to be free? Many/most could not conceive of any other way of life; most were illiterate. Who would take care of them? How would they earn a living? They knew no other life but one of slavery. A few had the imagination, and likely some education, to dream of a life of freedom, but that was a minority, I am confident.
So should we just have continued keeping other human beings as property? I think not. It was a long hard road for everyone, particularly the newly freed slaves, and we're not even finished with it yet because minorities only enjoy full civil rights in name only in many parts of this country.
Still, it was worth doing. Wasn't it? I think so.
-
Well, as usual, I don't agree. In my opinion, even if not one single gay person actually wanted to get married, it's still wrong (again IMO) from a legal standpoint to discriminate based on sexual orientation...whether we're talking about marriage rights or any other. The right should be there, period. Take advantage of it (or not) at your own discretion.
This argument is analogous (again, and growing tiresome) to freeing the slaves during the Civil War Era. Do you think most slaves wanted to be free? Many/most could not conceive of any other way of life; most were illiterate. Who would take care of them? How would they earn a living? They knew no other life but one of slavery. A few had the imagination, and likely some education, to dream of a life of freedom, but that was a minority, I am confident.
So should we just have continued keeping other human beings as property? I think not. It was a long hard road for everyone, particularly the newly freed slaves, and we're not even finished with it yet because minorities only enjoy full civil rights in name only in many parts of this country.
Still, it was worth doing. Wasn't it? I think so.
I reject the notion that Prop 8 is equal to oking slavery. Sorry. it is an invalid arguement to me.
-
Well, as usual, I don't agree. In my opinion, even if not one single gay person actually wanted to get married, it's still wrong (again IMO) from a legal standpoint to discriminate based on sexual orientation...whether we're talking about marriage rights or any other. The right should be there, period. Take advantage of it (or not) at your own discretion.
This argument is analogous (again, and growing tiresome) to freeing the slaves during the Civil War Era. Do you think most slaves wanted to be free? Many/most could not conceive of any other way of life; most were illiterate. Who would take care of them? How would they earn a living? They knew no other life but one of slavery. A few had the imagination, and likely some education, to dream of a life of freedom, but that was a minority, I am confident.
So should we just have continued keeping other human beings as property? I think not. It was a long hard road for everyone, particularly the newly freed slaves, and we're not even finished with it yet because minorities only enjoy full civil rights in name only in many parts of this country.
Still, it was worth doing. Wasn't it? I think so.
of course we agree on this!
same sex marriage is a matter of resolving Equal Protection (14th amendment) under the Constitution, and states rights (10th amendment) - how states chose to protect their own citizens.
I am confident that the process will continue to unfold and the same sex marriage will soon become an established reality in 15 to 20 of the states, and down the road that right will be extended into all 50 states.
-
Well, as usual, I don't agree. In my opinion, even if not one single gay person actually wanted to get married, it's still wrong (again IMO) from a legal standpoint to discriminate based on sexual orientation...whether we're talking about marriage rights or any other. The right should be there, period. Take advantage of it (or not) at your own discretion.
This argument is analogous (again, and growing tiresome) to freeing the slaves during the Civil War Era. Do you think most slaves wanted to be free? Many/most could not conceive of any other way of life; most were illiterate. Who would take care of them? How would they earn a living? They knew no other life but one of slavery. A few had the imagination, and likely some education, to dream of a life of freedom, but that was a minority, I am confident.
So should we just have continued keeping other human beings as property? I think not. It was a long hard road for everyone, particularly the newly freed slaves, and we're not even finished with it yet because minorities only enjoy full civil rights in name only in many parts of this country.
Still, it was worth doing. Wasn't it? I think so.
That same phenomena exists with prisoners who have been incarcerated for a great many years. They do not wish to be set free outside the prison system. They fear being cut loose into a world they no longer know or understand. They call this "institutionalized".
The slaves were institutionalized. Freedom always sounded like a wonderful thing... until it came. Most were FORCED off the plantations and into a world they did not understand. This was yet another sin in addition to the sin of slavery. The sin of institutionalism.
We've gone OT now and I apologize. I just had to throw that in. :)
-
I reject the notion that Prop 8 is equal to oking slavery. Sorry. it is an invalid arguement to me.
So some civil rights are more important than others? What is the hierarchy, exactly, then?
of course we agree on this!
same sex marriage is a matter of resolving Equal Protection (14th amendment) under the Constitution, and states rights (10th amendment) - how states chose to protect their own citizens.
I am confident that the process will continue to unfold and the same sex marriage will soon become an established reality in 15 to 20 of the states, and down the road that right will be extended into all 50 states.
Thanks, Bill. I do think we will see marriage equality in all 50 states in our lifetime....there seems to be momentum now that wasn't present even 5 or 10 years ago.
That same phenomena exists with prisoners who have been incarcerated for a great many years. They do not wish to be set free outside the prison system. They fear being cut loose into a world they no longer know or understand. They call this "institutionalized".
The slaves were institutionalized. Freedom always sounded like a wonderful thing... until it came. Most were FORCED off the plantations and into a world they did not understand. This was yet another sin in addition to the sin of slavery. The sin of institutionalism.
We've gone OT now and I apologize. I just had to throw that in. :)
You're very right, David, and the idea of the institutionalization of a people who are denied autonomy, is relevant here. I don't doubt that there are gay men and women who have lived as long as they have without certain 'rights' or societal expectations that they are to some degree also 'institutionalized.'
Consider that nobody blinks if you hold hands with your same-sex partner in San Francisco, but in Montgomery, AL you could be physically attacked. If you're from Montgomery (as an example), that fear exists within you - institutionalized, if you will - and it would take a long time living in SF before you were comfortable with a different standard of behavior.
-
Consider that nobody blinks if you hold hands with your same-sex partner in San Francisco, but in Montgomery, AL you could be physically attacked. If you're from Montgomery (as an example), that fear exists within you - institutionalized, if you will - and it would take a long time living in SF before you were comfortable with a different standard of behavior.
I tried to explain this to Melissa once. You remember Melissa don't you (Snuit)? She told me I should move to Holland where I would be free to express myself. Amsterdam is a city where gay people can freely hold hands, kiss and show their affection without fear of discrimination. I told her I doubt I could ever do that. She wondered why and I explained it is because I have -with the exception of 2 years in S. Florida - lived in Indiana my entire life. The very idea of holding hands with another guy in public smacks of (to me) the idea of running down the street just as naked as the day I was born. I just don't ever think I would be comfortable doing it. She didn't understand what I meant - I suppose because she lives in such a liberal country and I do not. Two guys around here do not even hug each other in the airport, even if they are straight.
People just DON'T DO IT!
Any of it.
-
I tried to explain this to Melissa once. You remember Melissa don't you (Snuit)? She told me I should move to Holland where I would be free to express myself. Amsterdam is a city where gay people can freely hold hands, kiss and show their affection without fear of discrimination. I told her I doubt I could ever do that. She wondered why and I explained it is because I have -with the exception of 2 years in S. Florida - lived in Indiana my entire life. The very idea of holding hands with another guy in public smacks of (to me) the idea of running down the street just as naked as the day I was born. I just don't ever think I would be comfortable doing it. She didn't understand what I meant - I suppose because she lives in such a liberal country and I do not. Two guys around here do not even hug each other in the airport, even if they are straight.
People just DON'T DO IT!
Any of it.
Sure, I remember Melissa! We're Facebook friends! (Are you on there, by the way? If not, you need to be!)
I understand what you're saying here and why I doubt she could fully appreciate it, but of course, I grew up in the South and have an good understanding of what is socially acceptable there and what is not and how hard it can be to defy the convention, particularly when your personal safety could well be at risk.
About the airport - I have some good news about a movement of sorts afoot, tho you may have read it in my blog....the details are hazy at the moment.
Truman (and someone? Paul, Chuck, Rich perhaps) were at an airport restaurant (Charlottesville?) and two of them had the audacity to hug and kiss goodbye, much to the shock of the local patronage.
Well, the next Don Wroe-like trip, I hear this story, and make a proclamation of sorts that from now on, I will kiss whoever picks me up at the airport in full public view and damn the torpedos, or whatever. I put it into practice that very weekend by laying one on Vicki when she got out of the car at the Arrivals terminal. I know there's a picture of that in my blog - a reenactment, actually, as I explained myself. ;)
My logic process, such that it is, is that if enough people become accustomed to seeing it, they'll get over it eventually. And I doubt an airport is someplace homophobic people would do damage because it would land them in trouble with Homeland Security.
-
Sure, I remember Melissa! We're Facebook friends! (Are you on there, by the way? If not, you need to be!)
I understand what you're saying here and why I doubt she could fully appreciate it, but of course, I grew up in the South and have an good understanding of what is socially acceptable there and what is not and how hard it can be to defy the convention, particularly when your personal safety could well be at risk.
About the airport - I have some good news about a movement of sorts afoot, tho you may have read it in my blog....the details are hazy at the moment.
Truman (and someone? Paul, Chuck, Rich perhaps) were at an airport restaurant (Charlottesville?) and two of them had the audacity to hug and kiss goodbye, much to the shock of the local patronage.
Well, the next Don Wroe-like trip, I hear this story, and make a proclamation of sorts that from now on, I will kiss whoever picks me up at the airport in full public view and damn the torpedos, or whatever. I put it into practice that very weekend by laying one on Vicki when she got out of the car at the Arrivals terminal. I know there's a picture of that in my blog - a reenactment, actually, as I explained myself. ;)
My logic process, such that it is, is that if enough people become accustomed to seeing it, they'll get over it eventually. And I doubt an airport is someplace homophobic people would do damage because it would land them in trouble with Homeland Security.
Yes, they will get over it... eventually. But several punches in the mouth hurts! Alex and I always waited to hug each other until we got into my car.
Oh I guess it's probably not THAT bad around here.... my Dad and my Uncle Bob hugged each other once at the Indianapolis airport... but they are brothers. The onlookers around them didn't know it.
I don't know Lynne. It's still rough around these parts. I wouldn't mind risking a hug from Truman, Chuck, Richard or Paul at the Indy airport. In fact I'd welcome it! :D
I'd welcome a hug from you too, although I doubt there would be any risk involved. But I'd love to do it anyway! ;)
-
Yes, they will get over it... eventually. But several punches in the mouth hurts! Alex and I always waited to hug each other until we got into my car.
Oh I guess it's probably not THAT bad around here.... my Dad and my Uncle Bob hugged each other once at the Indianapolis airport... but they are brothers. The onlookers around them didn't know it.
I don't know Lynne. It's still rough around these parts. I wouldn't mind risking a hug from Truman, Chuck, Richard or Paul at the Indy airport. In fact I'd welcome it! :D
I'd welcome a hug from you too, although I doubt there would be any risk involved. But I'd love to do it anyway! ;)
Same goes, Friend. Paul and I were both talking about you the other night (my birthday dinner) in the sense of 'Brokies we haven't met but want to!'. Your ears were probably burning!
If we can make the pow-wow in September, I think we should; I'm going to try to get on a strict schedule for visiting Mom every 4-6 weeks as my finances allow. If we can't do that, I think someone Midwestern (like say a Chicago resident?!) should arrange a small Brokie meet...there's enough to make that happen, for sure.
-
I wanna to the airport and get hugs from Lynn, David, Truman, Chuck, Richard and Paul. :D
Gary I swear, if you ever show up You'll be the FIRST to get a hug from me... a punch in the mouth be damned. :-*
-
I wanna to the airport and get hugs from Lynn, David, Truman, Chuck, Richard and Paul. :D
That could probably be arranged! :D
How would you feel about visiting Boston in the summertime?
-
Same goes, Friend. Paul and I were both talking about you the other night (my birthday dinner) in the sense of 'Brokies we haven't met but want to!'. Your ears were probably burning!
If we can make the pow-wow in September, I think we should; I'm going to try to get on a strict schedule for visiting Mom every 4-6 weeks as my finances allow. If we can't do that, I think someone Midwestern (like say a Chicago resident?!) should arrange a small Brokie meet...there's enough to make that happen, for sure.
Gawd. I have my own tipi in the garage collecting dust as we speak. Yes, let's work on it Lynne!
Hopkinsville is always a good place for a pow-wow! Let's see if we can manage to pull it off this year.
-
Gawd. I have my own tipi in the garage collecting dust as we speak. Yes, let's work on it Lynne!
Hopkinsville is always a good place for a pow-wow! Let's see if we can manage to pull it off this year.
Let's do. I'll drive down, see if I can pick up every Brokie I know between here and there, which would amount to 10 or more! ;)
I know we've discussed it before, but with our respective parental responsibilities, it's never materialized. Do you know dates yet? Or what website we can monitor to get the schedule when it's released?
-
I'd love to if I had the money, Lynn. But, alas, I'm a poor boy.
I appreciate the invitation, though. I really do. :)
Well, things and circumstances change. I feel like I spent most of last year un- or under-employed. The cool thing about you is that you're in Cali and it's completely doable to find Brokie things to do in your area, or more likely, the Bay Area.
Have you seen the event that John (BayCityJohn) is putting together? I'll have to look for the link - it's in Social Events. If you can, you should go. It's not that far, and I can guarantee you that you'll find the company absolutely fine.
-
Let's do. I'll drive down, see if I can pick up every Brokie I know between here and there, which would amount to 10 or more! ;)
I know we've discussed it before, but with our respective parental responsibilities, it's never materialized. Do you know dates yet? Or what website we can monitor to get the schedule when it's released?
Damn! Not yet. Here's what I've found so far....
http://www.trailoftears.org/ (http://www.trailoftears.org/)
I will keep you posted. Most likely it will be Labor Day weekend again, but I can't swear to it. :-\
-
She was an innocent victim of a sinister attempt to make a poliitical statement at a beauty pageant. Dont anyone tell me,that Perez Hilton had not researched her religious beliefs, and would have assumed the answer to the question, before he asked it.
Would he have asked a black girl about civil rights or racial discrimination?....whatever her answer, she would have upset some members of the community, somehow,somewhere, and the press would have had a field day with that.
All of us have opinions on a lot of things, but we can voice that opinion as we wish, where we wish, and if we wish... that girl did not have that same opportunity.
I get what you're saying Sue - but he couldn't have - she picked his name out of a bowl, and his question was pre-prepared. So he would have asked that question to anyone who picked his name. In that sense, she was unlucky.
I do think that after all those years of training though, she could have answered that question A LOT better! Diplomacy is key in the pagentry business.
She has the right to opinion of course, but c'mon the pagentry business, just like the modeling business is full of gay guys - if she's gonna swim in the sea & have that opinion (which doesn't correlate to me but anyway thats beside the point) she should IMO have found a more diplomatic way to say it as shes probably been saying the same thing to people in the pagentary world for a few years or at least practiced the speech in her head!
-
Garry.......maybe you should speak out more to people in the Prop 8 debate. You have a wonderful clear way of expressing your views.
I found your post so interesting and your views explained so well, that I read it throug several times.
Whether I agree with everything you wrote, or not, at least it made me sit back and digest what you had to say, and becasue of the clarity of your opinions it made me consider my own thoughts on some of the issues.
Thank you for such an informative post.
-
Great post Gary.
-
[...]
It is one thing to suggest to gay people that they should put their best foot forward, while understanding that given the diversity of the group in question, those best foots aren’t all going to look the same, and, once again, given the diversity of the group in question, not everyone is going to play the game so well, but it is quite another thing to tell gay people they should become sycophants like many successful politicians and beauty queens. You could call those who want to make such an effort the Sycophantic Sexual Minorities Party – SSMP. I don’t much care for this approach, so I won’t be signing up. I prefer people be themselves, even if they are unpopular. It’s been my experience that politicians and beauty queens may sometimes win their crowns, but a lot of people don’t seem to like many politicians and beauty queens. And I think that’s because they’re sycophants, i.e. phonies, and in time most can see them for the suck ups that they are.
What a great post Gary! It should be featured on the front page as post of the week/month or something. I love how you equate gays trying to get acceptance from (straight) society with beauty pageant contestants. As an out gay person I've often felt the burden of representing the "Gay Community". It leads to self-censorship, in both actions and words, which is basically just a different kind of closet.
As for Perez Hilton, I always thought he was an annoying twit, even back when he was a cute twink ;-). Because of his (inexplicable) celebrity status, a small part of me wishes he presented a more "acceptable" (ie: more manly?) image of gay people "to help the cause", but I realize that this comes from internalized homophobia. The same homophobia that made me cringe everytime the queenie one opened his mouth on Queer Eye. :-\ Few of us raised in a patriarchal Christian society are immune to that unfortunately.
-
As for Perez Hilton, I always thought he was an annoying twit, even back when he was a cute twink ;-). Because of his (inexplicable) celebrity status, a small part of me wishes he presented a more "acceptable" (ie: more manly?) image of gay people "to help the cause", but I realize that this comes from internalized homophobia. The same homophobia that made me cringe everytime the queenie one opened his mouth on Queer Eye. :-\ Few of us raised in a patriarchal Christian society are immune to that unfortunately.
wait, this is shocking - Mario was cute once? Do you have proof?
-
As for Perez Hilton, I always thought he was an annoying twit, even back when he was a cute twink ;-). Because of his (inexplicable) celebrity status, a small part of me wishes he presented a more "acceptable" (ie: more manly?) image of gay people "to help the cause", but I realize that this comes from internalized homophobia. The same homophobia that made me cringe everytime the queenie one opened his mouth on Queer Eye. :-\ Few of us raised in a patriarchal Christian society are immune to that unfortunately.
Are you sure that you're cringing because these guys are homosexuals?? Or are you cringing because they flamboyantly effeminate?? If its the former, then you might be right about internalized homophobia. If its the latter, then its simply a distaste for effeminacy.
Personally, when I see a homosexual character on TV or in the movies who is not effeminate, I actually feel uplifted. Its the effeminate characters that make me cringe.
-
To tell you the truth, I had never even heard of Perez Hilton before this thing with Miss. California popped up. Maybe I'm living in my own little world. :laugh:
You're not missing much.
He's kinda similar to the person with the name he took as his own (Paris Hilton), famous for nothing. He deals in gossip, and because of his catty comments that some people found funny, he became a celeb as well.
-
Are you sure that you're cringing because these guys are homosexuals?? Or are you cringing because they flamboyantly effeminate?? If its the former, then you might be right about internalized homophobia. If its the latter, then its simply a distaste for effeminacy.
Personally, when I see a homosexual character on TV or in the movies who is not effeminate, I actually feel uplifted. Its the effeminate characters that make me cringe.
Effeminate men are usually assumed to be homosexual until proven straight, so the way I see it , a distaste for effeminacy IS homophobia. It's all part of that patriarchal system where men have a higher social standing, So when a man is perceived to be acting like a woman, he is "debasing" himself and conversely, women who act like men are actually worthy of respect for attempting to elevate their status.
-
Effeminate men are usually assumed to be homosexual until proven straight, so the way I see it , a distaste for effeminacy IS homophobia. It's all part of that patriarchal system where men have a higher social standing, So when a man is perceived to be acting like a woman, he is "debasing" himself and conversely, women who act like men are actually worthy of respect for attempting to elevate their status.
But we know that in the real world there are heterosexual men who exhibit effeminacy. Effeminacy and homosexuality are not synonymous unless we're willing to accept that the stereotype is always true. Moreover, my experience has been that people who are truly not homophobic are comfortable with a masculine homosexual male, whereas an effeminate guy illicits a "cringe" factor.
I also have to say that women who are too masculine do lose some respect and cause some psychological friction among others. Just not nearly as much as effeminate men.
-
Miss California to Campaign Against Gay Marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/miss-california-carrie-pr_0_n_193503.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/miss-california-carrie-pr_0_n_193503.html)
NEW YORK - The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."
The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.
She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.
Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.
-
But we know that in the real world there are heterosexual men who exhibit effeminacy. Effeminacy and homosexuality are not synonymous unless we're willing to accept that the stereotype is always true. Moreover, my experience has been that people who are truly not homophobic are comfortable with a masculine homosexual male, whereas an effeminate guy illicits a "cringe" factor.
I also have to say that women who are too masculine do lose some respect and cause some psychological friction among others. Just not nearly as much as effeminate men.
I never said that effeminacy was synonymous with homosexuality. I also live in the real world (a very different one, evidently) but in my experience if a man shows effeminate traits he is at least suspected of being gay, because of the stereotypes. The so-called (straight) metrosexuals are usually suspect because of their attention to fashion and personal grooming. All the ones that I've known have mentioned that people often assume they are gay. Just because effeminate men come in all sexualities doesn't mean that the cringe factor they elicit in people isn't due to homophobia.
If not homophobia, how would you explain the aversion to effeminacy in men?
-
If not homophobia, how would you explain the aversion to effeminacy in men?
1. Effeminacy is synonymous with weakness. Some people here disagree with that, as I discovered a couple of months ago when the topic came up over at Modern Manhood. Nevertheless, several dictionaries include "weak," or "weakness" in their definition of effeminacy.
2. Any gender atypical behavior causes psychological friction. Even as children, other boys tell us things like "you throw like a girl," sometimes to poke fun, sometimes to correct the errant behavior. This identification of gender atypical behavior precedes any understanding of sexual orientation.
-
can you please bring your loud condemnations of femininity and effeminacy BACK to your blog? That has nothing to do with this topic about gay marriage and the Miss USA pageant at ALL.
-
can you please bring your loud condemnations of femininity and effeminacy BACK to your blog? That has nothing to do with this topic about gay marriage and the Miss USA pageant at ALL.
1. I didn't bring up effeminacy, oilgun did. So don't blame me for taking this thread off topic.
2. I have NEVER condemned femininity. Stop putting words in my mouth.
3. I can and will discuss my POV on effeminacy wherever the subject presents itself. It is not a topic to be discussed on Modern Manhood only.
Rx
-
Your "POV on effeminacy" is derailing this thread. We've had several very long and torturous debates about it and that isn't the subject of this tread. Everybody who has been here more than a week has gotten a full exposure to it already, please have some consideration for those who don't want to read it again in unrelated threads for the umpteenth time.
-
can you please bring your loud condemnations of femininity and effeminacy BACK to your blog? That has nothing to do with this topic about gay marriage and the Miss USA pageant at ALL.
he is responding to an ongoing conversation. that is very much in line with Bettermost policy as I understand it. I can call up a half dozen examples in no time if you would like?
-
But we know that in the real world there are heterosexual men who exhibit effeminacy. Effeminacy and homosexuality are not synonymous unless we're willing to accept that the stereotype is always true. Moreover, my experience has been that people who are truly not homophobic are comfortable with a masculine homosexual male, whereas an effeminate guy illicits a "cringe" factor.
I also have to say that women who are too masculine do lose some respect and cause some psychological friction among others. Just not nearly as much as effeminate men.
I agree. Men love a tomboy...as long as she isn't TOO much of a tomboy. Women are expected to maintain a certain level of femininity or they face harassment too.
-
Miss California to Campaign Against Gay Marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/miss-california-carrie-pr_0_n_193503.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/miss-california-carrie-pr_0_n_193503.html)
NEW YORK - The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."
The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.
She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.
Guess we know now that Miss CA did not "misspeak". She actually meant "country" when speaking about marriage only being between a man and a woman. Not just for herself, not just for her circle of friends and family. She means it for the entire country.
I wonder how she thinks she is going to "save it"? Is she going to work on the 50% divorce rate? Oops, probably not. She just wants to keep the gays out of the "sanctity" of it all. ::)
-
Guess we know now that Miss CA did not "misspeak". She actually meant "country" when speaking about marriage only being between a man and a woman. Not just for herself, not just for her circle of friends and family. She means it for the entire country.
I wonder how she thinks she is going to "save it"? Is she going to work on the 50% divorce rate? Oops, probably not. She just wants to keep the gays out of the "sanctity" of it all. ::)
maybe she's going to hold an umbrella to keep the gay rain off America in the "gathering storm."
-
Effeminacy and homosexuality are not synonymous unless we're willing to accept that the stereotype is always true.
Moreover, my experience has been that people who are truly not homophobic are comfortable with a masculine homosexual male, whereas an effeminate guy illicits a "cringe" factor.
I suspect that flamboyantly effeminate gay men are, like drag queens, anachronistic left overs. In a more homophobic past stereotyped gay men were routinely degraded and EXPECTED to assume a "female" rather than a "masculine" role in society. I find effeminacy just as offensive as I find drag queens tacky, and IMO they are both products of society's attempts at degradation and scorn.
-
1. I didn't bring up effeminacy, oilgun did. So don't blame me for taking this thread off topic.
2. I have NEVER condemned femininity. Stop putting words in my mouth.
3. I can and will discuss my POV on effeminacy wherever the subject presents itself. It is not a topic to be discussed on Modern Manhood only.
Rx
agreed
-
She actually meant "country" when speaking about marriage only being between a man and a woman. Not just for herself, not just for her circle of friends and family. She means it for the entire country.
no I do not know that your opinion is a fact, and I can't see how you would know it without making assumptions that are divorced from her ENTIRE STATEMENT THAT EVENING.
-
no I do not know that your opinion is a fact, and I can't see how you would know it without making assumptions that are divorced from her ENTIRE STATEMENT THAT EVENING.
maybe she watched the video in that link? Prejean was pretty blatant about her position as a celebrity spokesperson for National Organization for Marriage.
-
can you please bring your loud condemnations of femininity and effeminacy BACK to your blog? That has nothing to do with this topic about gay marriage and the Miss USA pageant at ALL.
I disagree, the discussion about effeminacy evolved organically from Gary's excellent post. And besides, how much more can be said about that Born-again-Bimbo-with-the- fake-boobs- that-the-Miss-California-organization-paid-for. Is that on topic enough for you, lol!
Nobody here is condemming feminity in women but society sure condemns feminity in men.
Milo: Effeminacy = weak = being like a woman often referred to by knuckle-draggers as the weaker sex. That's why it's called effeminacy.
Injest: Thanks for supporting my position by saying men love tomboys, lol! :-*
Ok I'm done in this thread, I don't want to be banned. I obviously missed the prior discussion on this subject, where was it?
-
no I do not know that your opinion is a fact, and I can't see how you would know it without making assumptions that are divorced from her ENTIRE STATEMENT THAT EVENING.
What Louise said. She's quoted in what she plans to do.
Sorry Bill but her belief that marriage is between a man and woman only in her "country" in her earlier statement is now pretty obviously a Freudian slip. She doesn't suddenly decide to go national in her beliefs, if they're just deep and personal beliefs for her and her little circle and she's "glad everyone else has choice". She's obviously not glad "everyone else has choice". That was obviously political talk while she was trying to win a crown. Competition's over. In fact she doesn't believe what she said, so much so, she's going to do her level best to end the choice for gay people. Just like Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic rants. These don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere.
You can keep giving her the benefit of the doubt if you wish, but just as Gary predicted in his post, sooner or later the leopard shows her spots.
-
Effeminate men are usually assumed to be homosexual until proven straight, so the way I see it , a distaste for effeminacy IS homophobia. It's all part of that patriarchal system where men have a higher social standing, So when a man is perceived to be acting like a woman, he is "debasing" himself and conversely, women who act like men are actually worthy of respect for attempting to elevate their status.
Yup. Well said.
-
Yup. Well said.
:-* :-* :-* ;)
-
There's actually a new term for it "effemiphobia" and yes it is considered synonymous with homophobia, as a way in which gays uncomfortable with their sexuality can tout their superior masculinity by oppressing other gays who they deem less masculine and therefore less worthy.
-
Unfortunately for gays, being intolerant of their civil rights is not yet politically incorrect. It's politically incorrect to be intolerant of blacks, since it's been 50 years since they got full civil rights enforced, but for gays it is still a battle. Hating gays and not wanting them to have full civil rights is the last acceptable bigotry in America.
I think it was Norman Mailer, who in the 1950's, commented on the growing civil rights movement for African Americans and foreseeing it's eventual successes, said something along the line of "homosexuals will be the last group, the last minority, against whom discrimination will still be acceptable." Certainly a prescient prediction.
-
There's actually a new term for it "effemiphobia" and yes it is considered synonymous with homophobia, as a way in which gays uncomfortable with their sexuality can tout their superior masculinity by oppressing other gays who they deem less masculine and therefore less worthy.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
woo boy...its always something isn't it? there aren't enough 'victim' groups already?
how about 'ruralphobe'?? for those that hate rural people...'christianphobe' for those that hate Christians...heck we could tack "Phobe" on anything and call it a new victim group..
-
I can't believe that people are defending religious homophobia on a BbM forum. :o
Mind boggling isn't it? Are some people incapable of differentiating between ones right to express one's belief's and opinions and the content of those belief's and opinions? Every ignorant bigot is free to express their ignorance and bigotry. The rest of us are free to point out said bigotry and ignorance. I heard someone say once "Stupid people are free to say stupid things. Smarter people are free to point that stupidity out." (and no, that isn't directed at anyone except Miss CA.)
-
There's actually a new term for it "effemiphobia" and yes it is considered synonymous with homophobia, as a way in which gays uncomfortable with their sexuality can tout their superior masculinity by oppressing other gays who they deem less masculine and therefore less worthy.
I think it stems from self loathing. There are Gay people, Gay men mostly I think, who just HATE that they are Gay and project their hate on to other Gay men whom they perceive as being less "Manly" than themselves.
-
What Louise said. She's quoted in what she plans to do.
Sorry Bill but her belief that marriage is between a man and woman only in her "country" in her earlier statement is now pretty obviously a Freudian slip. She doesn't suddenly decide to go national in her beliefs, if they're just deep and personal beliefs for her and her little circle and she's "glad everyone else has choice". She's obviously not glad "everyone else has choice". That was obviously political talk while she was trying to win a crown. Competition's over. In fact she doesn't believe what she said, so much so, she's going to do her level best to end the choice for gay people. Just like Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic rants. These don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere.
You can keep giving her the benefit of the doubt if you wish, but just as Gary predicted in his post, sooner or later the leopard shows her spots.
you can make all the assumptions you wish about "Freudian slips", and those are clever but not relevant to the topic of what Prejean actually said.
The only relevant point concerning her treatment by Lavandeira was -
1) did she make a bigoted comment that deserved a markdown on her score to ZERO by Lavandeira? and
2) did she make a comment that in civil discourse deserved the slanderous misogynistic comments that Lavandeira made afterward?
I happen to believe that Lavandeira was unfair to Ms Prejean, regardless of her private views, her memberships in Full Gospel Charismatic churches, her affiliation with Pro Family organization (read: pro hetero family organizations), and regardless of the fact that Lavandeira and I happen agree on same sex marriage.
Prejean was made a target and Lavandeira was given a pass for his crude remarks and abuse of power as a judge because Prejean is a conservative hetero female who vocally supported hetero marriage. Prejean's profile put her on the censorship / attack list by the PC left. And that type of censorship cheapens the entire society regardless of political belief or sexual identity.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
woo boy...its always something isn't it? there aren't enough 'victim' groups already?
how about 'ruralphobe'?? for those that hate rural people...'christianphobe' for those that hate Christians...heck we could tack "Phobe" on anything and call it a new victim group..
:laugh:
-
you can make all the assumptions you wish about "Freudian slips", and those are clever but not relevant to the topic of what Prejean actually said.
I think they are extremely relevant and the whole point of this discussion.
The only relevant point concerning her treatment by Lavandeira was -
1) did she make a bigoted comment that deserved a markdown on her score to ZERO by Lavandeira? and
I think you already know the answer to this. Being a bigot is not something anyone - those judges - wanted as a trait of a Miss "USA".
2) did she make a comment that in civil discourse deserved the slanderous misogynistic comments that Lavandeira made afterward?
In civil discourse? Sure, why not? She's a bigot. She was certainly proud to parade that around and even though she said it really really nicely. Some people are more interested in what someone says, not how they say it. So some people can get very angry at bigots and slander them afterwards.
I happen to believe that Lavandeira was unfair to Ms Prejean, regardless of her private views, her memberships in Full Gospel Charismatic churches, her affiliation with Pro Family organization (read: pro hetero family organizations), and regardless of the fact that Lavandeira and I happen agree on same sex marriage.
How so? As Gary said, Perez was the judge and thus in a position to judge - not Miss CA.
Prejean was made a target
She made herself a target. She was on that stage out of pure free will. The question was chosen at random.
If you believe in that sort of thing, it seems the Fates/God/universe conspired to "out" a bigot who was operating under the guise of a pretty, blonde, sweet, young Xtian pageant contestant.
and Lavandeira was given a pass for his crude remarks and abuse of power as a judge because Prejean is a conservative hetero female who vocally supported hetero marriage. Prejean's profile put her on the censorship / attack list by the PC left. And that type of censorship cheapens the entire society regardless of political belief or sexual identity.
I don't believe anyone has given Perez a pass. Most all of us here have expressed a disliking for him and others have criticized his harsh words and tone in his opinion on Miss CA.
I find it very disturbing that it is now considered by some "PC" to criticize a bigot.
I don't think it "PC". I think it should be a requirement to criticize any bigot who believes in taking civil rights away from another person.
-
Your "POV on effeminacy" is derailing this thread. We've had several very long and torturous debates about it and that isn't the subject of this tread. Everybody who has been here more than a week has gotten a full exposure to it already, please have some consideration for those who don't want to read it again in unrelated threads for the umpteenth time.
Again, I was not the progenitor of the discussion on masculinity/effeminacy on this occasion. I simply chimed in according to the manner consistent with my philosophy on the topic. If you are tired of discussing this subject, you have the freedom and ability to move on.
If you don't like the show, change the channel.
Rx
-
I think they are extremely relevant and the whole point of this discussion.
I think you already know the answer to this. Being a bigot is not something anyone - those judges - wanted as a trait of a Miss "USA".
In civil discourse? Sure, why not? She's a bigot. She was certainly proud to parade that around and even though she said it really really nicely. Some people are more interested in what someone says, not how they say it. So some people can get very angry at bigots and slander them afterwards.
How so? As Gary said, Perez was the judge and thus in a position to judge - not Miss CA.
She made herself a target. She was on that stage out of pure free will. The question was chosen at random.
If you believe in that sort of thing, it seems the Fates/God/universe conspired to "out" a bigot who was operating under the guise of a pretty, blonde, sweet, young Xtian pageant contestant.
I don't believe anyone has given Perez a pass. Most all of us here have expressed a disliking for him and others have criticized his harsh words and tone in his opinion on Miss CA.
I find it very disturbing that it is now considered by some "PC" to criticize a bigot.
I don't think it "PC". I think it should be a requirement to criticize any bigot who believes in taking civil rights away from another person.
Thank you! Every point you have made here is valid! The term PC is used by so called conservatives in attempt to silence debate by arrogantly dismissing another's points as invalid. Calling out bigotry is not Politically Correct it is simply Correct. Defending a bigots right to express their bigotry is also correct. Defending bigotry itself is not.
-
Miss California appears in anti-gay marriage ad
May 1, 2009, 11:27 am
Yahoo!7 Entertainment News
Latest stories and gossip
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - After failing to stop recent gay marriage approvals in several states, opponents have found an attractive, telegenic poster woman in Miss California, a move reminiscent of beauty queen Anita Bryant's 1970s crusade against gay rights.
Miss California, a Christian college student named Carrie Prejean, joined in a television ad campaign against gay marriage this week, upsetting homosexual rights advocates, including a head of the Miss California pageant.
In the commercial from the National Organization for Marriage, Prejean is shown at the Miss USA competition last month where she answered a question about same-sex marriage by saying she opposed it, drawing both boos and cheers and setting off a raucous debate.
After providing that answer, Prejean was named runner-up to Miss USA. She later said her view on marriage cost her the crown.
As gay marriage opponents have rallied around Miss California, they have also lost key battles in recent weeks.
On Wednesday, New Hampshire's Senate passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and if the governor signs it, the state could become the fifth to legalize gay weddings.
Last month, Iowa became the first Midwest state to allow gay marriage, and Vermont became the first to legalize it through legislative action.
Craig Rimmerman, co-editor of "The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage," said Prejean's rise to prominence comes as gay marriage opponents are on the defensive.
"The conservative right is wondering if same-sex marriage is as potent an issue politically as it was in the past," he said. "So for them to have a different spokeswoman who comes at this from a different background, they probably see this as a really positive development."
GIRL FROM VISTA
California is often characterized as a liberal state for politics in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but Prejean comes from a small town, Vista, in conservative San Diego County.
The 21-year-old is not a permanent spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage, but in recent weeks she has appeared on TV shows reaffirming her views on gay marriage, and on Thursday she joined the group to launch the TV ad.
"I think that Carrie's story is resonating incredibly," said Maggie Gallagher, the group's president. "Because she comes across as what she is, she's just a genuine, decent, honest person who stood up for truth and gave up the tiara."
In the 1970s, another beauty queen named Anita Bryant, a former Miss Oklahoma, became a voice against homosexuality after leading a campaign to repeal a Miami-area gay rights ordinance. She was famously quoted as saying, "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail-biters."
In contrast to Bryant's bluntness, Prejean has said she means "no offense," a phrase she used at the Miss USA pageant while answering a question from gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton by stating, "in my country and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."
Keith Lewis, the co-executive director of the Miss California pageant, said Prejean was attended to by gay beauty experts before the Miss USA contest, and that he always knew her to be friendly to gays like himself.
But Lewis said he was disappointed with her stance against same-sex weddings, and that while she keeps her crown as Miss California, she is speaking for herself on gay marriage.
(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/5536489/miss-california-appears-antigay-marriage-ad/
Now this puts a whole different slant on things.
-
Miss California appears in anti-gay marriage ad
May 1, 2009, 11:27 am
Yahoo!7 Entertainment News
Latest stories and gossip
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - After failing to stop recent gay marriage approvals in several states, opponents have found an attractive, telegenic poster woman in Miss California, a move reminiscent of beauty queen Anita Bryant's 1970s crusade against gay rights.
Miss California, a Christian college student named Carrie Prejean, joined in a television ad campaign against gay marriage this week, upsetting homosexual rights advocates, including a head of the Miss California pageant.
In the commercial from the National Organization for Marriage, Prejean is shown at the Miss USA competition last month where she answered a question about same-sex marriage by saying she opposed it, drawing both boos and cheers and setting off a raucous debate.
After providing that answer, Prejean was named runner-up to Miss USA. She later said her view on marriage cost her the crown.
As gay marriage opponents have rallied around Miss California, they have also lost key battles in recent weeks.
On Wednesday, New Hampshire's Senate passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and if the governor signs it, the state could become the fifth to legalize gay weddings.
Last month, Iowa became the first Midwest state to allow gay marriage, and Vermont became the first to legalize it through legislative action.
Craig Rimmerman, co-editor of "The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage," said Prejean's rise to prominence comes as gay marriage opponents are on the defensive.
"The conservative right is wondering if same-sex marriage is as potent an issue politically as it was in the past," he said. "So for them to have a different spokeswoman who comes at this from a different background, they probably see this as a really positive development."
GIRL FROM VISTA
California is often characterized as a liberal state for politics in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but Prejean comes from a small town, Vista, in conservative San Diego County.
The 21-year-old is not a permanent spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage, but in recent weeks she has appeared on TV shows reaffirming her views on gay marriage, and on Thursday she joined the group to launch the TV ad.
"I think that Carrie's story is resonating incredibly," said Maggie Gallagher, the group's president. "Because she comes across as what she is, she's just a genuine, decent, honest person who stood up for truth and gave up the tiara."
In the 1970s, another beauty queen named Anita Bryant, a former Miss Oklahoma, became a voice against homosexuality after leading a campaign to repeal a Miami-area gay rights ordinance. She was famously quoted as saying, "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail-biters."
In contrast to Bryant's bluntness, Prejean has said she means "no offense," a phrase she used at the Miss USA pageant while answering a question from gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton by stating, "in my country and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."
Keith Lewis, the co-executive director of the Miss California pageant, said Prejean was attended to by gay beauty experts before the Miss USA contest, and that he always knew her to be friendly to gays like himself.
But Lewis said he was disappointed with her stance against same-sex weddings, and that while she keeps her crown as Miss California, she is speaking for herself on gay marriage.
(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/5536489/miss-california-appears-antigay-marriage-ad/
Now this puts a whole different slant on things.
It is not surprising she would be used as a front/spokesperson for anti-gay hate groups. She is pretty and telegenic and uses polite and unoffensive language (to many) and so she can be used as a tool to try and con people. The comment in the article about how friendly she is to gay people reminds me of white people in the 50's and 60's who where also good law abiding church going folk who would say they had no problem with the "Negro's", and could and would be perfectly nice and civil to the black people in their communities, so long as they didn't get "uppity" and demand their full and equal rights. People like Miss. CA. are like that. They're fine with Gay people, so long as they know their place and are content to ride in the back of the bus.
-
It is not surprising she would be used as a front/spokesperson for anti-gay hate groups. She is pretty and telegenic and uses polite and unoffensive language (to many) and so she can be used as a tool to try and con people. The comment in the article about how friendly she is to gay people reminds me of white people in the 50's and 60's who where also good law abiding church going folk who would say they had no problem with the "Negro's", and could and would be perfectly nice and civil to the black people in their communities, so long as they didn't get "uppity" and demand their full and equal rights. People like Miss. CA. are like that. They're fine with Gay people, so long as they know their place and are content to ride in the back of the bus.
Very well put, and excellent comparisons made between her and the civil rights issues.
I have been constant in my posts here, that I thought she did not deserve to be called a bigot. On the facade of the beauty pageant and the sudden question given to her, plus the fact that I believed that she was set up by that bloke who asked her the question, I preferred to look at it, as an honest answer from her about HER opinion on gay marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. I did not agree with her opinion, but I preferred to accept that it was her opinion and she was forced to make a statement about it to millions of people.
But now this, she is authorising and is pleased about the fact that her statement is now being used in the media to promote voters to vote for Prop 8.
Now in my opinion she has crossed the line, and I now do accept that she is a bigot.
I hope that the many people who did feel sorry for her put in that position at the Beauty pageant, that they now realize she is going to use her notoriety to attract homophobic votes. I am bloody disgusted with her, absolutely disgusted, and can only hope that her five minutes of fame is just that, ONLY A MERE FIVE MINUTES.
I can also only hope that voters will give her the credibility that she deserves, that is of a pretty faced bimbo who is trying to make a quick buck out of other peoples sorrow, and their rights to what they deserve.
-
actually, Sue, I blame Perez and his supporters. If he had not thrown his hysterical rant and made her a sympathetic character, she would be a footnote, a joke (as was the last beauty show contestant that flubbed a question)
He handed (as I knew he was) the anti gay crowd a ready made poster girl. A beautiful young Christian woman who was true to her beliefs, attacked and vilified by the PC police.
Did you really NOT see this coming? seriously??
Perez made her with his self righteous, self indulgent rantings....now the REST of the gay community have to deal with the consequences.
-
actually, Sue, I blame Perez and his supporters. If he had not thrown his hysterical rant and made her a sympathetic character, she would be a footnote, a joke (as was the last beauty show contestant that flubbed a question)
He handed (as I knew he was) the anti gay crowd a ready made poster girl. A beautiful young Christian woman who was true to her beliefs, attacked and vilified by the PC police.
Did you really NOT see this coming? seriously??
Perez made her with his self righteous, self indulgent rantings....now the REST of the gay community have to deal with the consequences.
Oh, I do not like him at all. Not that I have seen much of him, actually, the only think I have ever read of him, is about this issue. I dont like how he set her up, and I believe because of his egotistical moment of grandeur he has done a lot of harm to the cause of the gay community.
As for little Miss "get a quick buck, cause no one will even know who I am in six months time", well, Ive said what I think of her now.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
woo boy...its always something isn't it? there aren't enough 'victim' groups already?
how about 'ruralphobe'?? for those that hate rural people...'christianphobe' for those that hate Christians...heck we could tack "Phobe" on anything and call it a new victim group..
Anyway, it's not surprising that the abuse that effeminate men have to live with would be trivialised and a source of amusement, it's just disappointing to see it on this site.
Oh, and it's not Ruralphobe it's Hickaphobe, lol!
-
actually, Sue, I blame Perez and his supporters. If he had not thrown his hysterical rant and made her a sympathetic character, she would be a footnote, a joke (as was the last beauty show contestant that flubbed a question)
He handed (as I knew he was) the anti gay crowd a ready made poster girl. A beautiful young Christian woman who was true to her beliefs, attacked and vilified by the PC police.
Did you really NOT see this coming? seriously??
Perez made her with his self righteous, self indulgent rantings....now the REST of the gay community have to deal with the consequences.
Perhaps, but it could also be seen as "blaming the victim". Miss CA is not the victim here. Perez and other gay people are. Perez got really really mad about her answer and - being who and what he is - when asked about it - after the contest - was also "honest" in his opinion of her.
And now the person who railed against bigots who want to take away his civil rights is being vilified and the other - the pretty bigot - is made a martyr and/or hero of her bigoted cause.
Miss CA has had her 5 minutes. She will probably have another 15 minutes of fame. But she will fade. And deservedly so.
-
It is not surprising she would be used as a front/spokesperson for anti-gay hate groups. She is pretty and telegenic and uses polite and unoffensive language (to many) and so she can be used as a tool to try and con people. The comment in the article about how friendly she is to gay people reminds me of white people in the 50's and 60's who where also good law abiding church going folk who would say they had no problem with the "Negro's", and could and would be perfectly nice and civil to the black people in their communities, so long as they didn't get "uppity" and demand their full and equal rights. People like Miss. CA. are like that. They're fine with Gay people, so long as they know their place and are content to ride in the back of the bus.
Exactly. I keep waiting for her to come out and say "But some of my best friends are gay!" ::)
-
Perhaps, but it could also be seen as "blaming the victim". Miss CA is not the victim here. Perez and other gay people are. Perez got really really mad about her answer and - being who and what he is - when asked about it - after the contest - was also "honest" in his opinion of her.
And now the person who railed against bigots who want to take away his civil rights is being vilified and the other - the pretty bigot - is made a martyr and/or hero of her bigoted cause.
Miss CA has had her 5 minutes. She will probably have another 15 minutes of fame. But she will fade. And deservedly so.
well I doubt that...cause it seems people never learn. This continual screaming that everyone everywhere is a bigot (cause we ALL have opinions) makes people roll their eyes. It is creating a backlash. If EVERYTHING is 'bigoted' then nothing is...
we all need to re read "The Little Boy that Cried Wolf". there are some real truths in some of those little fables we heard as a child.
and I refuse to accept poor lil Perez as a victim HE chose the question...if he was so incredibly sensitive about it then he shouldn't have asked. He can not be so naive as to think there was not a possibility that someone might gently disagree with him.
this is Perez Hilton, people.. if you dont' know him, then google him. He is not a fragile flower, he makes a living skewering people.
having an opinion that gay marriage is not a good thing does NOT make you a bigot. It just means you have a different view of things. If she advocated castration or segregation...THEN I would agree with you.
Perez gave our enemies a fresh new weapon. Call it 'blaming the victim" I call it "calling an idiot an idiot."
-
and I refuse to accept poor lil Perez as a victim HE chose the question...if he was so incredibly sensitive about it then he shouldn't have asked. He can not be so naive as to think there was not a possibility that someone might gently disagree with him.
Just to state for the record, I hate Perez Hilton, he's nothing but a talentless gossip monger.
However, according to pagent procedure, twelve questions are submitted prior to the pageant, and six are then chosen to be randomly drawn from a hat and asked to the top 5 contestants.
Hilton did not make up that question, it was submitted beforehand, and picked randomly.
The information was found on the Fox news site.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517281,00.html
-
Just to state for the record, I hate Perez Hilton, he's nothing but a talentless gossip monger.
However, according to pagent procedure, twelve questions are submitted prior to the pageant, and six are then chosen to be randomly drawn from a hat and asked to the top 5 contestants.
Hilton did not make up that question, it was submitted beforehand, and picked randomly.
The information was found on the Fox news site.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517281,00.html
Good, if it's on Fox then the cons might believe it. ;)
-
Yup, as I said earlier in the thread - she was just unlucky that she chose that one out of the big fishbowl!
-
I'm sorry, but I don't remember: Who actually started making the fuss that her views on gay marriage cost her the crown? Was it the contestant herself? Was it that anti-gay marriage group? Was it the media? Was it Perez Hilton just mouthing off for the publicity he could gain from it himself? Or did he mouth off in response to a question from other media types?
Since I don't remember I'm asking because I think Jess may have made a valid point: If Perez Hilton had kept his trap shut, perhaps Carrie Prejean wouldn't now be a poster girl for the forces of bigotry. :-\
-
Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED
Looks like Mario knows what he's talking about. If it isn't the hate-mongering, it's the chicken cutlets!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html)
Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.
In an interview on "The Early Show," Keith Lewis, the co-Director of the Miss California Pageant, admitted to helping Prejean get the boob job.
"We assisted when Carrie came to us and voiced the interest in having the procedure done," Lewis told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez.
"We want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage."
Full transcript is below:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ, CO-ANCHOR: A question we're going to put to Keith Lewis, the co-director of the Miss California organization, who joins us this morning from Los Angeles. Good morning to you, Mr. Lewis.
KEITH LEWIS, CO-DIRECTOR, MISS CALIFORNIA PAGEANT: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: First of all, can you settle this once and for all? Did you pay for or help pay for Miss California's breast implants?
LEWIS: We assisted when Carrie came to us and voiced the interest in having the procedure done, yes.
RODRIGUEZ: Why?
LEWIS: Well, you know, first off, it's not something that we endorse, nor is it something that we suggest. But when we meet with the titleholder when she's crowned Miss California, we put to her a litany of questions about how she feels about herself, what she feels she needs to work on, what she may need to change, what is good, what is not good. We want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage.
RODRIGUEZ: Why is the best possible confidence involve getting breast implants? Why does that improve her odds of winning? Why in that meeting don't you discourage her from going that route, rather than help her to pay for breast implants?
LEWIS: Well, we would never encourage her to go that route, but...
RODRIGUEZ: But why not discourage her?
LEWIS: ... it's a personal choice. Well, I think that it's about how a woman feels about herself. In terms of, for me, it's not a personal choice that I would recommend. But at the same time, I know so many women that have done the procedure and feel better about themselves and the way they present themselves.
And I think that's the question is, whether or not, when you're looking at that procedure as an option, am I going to feel better about myself? It's not about one night. It isn't about one night of competition. And doing a procedure like that for one night of competition would be foolish. But...
RODRIGUEZ: But don't the judges look at proportion when they're judging the swimsuits? Wouldn't she have a better chance of winning if she were more proportioned?
LEWIS: Well, of course she does. But there's plenty of ways of getting to more proportion without doing breast implants.
RODRIGUEZ: Well, but if...
LEWIS: Many of the girls use chicken cutlets.
RODRIGUEZ: ... if you have a flat chest, what are you supposed to do?
LEWIS: You use chicken cutlets. You use tape. You use anything that you can to enhance the line. There's lots of tricks of the trade.
It's just a matter of whether or not you want to go to that next level.
RODRIGUEZ: I wonder if you should change the rules and maybe not judge it so much on proportion.
LEWIS: Well, it's a beauty pageant, and the swimsuit competition is part of that beauty pageant. So, I agree with you, I think that we have to look at the way that we perceive real women and whether that needs to be changed in the media.
But you see it in television. You see it in advertising. It may be part of this pageantry, as well. But I think it's prevailing to everywhere, not just in one area.
RODRIGUEZ: It is, and that is unfortunate. Keith Lewis, thanks for your time.
LEWIS: You're so welcome.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't remember: Who actually started making the fuss that her views on gay marriage cost her the crown? Was it the contestant herself? Was it that anti-gay marriage group? Was it the media? Was it Perez Hilton just mouthing off for the publicity he could gain from it himself? Or did he mouth off in response to a question from other media types?
Since I don't remember I'm asking because I think Jess may have made a valid point: If Perez Hilton had kept his trap shut, perhaps Carrie Prejean wouldn't now be a poster girl for the forces of bigotry. :-\
I'm starting to have more respect for Perez Hilton just because everyone is so down on him because of this situation.
The first post quotes him as saying this, which sure doesn't seem controversial to me:
"The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. "Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA."
I'm still incredulous that a revolting Beauty Pageant, an embarrassment at the best of times, should garner such attention.
-
Chicken cutlets? ???
:P
-
Perez H. asked the question the contestant chose randomly, right? He did not formulate the question on the spot to trick her into airing her beliefs, right? At least, that is my understanding.
As I see it, the problem is not that she was asked to express her views on gay marriage. She gave an answer that I and many others disagree with. Fine.
The problem is Perez Hilton.
He could have withheld from calling her "a dumb bitch" in an interview and posting nastigrams about her on his vlog. He was undoubtedly (& unfortunately) perceived by some, as the face of 'gay activism' in this case. His juvenile attitude turned what could've been a passing comment into much more. The reaction - Miss Cali becomes a 'martyr to her beliefs' and the new Anita Bryant for the 'anti-gay marriage movement'. He should've known better.
As for Miss California, she has been quoted as saying:
"... I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518574,00.html)
Dang. How touching.
-
As for Miss California, she has been quoted as saying:
"... I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518574,00.html)
Dang. How touching.
Wow. She must be a graduate of the Sarah Palin School of Public Speaking.
-
Chicken cutlets? ???
:P
I'm trying to figure out if they are the frozen ones and if they are... do they unfreeze them before the pageant event and do they get reused? Also, "cooked or uncooked"?
-
Also, "cooked or uncooked"?
My guess would be raw. :P
-
It is not surprising she would be used as a front/spokesperson for anti-gay hate groups. She is pretty and telegenic and uses polite and unoffensive language (to many) and so she can be used as a tool to try and con people. The comment in the article about how friendly she is to gay people reminds me of white people in the 50's and 60's who where also good law abiding church going folk who would say they had no problem with the "Negro's", and could and would be perfectly nice and civil to the black people in their communities, so long as they didn't get "uppity" and demand their full and equal rights. People like Miss. CA. are like that. They're fine with Gay people, so long as they know their place and are content to ride in the back of the bus.
what is not a surprise is that now Ms Prejean has been made into a spokesperson for hetero only marriage.
and who created her status and usefulness as a spokeperson? - why of course it was the idiot blogger Lavandeira, and his vicious misogynist attacks on her.
curious how the far right Bible thumpers and the idiot left in the gay community feed off each other, one can't fundraise without the other. a kind of sick symbiosis.
but as long as there are deluded people on the left who will reflexively applaud cretins like Lavandeira and angry Bible thumpers on the right who focus their hate on gay people, this silly drama will go on and on.
-
and who created her status and usefulness as a spokeperson? - why of course it was the idiot blogger Lavandeira, and his vicious misogynist attacks on her
I'm inclined to think she did that herself. Her answer was the shocking part, not Perez's attack on her afterwards. The fact that she was booed - and then the fact that she was also cheered for admitting her bigotry and being proud of it.
What you see now happening are the bigoted crowd jumping on a person who "thinks like them" but is also beautiful, polite and with a nice Christian upbringing.
Usually the anti-gay crowds are fronted by crabbed men and clownlike Tammy Faye impersonators from TVangelist world. Miss CA is much prettier and as we can all tell, many people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to such a person - no matter what she is saying. I'm not sure why that is. Are people still equating beauty with 'goodness'?
-
and the band plays on...
-
Just came to the conclusion.......
I dont like him, I dont like her, I dont like beauty pageants, I dont like bigots, I dont like homophobes......and I dont like wasting my time on things I dont like.........
adios to this thread.
-
Just came to the conclusion.......
I dont like him, I dont like her, I dont like beauty pageants, I dont like bigots, I dont like homophobes......and I dont like wasting my time on things I dont like.........
adios to this thread.
:laugh: :laugh:
-
what is not a surprise is that now Ms Prejean has been made into a spokesperson for hetero only marriage.
and who created her status and usefulness as a spokeperson? - why of course it was the idiot blogger Lavandeira, and his vicious misogynist attacks on her.
curious how the far right Bible thumpers and the idiot left in the gay community feed off each other, one can't fundraise without the other. a kind of sick symbiosis.
but as long as there are deluded people on the left who will reflexively applaud cretins like Lavandeira and angry Bible thumpers on the right who focus their hate on gay people, this silly drama will go on and on.
Who is applauding Perez Hilton? No one on this thread that's for sure. In fact everyone made sre to specify that they disliked the sycophant.
Anyway, BP, you forgot to add : As long as there are loony right-wngers who reflexively defend anyone liberals don't like...
-
I'm confused here, but I'm old, and old people confuse easily.
Perez Hilton's outburst was NOT caused by the answer that Ms. Prejean gave to that randomly selected question, but Ms. Prejean becoming a save-marriage spokesperson WAS caused by Perez Hilton's outburst?
I thought it was a basic conservative and liberal tenet that we are EACH responsible for our OWN actions.
Why are some people sometimes responsible for other people's actions and sometimes not?
-
I'm confused here, but I'm old, and old people confuse easily.
Perez Hilton's outburst was NOT caused by the answer that Ms. Prejean gave to that randomly selected question, but Ms. Prejean becoming a save-marriage spokesperson WAS caused by Perez Hilton's outburst?
I thought it was a basic conservative and liberal tenet that we are EACH responsible for our OWN actions.
Why are some people sometimes responsible for other people's actions and sometimes not?
ok, I'll try to explain it the way I see it. Ms Prejean was in a contest where she was asked a question. She did not have an option to not answer the question, it was just one part of the contest...she knew this going in and agreed to it. Mr. Lavandeira asked her a question that he had a personal interest in. She answered it to the best of her ability and according to her own beliefs. HE chose to dock her for her answer and she lost the contest.
the situation should have ended there. Within the context of the contest. She answered, he disapproved and punished her.
It was not enough for Mr. Lavandeira however....he had to attempt to destroy her. He ranted, he raved, he made appearances denouncing her, he made videos and posted them online.
She has a right to be angry.
Her answer was part of a contest (part of her 'job' if you will) and NOT an attempt to personally destroy or impune Mr. Lavandeira.
HE on the other hand made it very personal...he attacked HER.
-
Didn't they both choose their own course of action?
I don't understand blaming Perez Hilton for Prejean's actions and not holding Prejean responsible for Hilton's actions.
Did either force the other to make their responses?
Didn't both have cause to be angry?
Either both of these people are each responsible for their own actions or neither is.
-
Shouldn't judges be impartial? I don't think Perez Hilton was. I blame the pageant officials.
-
Shouldn't judges be impartial? I don't think Perez Hilton was. I blame the pageant officials.
Impartial to what? The Miss USA contest is looking for someone to represent the USA (and their sponsors) and go on to compete in Miss Universe, representing the USA. They have standards by which they judge each contestant to be worthy of this. Perhaps bigotry isn't high on their list of traits they want in a Miss USA and they - being the judges with the support of their sponsors - are the ones who decide what they want. That is their perogative. A beauty pageant isn't a democracy.
-
Impartial to what? The Miss USA contest is looking for someone to represent the USA (and their sponsors) and go on to compete in Miss Universe, representing the USA. They have standards by which they judge each contestant to be worthy of this. Perhaps bigotry isn't high on their list of traits they want in a Miss USA and they - being the judges with the support of their sponsors - are the ones who decide what they want. That is their perogative. A beauty pageant isn't a democracy.
But for a pageant judge to say that a contestant lost because she's a dumb bitch? That isn't a good judge, IMO. Pageant officials should at least pick a judge who has a little discretion---one who can keep his/her mouth shut.
-
Didn't they both choose their own course of action?
I don't understand blaming Perez Hilton for Prejean's actions and not holding Prejean responsible for Hilton's actions.
Did either force the other to make their responses?
Didn't both have cause to be angry?
Either both of these people are each responsible for their own actions or neither is.
no, I dont' think so...as I pointed out, Ms Prejean did not attack Mr Lavandeira.
HE however DID attack her.
entirely different situation...and context is everything.
-
But for a pageant judge to say that a contestant lost because she's a dumb bitch?
:laugh: I don't think that's the total reason that Perez believes she lost. Otherwise, how many other contestants in a beauty pageant might fit that description? :laugh:
That isn't a good judge, IMO. Pageant officials should at least pick a judge who has a little discretion---one who can keep his/her mouth shut.[/b][/color]
We have yet to figure out how he became a judge in the first place, but remember, he didn't make his comments until after the contest was over. He was quiet about it until then. How much discretion do you want?
-
Impartial to what? The Miss USA contest is looking for someone to represent the USA (and their sponsors) and go on to compete in Miss Universe, representing the USA. They have standards by which they judge each contestant to be worthy of this. Perhaps bigotry isn't high on their list of traits they want in a Miss USA and they - being the judges with the support of their sponsors - are the ones who decide what they want. That is their perogative. A beauty pageant isn't a democracy.
no one is saying she should have been awarded the crown.
but I am saying she should not have been attacked as she was.
-
no one is saying she should have been awarded the crown.
but I am saying she should not have been attacked as she was.
Some people get very angry at bigots. You can't keep people from being angry and lashing out at them verbally.
-
Impartial to what? The Miss USA contest is looking for someone to represent the USA (and their sponsors) and go on to compete in Miss Universe, representing the USA. They have standards by which they judge each contestant to be worthy of this. Perhaps bigotry isn't high on their list of traits they want in a Miss USA and they - being the judges with the support of their sponsors - are the ones who decide what they want. That is their perogative. A beauty pageant isn't a democracy.
I think at least as large an issue is that the Miss California pageant funded her new chicken cutlets to "enhance" her chances in the Miss USA contest.
-
I think at least as large an issue is that the Miss California pageant funded her new chicken cutlets to "enhance" her chances in the Miss USA contest.
That was an interesting factoid. Reminds me of the upper-scale topless joints who make this offer to their top dancers...
-
no, I dont' think so...as I pointed out, Ms Prejean did not attack Mr Lavandeira.
HE however DID attack her.
entirely different situation...and context is everything.
I consider someone trying to deny me rights an attack.
Being pleasant and cheerful about it seems to me just that much more cavalier and cold blooded. If I'm stabbed in the back, it doesn't make it any more pleasant if it's done with a smile. In some ways it makes it that much more heinous.
-
I consider someone trying to deny me rights an attack.
Being pleasant and cheerful about it seems to me just that much more cavalier and cold blooded. If I'm stabbed in the back, it doesn't make it any more pleasant if it's done with a smile. In some ways it makes it that much more heinous.
Agree.
-
Some people get very angry at bigots. You can't keep people from being angry and lashing out at them verbally.
nope and there is nothing you can do about the people wanting to respond back to that...
and around we go....
-
nope and there is nothing you can do about the people wanting to respond back to that...
and around we go....
Yep. Very few bigots want to give up their beliefs and understand what they're actually saying, especially if that bigotry is based in the religion they were raised with. So while IMO they're trying to defend an untenable position, they will still try to do it and, I guess, hope that other people will be hesitant to criticize believing that someone's religious belief is some sort of sacred cow no one should criticize.
-
Yep. Very few bigots want to give up their beliefs and understand what they're actually saying, especially if that bigotry is based in the religion they were raised with. So while IMO they're trying to defend an untenable position, they will still try to do it and, I guess, hope that other people will be hesitant to criticize believing that someone's religious belief is some sort of sacred cow no one should criticize.
yep. very few bigots want to give up their beliefs and understand what they're actually saying, especially if that bigotry is based on the victimhood they have been taught all their lifes. So while IMO they're trying to defend an untenable position, they will still try to do it and, I guess, hope that other people will be hesitant to criticize believing that someone's political correct worldview is some sort of sacred cow no one should criticize
-
yep. very few bigots want to give up their beliefs and understand what they're actually saying, especially if that bigotry is based on the victimhood they have been taught all their lifes. So while IMO they're trying to defend an untenable position, they will still try to do it and, I guess, hope that other people will be hesitant to criticize believing that someone's political correct worldview is some sort of sacred cow no one should criticize
Religion is a powerful thing. Questioning it in the past brought with it severe penalties including ostracism and death. Many today accept what their religion preaches without questioning it. After all, it's supposed to be coming from God.
I'm not sure if I would ever have questioned religion if I hadn't heard powerful people in the church saying things about me that I knew were not true. It made me start wondering how much of what else they were saying wasn't true either.
-
Religion is a powerful thing. Questioning it in the past brought with it severe penalties including ostracism and death. Many today accept what their religion preaches without questioning it. After all, it's supposed to be coming from God.
I'm not sure if I would ever have questioned religion if I hadn't heard powerful people in the church saying things about me that I knew were not true. It made me start wondering how much of what else they were saying wasn't true either.
well if you want to talk religion I think we would need to start a new thread.. but remember people are fallible. Just because someone claims to be a man of God doesnt mean he has all the answers. We were given brains to reason out things for ourselves.
-
I consider someone trying to deny me rights an attack.
Being pleasant and cheerful about it seems to me just that much more cavalier and cold blooded. If I'm stabbed in the back, it doesn't make it any more pleasant if it's done with a smile. In some ways it makes it that much more heinous.
there is also the problem that the Miss California Pageant is now tainted with the extremely controversial and right-wing anti-gay-marriage group.
-
So, do you suggest that every contestant has to have the exact same opinion on all subjects? I guess they could go through a vetting process. Then they could be even more cookie cutter cute than they already are.
-
So, do you suggest that every contestant has to have the exact same opinion on all subjects? I guess they could go through a vetting process. Then they could be even more cookie cutter cute than they already are.
me? I have nothing to do with the standards of the pageant people and the contracts they make with their contestants. Becoming an extremist spokesperson, however, may possibly be on their "don't's list". Beauty queens have been stripped of their crowns before for unseemly behavior of many kinds.
Here's a list drawn up by Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/1002887/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1002887/)
-
me? I have nothing to do with the standards of the pageant people and the contracts they make with their contestants. Becoming an extremist spokesperson, however, may possibly be on their "don't's list". Beauty queens have been stripped of their crowns before for unseemly behavior of many kinds.
well considering that the majority of California voters chose to go with HER view, I am not sure how you can call HER the extremist...
or is that in the "Rules for Radicals"??
wait..no, that was in "1984"; call black white and demand everyone agree...the majority by definition can not be the extremists...
-
well considering that the majority of California voters chose to go with HER view, I am not sure how you can call HER the extremist...
or is that in the "Rules for Radicals"??
wait..no, that was in "1984"; call black white and demand everyone agree...the majority by definition can not be the extremists...
Well, she is in the extreme along with majority of the voting population in California because - as was the South during the Civil War and possibly up to the recent times as well - that they believe some people don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else.
People who believe that are in the extreme as far as American/Western thinking is concerned. After all, people who don't believe women deserve civil rights, who still believe in slavery, are certainly thought of as extreme in their thinking throughout much of the Western world.
So you could say - as in another George Orwell story Animal Farm - that they believe some people are "more equal than others".
So, do you suggest that every contestant has to have the exact same opinion on all subjects? I guess they could go through a vetting process. Then they could be even more cookie cutter cute than they already are.
That's up to the sponsors, isn't it? They want what they want - they're not running a democracy. If they want to run a screening process on whether the Miss USA contestants actually uphold American values such as equality for all, I don't see why not.
-
yep. very few bigots want to give up their beliefs and understand what they're actually saying, especially if that bigotry is based on the victimhood they have been taught all their lifes.
Because of course, they've never been victimized before, right?
So while IMO they're trying to defend an untenable position, they will still try to do it and, I guess, hope that other people will be hesitant to criticize believing that someone's political correct worldview is some sort of sacred cow no one should criticize
Interesting that you consider equal rights for gays to be a 'politically correct worldview', Jess. You and Bill may consider bigotry against gays to be something only the PC correct crowd protests against, but I don't.
-
Interesting that you consider equal rights for gays to be a 'politically correct worldview', Jess. You and Bill may consider bigotry against gays to be something only the PC correct crowd protests against, but I don't.
Well it is indeed a PC crowd value. That doesn't mean that they are exclusive in this regard. There are other groups that feel this way too. Quakers for example. Even parts of denominations like Episcopalians, United Methodists, and Presbyterians are embracing the concept of equal rights for sexual minorities.
And that's a good thing, because the more this is about an imbalance in civil rights, the more solidly our efforts can move forward.
-
Because of course, they've never been victimized before, right?
Interesting that you consider equal rights for gays to be a 'politically correct worldview', Jess. You and Bill may consider bigotry against gays to be something only the PC correct crowd protests against, but I don't.
I dont think that everyone (including some gay people) that think that a marriage like straights have are the be all and end all of existence to be bigots...believe it or not there are other issues that some gay people are interested in. and not all gay people want to be married. so please stop speaking for everyone.
-
I dont think that everyone (including some gay people) that think that a marriage like straights have are the be all and end all of existence to be bigots...believe it or not there are other issues that some gay people are interested in. and not all gay people want to be married. so please stop speaking for everyone.
*sigh* It doesn't matter if all the gay people want to be married or not. What matters is that they are people who should have the choice whether they want to use it or not.
Consider voting. Just because some people don't want to vote doesn't mean that some people shouldn't have the right to vote.
-
*sigh* It doesn't matter if all the gay people want to be married or not. What matters is that they are people who should have the choice whether they want to use it or not.
Consider voting. Just because some people don't want to vote doesn't mean that some people shouldn't have the right to vote.
but some people would feel that having the right to not be sold to be more pressing then the right to vote and THOSE people have a right to their belief that voting isn't as important to them and the right to say so!
-
Jess. You and Bill may consider bigotry against gays to be something only the PC correct crowd protests against, but I don't.
I don't speak for Jess, but IMO the PC crowd is only tangentially concerned about equal treatment under the law for gays or anyone else for that matter. The secular religion called "Political Correctness" is primarily concerned with establishing and wielding power and control, esp over those whom they have identified as being Politically Incorrect. Some of the techniques the PC crowd uses are censorship and vilification of their targeted enemies, esp when it helps them fundraise in order to manipulate the electoral system.
IMO it is absurdly naive to judge the PC crowd by their stated goals of tolerance and inclusion - the stated goals of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union "sounded" on the whole to be admirable, and naive fools in the West were for a time conned into giving support for Marxism.
PC should to be judged only how it limits liberty and freedom of speech, how it treats individuals, and how it fosters the tyranny of the unelected bureaucracy where it has been implemented.
-
I don't speak for Jess, but IMO the PC crowd is only tangentially concerned about equal treatment under the law for gays or anyone else for that matter. The secular religion called "Political Correctness" is primarily concerned with establishing and wielding power and control, esp over those whom they have identified as being Politically Incorrect. Some of the techniques the PC crowd uses are censorship and vilification of their targeted enemies, esp when it helps them fundraise in order to manipulate the electoral system.
IMO it is absurdly naive to judge the PC crowd by their stated goals of tolerance and inclusion - the stated goals of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union "sounded" on the whole to be admirable, and naive fools in the West were for a time conned into giving support for Marxism.
PC should to be judged only how it limits liberty and freedom of speech, how it treats individuals, and how it fosters the tyranny of the unelected bureaucracy where it has been implemented.
You dont understand, Brokeplex...see, freedom is in very limited supply; so the only way the PC crowd can achieve freedom for THEIR friends is to take freedom from other people.
-
You dont understand, Brokeplex...see, freedom is in very limited supply; so the only way the PC crowd can achieve freedom for THEIR friends is to take freedom from other people.
The concept that "liberty" is a zero sum game is the hallmark of tyrannies and those who advocate tyranny. All of the tyrannies in modern history have stated goals that their constituents lauded as noble, it doesn't surprise me that the 21st century PC crowd somehow have deluded themselves into believing that they advocate more freedom.
-
The only person I have seen suggest that "liberty is a zero sum game" here is Jess. So are you saying you are against equal marriage rights for gay couples, Brokeplex? How about you, Jess? Are you against equal marriage rights for gay couples?
-
this isnt' about gay marriage, it is about being free to have your own opinion. It is about free speech.
and I have asked you before NOT to use my name. I have a screen name you may use. Thank you.
-
this isnt' about gay marriage, it is about being free to have your own opinion. It is about free speech.
and I have asked you before NOT to use my name. I have a screen name you may use. Thank you.
so, won't say? I expected that. You're all for putting down this that and the other "liberal agenda" for gaining rights and then condemning people for agitating for them. This isn't about political correctness, as much as you would like to repaint it as a political correctness argument.
-
this isnt' about gay marriage, it is about being free to have your own opinion. It is about free speech.
I have no problem with her saying she is against gay marriage.
I have a problem with her using her celebrity to help others keep me from my civil rights, which is what she is doing with the anti-gay marriage video.
She may be pretty on the outside, but she's pretty damn ugly on the inside, and she can take her tiara and cram it up her ass.
-
The only person I have seen suggest that "liberty is a zero sum game" here is Jess. So are you saying you are against equal marriage rights for gay couples, Brokeplex? How about you, Jess? Are you against equal marriage rights for gay couples?
And Injest, are you still in favor of burning witches at the stake, or did you reform?
I think that in a discussion between Injest, louisev, and myself, I am the person most likely to benefit from same sex marriage, so your question as it pertains to me is IMO a bit of a waste of both pixels and eye scan time.
Injest did not opine that "liberty is a zero sum game". I believe that very clearly I wrote that IMO it is a fundamental of political correctness that liberty is a zero sum game.
And IMO this fact about PC and its advocates is what makes the PC secular religion contrary and dangerous to the US Constitution.
I think that Janet "Reno" Napolitano would be better spending her valuable time investigating PC advocates rather than Tax Day protesters and returning veterans. But, then she would have to start her investigation with Eric Holder and then work on over to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
-
This weekend we had Equality Forum here in Philadelphia, an international gathering devoted to GLBT civil rights.
(Not that I participated in any events. ... ::) )
The occasion led our rector (who is openly gay) actually to preach about gay marriage in his sermon in church this morning. Totally changed my view about the necessity for the church to approve full marriage for gay and lesbian people and develop a liturgy for it: full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church.
The rector put it in the same context in which I've been viewing civil marriage, and I have to admit I've never thought about it that way. The logic of my own view on civil rights virtually requires that I support the position that the church needs to do the same thing in its sphere as I feel must be done in the civil sphere--full inclusion.
FWIW. ...
-
I have no problem with her saying she is against gay marriage.
I have a problem with her using her celebrity to help others keep me from my civil rights, which is what she is doing with the anti-gay marriage video.
She may be pretty on the outside, but she's pretty damn ugly on the inside, and she can take her tiara and cram it up her ass.
well if Perez had your grace, she wouldn't be a celebrity and wouldn't be talked about.
-
I think that in a discussion between Injest, louisev, and myself, I am the person most likely to benefit from same sex marriage, so your question as it pertains to me is IMO a bit of a waste of both pixels and eye scan time.
you do really need to stop making bald assumptions that you understand the biography and know the sexual preference of everybody you discuss things with here Brokeplex. And also the assumption that somehow there were only three parties to this discussion when there are more. And it is a fair question - you appear to be arguing against the "PC crowd" who are agitating for the rights of GLBT to marry, so I am asking the clarifying question instead of descending into a maelstrom of meta.
-
well if Perez had your grace, she wouldn't be a celebrity and wouldn't be talked about.
I don't believe I have much grace, and let's be honest about this. If "Perez" hadn't said someting, somoene else would have.
Gay marriage is a hot button issue, and she would've gotten a lot of press, whether or not Perez was involved.
She may be a bigot, but she's not stupid.....she knew that if she said her opionion, it would be unpopular, otherwise she woulnd't have thought to say "no offense"......you only say that when you know you're going to offend people.
-
I don't believe I have much grace, and let's be honest about this. If "Perez" hadn't said someting, somoene else would have.
Gay marriage is a hot button issue, and she would've gotten a lot of press, whether or not Perez was involved.
She may be a bigot, but she's not stupid.....she knew that if she said her opionion, it would be unpopular, otherwise she woulnd't have thought to say "no offense"......you only say that when you know you're going to offend people.
Frankly, I think Miss CA with her brandy-new chicken cutlets was stunned that her anti-gay-marriage stance didn't push her over the top, because most of the members of the Americans for Opposite Marriage really think they are defending something and that the straights are desperately grateful to them for standing up for their rights to not have to watch gay people get married.
-
I don't believe I have much grace, and let's be honest about this. If "Perez" hadn't said someting, somoene else would have.
Gay marriage is a hot button issue, and she would've gotten a lot of press, whether or not Perez was involved.
She may be a bigot, but she's not stupid.....she knew that if she said her opionion, it would be unpopular, otherwise she woulnd't have thought to say "no offense"......you only say that when you know you're going to offend people.
no if Perez had controlled himself there would be no story. It is HIS promotion of his rant that started the entire thing. He lit the fire.
-
*sigh* It doesn't matter if all the gay people want to be married or not. What matters is that they are people who should have the choice whether they want to use it or not.
exactly.
-
I don't speak for Jess, but IMO the PC crowd is only tangentially concerned about equal treatment under the law for gays or anyone else for that matter. The secular religion called "Political Correctness" is primarily concerned with establishing and wielding power and control, esp over those whom they have identified as being Politically Incorrect. Some of the techniques the PC crowd uses are censorship and vilification of their targeted enemies, esp when it helps them fundraise in order to manipulate the electoral system.
IMO it is absurdly naive to judge the PC crowd by their stated goals of tolerance and inclusion - the stated goals of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union "sounded" on the whole to be admirable, and naive fools in the West were for a time conned into giving support for Marxism.
PC should to be judged only how it limits liberty and freedom of speech, how it treats individuals, and how it fosters the tyranny of the unelected bureaucracy where it has been implemented.
Well, I don't know how to answer you Bill because I don't know any people who are part of a "PC correct crowd" ( I believe this to be a fictitious group, much like the "gay conspiracy" group). I only know people who are for civil rights for gay people and those who are against.
-
but some people would feel that having the right to not be sold to be more pressing then the right to vote
???
and THOSE people have a right to their belief that voting isn't as important to them and the right to say so!
???
I've no idea what you mean.
Someone's civil rights are not on an 'as needed' basis. Either you have them or you don't.
-
so, won't say? I expected that. You're all for putting down this that and the other "liberal agenda" for gaining rights and then condemning people for agitating for them. This isn't about political correctness, as much as you would like to repaint it as a political correctness argument.
well it isn't a 'civil rights' issue as much as you would like to repaint it as a such. Miss USA has no ability to prevent anyone from getting married. She is being attacked for having an opinion you do not like. THAT is political correctness. She has a right to her opinion. Perez has a right to HIS opinion..even YOU have a right to your opinion. where freedom comes in, is when none of us tries to tell another their opinion is wrong.
-
I think by "it" you mean the civil right to marry? I'd call it a civil right.
-
no "IT" refers to the subject of the thread....Miss California's answer...which has very little to do with what civil rights anyone has.
-
What I'd like to know is what gives HER and others like her the right to vote on something that affects me personally. They don't know me. They never will know me. Hell they probably don't even WANT to know me. And yet, for some reason these strangers think it is okay to
take away refuse something to me that they all take for granted.
These people do not know me. How is my getting married to another man any threat to them whatsoever?
I'll tell you what. I'll start respecting their opinions about the "sanctity of marriage" when THEY stop getting all these divorces. How can they say things like this to us with a straight face when over 50 percent of them cannot manage their own marriages?
Sanctity of marriage my faggoty ASS! >:(
She may be entitled to HER opinion but I have a right to be upset by it.
-
What I'd like to know is what gives HER and others like her the right to vote on something that affects me personally. They don't know me. They never will know me. Hell they probably don't even WANT to know me. And yet, for some reason these strangers think it is okay to take away refuse something to me that they all take for granted.
These people do not know me. How is my getting married to another man any threat to them whatsoever?
I'll tell you what. I'll start respecting their opinions about the "sanctity of marriage" when THEY stop getting all these divorces. How can they say things like this to us with a straight face when over 50 percent of them cannot manage their own marriages?
Sanctity of marriage my faggoty ASS! >:(
She may be entitled to HER opinion but I have a right to be upset by it.
yes you do.
I am not sure WHY we have to vote on gay marriage. we didnt' have to vote to get other civil rights passed (or maybe I just missed it?). Just seems like a strange situation to me.
-
yes you do.
I am not sure WHY we have to vote on gay marriage. we didnt' have to vote to get other civil rights passed (or maybe I just missed it?). Just seems like a strange situation to me.
THANK YOU Jess! :-*
-
Dang me, 25 pages and counting over the opinion of a blonde beauty pageant winner. I wonder if anyone here can name last years Miss California, or even the winner of whatever pageant it was. I come from a state where these things are a seruious business, and even back there, the only time it makes it off the inside pages next to the TV schedule is if one of them gets arrested or something.
So now the would-be Miss California is a household name, taylor-made spokeswoman for the anti-same sex marriage groups with gen-u-ine victimhood bullets in her resume, indignant bloggers keeping her name in the news long after she would of sank from the public awareness, assuming the public would of been aware of her to begin with. What do they say out there in Hollyweird, theres no bad publicity.
You could say its a sign of progress that an opinion like the one Miss Prejean expressed cost her the crown; ten years ago I doubt that would of been the case, though coming as I do from beauty pageant country, I doubt shes the only one out there, as the gals that go in for this in the first place tend to be pretty traditional. Howvere, any steps forward have been cancelled out by a more than a few steps back in the form of the vicious commentary from this Perez Hilton...creature, and of course the sadly predictable cattery from women everywhere, nothing like a good-looking gal the ladies dont like to bring those claws out.
Until this "scandal" I had no idea who Perez Hilton was. SO I looked at about 3 pages of his "blog" and was amazed that there is an biological male out there that is nastier, bitchier, and cattier than all the commentary ever written on Governor Sarah Palin. In the Case of Gov. Palin, the hysteria is somewhat understandable in that she was in contention to become the second most powerful person on the planet. Carrie Prejean is a Damn beauty pageant contestant. Her opinion, which she has a perfect right to, is the opinion of a class of women who think Oklahoma is the capital of Texas. Having been a beauty pageant contestant prbably predisposed people to dismiss Gov. Palin as a featherweight, fair or not. She likely cursed the day she put on the bathing suit.
I give a rats ass what Carrie Prejeans opinion is on same-sex marriage. This is not a powerful public figure, this is an opener of supermarkets. My reflexive response to women like her, fair or not, is a blonde joke. Im FAR more disturbed by an (alleged) man with blonde hair as fake as Miss Californias boobs, and boobs much larger than hers that are totally natural, who makes a living posting countless pages of nastiness and hate of celebrities to the point that hes a celebrity himself, and all of it while representing gay men everywhere. Miss California expresses her opinion against same-sex marriage, and Perez Hilton has a hysterical public shit fit while embodying every negative stereotype of gay men, and inventing a few new ones.
I dont agree with Carrie Prejean, it kinda goes without saying. But next to that freakshow Perez Hilton, she comes out a Damn sight better. I dont agree with her, but I actually feel sorry for her, he was just outta line. It is possible to make a point without going so far overboard you negate any credibilty you had. Dude makes Liberace look normal. I just wish there was some kind of injunction you could take out to bar someone from representing a given group.
-
I dont agree with Carrie Prejean, it kinda goes without saying. But next to that freakshow Perez Hilton, she comes out a Damn sight better. I dont agree with her, but I actually feel sorry for her, he was just outta line. It is possible to make a point without going so far overboard you negate any credibilty you had. Dude makes Liberace look normal. I just wish there was some kind of injunction you could take out to bar someone from representing a given group.
As you can tell from the length of this thread Judge it all depends on your POV. Perez's reaction to Miss CA isn't what caught my attention - since I usually ignore him anyway - her response is what caught my attention. I don't feel one whit sorry for her, I don't believe Perez's response negated any credibility as a gay man - as has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are all kinds of gay people - we don't have to like the "type". IMO Miss CA's response negated her credibility as someone who should be trying to be a Miss USA and negated her credibility as a decent human being.
-
As you can tell from the length of this thread Judge it all depends on your POV. Perez's reaction to Miss CA isn't what caught my attention - since I usually ignore him anyway - her response is what caught my attention. I don't feel one whit sorry for her, I don't believe Perez's response negated any credibility as a gay man - as has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are all kinds of gay people - we don't have to like the "type". IMO Miss CA's response negated her credibility as someone who should be trying to be a Miss USA and negated her credibility as a decent human being.
and you have stated your opinion now how many times? Do other people not have a right to theirs?
You can keep harping on this if you want to continue to waste your time, I am going to try to move on with my life, one woman's opinion and one gossip mongers overreaction just doesnt' rate this much attention from me. YOU can continue to promote her if you like...I am sure she (and her new friends) will be delighted....go ahead, DEL, give her a full hour or two of fame.
-
I don't quite get the uproar regarding Perez Hilton. He is an entertainer, and he only has any type of "power" for as long as people are interested in what he´s saying. If people would stop reading his blogg, Perez Hilton would be no more. We get what we deserve in that respect. Consumer power, my friends.
Regarding Miss California; It really becomes blatantly clear how shallow pageants really are and how outer beauty means very little when the inside is ugly.
-
I don't quite get the uproar regarding Perez Hilton. He is an entertainer, and he only has any type of "power" for as long as people are interested in what he´s saying. If people would stop reading his block, Perez Hilton would be no more. We get what we deserve in that respect. Consumer power, my friends.
Oh I agree 100%. Hilton is just another side-show act. I have said the same thing about Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. These people are part of show biz, and their only purpose in life is to hang on to their viewers/listeners/readers. And just like with Coulter and Limbaugh, Hilton has people that follow him too. Some of those people are in his camp (pun intended), while others view him with disdain. To what extent does Hilton represent gays?? I don't know. To what extent do Coulter et al. represent conservatives or Republicans? Again, I don't know. But it is just as silly to measure sexual minorities against Perez Hilton as it is to measure conservatives against Coulter, yet there are plenty of people willing to do either or both.
-
well if you want to talk religion I think we would need to start a new thread.. but remember people are fallible. Just because someone claims to be a man of God doesnt mean he has all the answers. We were given brains to reason out things for ourselves.
My point was that I don't believe Ms. Prejean has ever bothered to reason out anything about gay marriage. Her comments sound more like blind faith obedience. I doubt that gay marriage plays any direct part in her life other than the public exposure she gets for speaking out against it.
-
Oh I agree 100%. Hilton is just another side-show act. I have said the same thing about Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. These people are part of show biz, and their only purpose in life is to hang on to their viewers/listeners/readers. And just like with Coulter and Limbaugh, Hilton has people that follow him too. Some of those people are in his camp (pun intended), while others view him with disdain. To what extent does Hilton represent gays?? I don't know. To what extent do Coulter et al. represent conservatives or Republicans? Again, I don't know. But it is just as silly to measure sexual minorities against Perez Hilton as it is to measure conservatives against Coulter, yet there are plenty of people willing to do either or both.
The problem with comparing Limbaugh & Coulter to Perez Hilton is that Perez Hilton is a gossip queen and doesn't claim to be anything else, as far as I know and his home base is the world of Hollywood and celebrities. Limbaugh and Couter are known as political pundits, NOT entertainers. Their books are not classified as humour or entertainment (inexplicably). For example, Coulter's latest datribe is classified under NON-FICTION[hahahaha!]/SOCIAL SCIENCE/POLITICAL SCIENCE/ POLITICAL DOCTRINES/CONSERVATIVES at Amazon.
-
"SOCIAL SCIENCE"? Ann Coulter is ALLERGIC to all science!
-
"SOCIAL SCIENCE"? Ann Coulter is ALLERGIC to all science!
I had a similar reaction when I saw it was under NONFICTION. Badoom Boom :laugh:
-
and you have stated your opinion now how many times? Do other people not have a right to theirs?
You can keep harping on this if you want to continue to waste your time, I am going to try to move on with my lifeone woman's opinion and one gossip mongers overreaction just doesnt' rate this much attention from me. YOU can continue to promote her if you like...I am sure she (and her new friends) will be delighted....go ahead, DEL, give her a full hour or two of fame.
OK.
But I have no intention of taking the blame for her opinion. I'm sure she'll do fine, no thanks to me, because as you can tell, many people want to give her the benefit of the doubt. If she doesn't do fine, well, she'll just be another one of those people who can dish it out, but can't take it.
-
Well, I don't know how to answer you Bill because I don't know any people who are part of a "PC correct crowd"
Del, I collect mirrors from the Art Deco period, some are basically intact, some needed resilvering, but all are now in great shiny shape.
I will be happy to lend you one of my mirrors, esp if it blends into your decor. ;)
-
What I'd like to know is what gives HER and others like her the right to vote on something that affects me personally. They don't know me. They never will know me. Hell they probably don't even WANT to know me. And yet, for some reason these strangers think it is okay to take away refuse something to me that they all take for granted.
These people do not know me. How is my getting married to another man any threat to them whatsoever?
I'll tell you what. I'll start respecting their opinions about the "sanctity of marriage" when THEY stop getting all these divorces. How can they say things like this to us with a straight face when over 50 percent of them cannot manage their own marriages?
Sanctity of marriage my faggoty ASS! >:(
She may be entitled to HER opinion but I have a right to be upset by it.
her right to vote
-
her right to vote
???
-
Limbaugh and Couter are known as political pundits, NOT entertainers.
Well they are certainly not considered pundits in the same vein as say, George Will or Buckley. And regardless of how people think of Limbaugh & Coulter, they are at the end of the day entertainers just like Hilton.
-
???
DavidInIndy was asking what right Miss Ca. has to vote on whether or not gay people can get married.
Brokeplex gave a literal answer. Because it was put up to public vote, her right to vote gives her the right to take away our civil rights.
-
DavidInIndy was asking what right Miss Ca. has to vote on whether or not gay people can get married.
Brokeplex gave a literal answer. Because it was put up to public vote, her right to vote gives her the right to take away our civil rights.
Thanks Chuck - I hadn't read David's post properly so was a bit bemused with the four word answer....
-
Del, I collect mirrors from the Art Deco period, some are basically intact, some needed resilvering, but all are now in great shiny shape.
I will be happy to lend you one of my mirrors, esp if it blends into your decor. ;)
:laugh: :laugh:
-
wait, this is shocking - Mario was cute once? Do you have proof?
Sorry it took so long. I forgot.
Portrait of 'Perez Hilton' as a Young Twink:
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ABC%20Movies/Perez-young-2.jpg)
-
momma always told me that if you can't say something nice, don't say nuthin'.
:laugh:
-
Sorry it took so long. I forgot.
Portrait of 'Perez Hilton' as a Young Twink:
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ABC%20Movies/Perez-young-2.jpg)
oh my, who knew? But he seems to suffer from Sarah Jessica Parker chin.
-
Nude Photos of Carrie Prejean Surface! Biblically Correct?
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/miss-california-carrie-prejeans-nude-photos-surface.html (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/miss-california-carrie-prejeans-nude-photos-surface.html)
-
Well they are certainly not considered pundits in the same vein as say, George Will or Buckley. And regardless of how people think of Limbaugh & Coulter, they are at the end of the day entertainers just like Hilton.
Yeah, well tell THAT to Rush Limbaugh and he'll be back on drugs in a flash, lol!
-
If our busty born-again beauty-queen had said she believed marriage should only be between one woman and one man of the same ethnic background. Would the conservatives here still be so down on the judge, let's say it's Whoopy Goldberg, who called her bad names as a result?
-
Nude Photos of Carrie Prejean Surface! Biblically Correct?
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/miss-california-carrie-prejeans-nude-photos-surface.html (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/miss-california-carrie-prejeans-nude-photos-surface.html)
If she's got her chicken cutlets in those photos then those photos were taken after she became Miss California... which means... this is one of those things beauty pageant winners can lose their crown over. Good luck Miss Bible!
-
Latest news: Carrie Prejean released a statement regarding the nude photos:
"On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That answer, and my commitment to stand by my beliefs, has since resulted in attacks on me and my integrity as a woman. We live in a great country; a nation that was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street.
"I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be. But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others' opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks.
"With that in mind, I will continue to support and defend marriage as the honorable institution it is. I will continue to stand with the overwhelming majority of the American people and the voters of my home state of California. If this whole experience has taught me anything, it is our precious right to speak freely, and how we as Americans can never allow anyone or any group to intimidate or threaten us to keep silent."
In other words "I can pass judgment on you, but don't pass judgment on me." Whatever.
In any case, with these photos, the Miss USA people must be relieved not to have awarded the title to Prejean. Whether his question was fair or not, Hilton did them a favor.
-
Donald Trump, who owns the Miss Universe franchise, said on The View this morning, the vote totals indicated Prejean wouldn't have won anyway.
But he is concerned that Prejean is getting all the press and Miss USA isn't.
-
In other words "I can pass judgment on you, but don't pass judgment on me." Whatever.
Yup Laura, I think that is EXACTLY what she is saying. >:(
She seems to feel people are being intolerant of her for being intolerant towards others. I wonder how many people on the religious right will notice the hypocrisy of that statement.
-
The pics apparently are pre-chicken cutlets - and I was right, they do violate her contract for participation in the pageant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/carrie-prejean-topless-ph_n_196817.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/carrie-prejean-topless-ph_n_196817.html)
Miss California Carrie Prejean topless pictures are making their way to the web, and could cost her the state crown.
In a photo posted on Thedirty.com, a tan brunette in pink underwear with her arms across her chest is seen mugging for the camera. But with the photo, she may be in violation of her contract.
According to the AP:
Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday it appears the 21-year-old Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the state contest.
The contract contains a clause asking participants whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards" and if they've ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
Prejean has released a statement about the photo seen below, an implicit confirmation that this photo, and others reportedly being shopped around, are indeed of her. Her hair is brown and the photos are from before her pageant-funded breast implants.
-
Standing Up To Miss California
By Rabbi Denise L. Eger
The National Organization for Marriage is acting like if Miss California cannot be Miss USA, then she will be the new Queen Esther. But Carrie Prejean is neither one.
We know Miss USA types but, as a rabbi, to show how wrong this allusion is, I must tell you about Queen Esther. She is a brave biblical figure from thousands of years ago. Orphaned and raised by her uncle, she rose against all odds, to be the king of Persia's favored wife in a time when Persians despised Jews.
At risk of her own life she came out to the king to expose a plot against all Jews. Even her uncle asked her to risk her own life because she was born and raised to the status of queen "for such a time as this." Because of her bravery, she and all her people were spared from becoming the victims of a grab for power.
So in today's real life story, who is Queen Esther? Who are the victims?
Carrie Prejean and the National Organization for Marriage feel they are the victims because of the outcry when Carrie came out and said, "In my country and in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman - no offense to anyone out there..."
But offence IS taken when these beliefs are the backbone of anti-gay legislation. Offense IS taken when victimization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is ongoing.
* It is gay and lesbian couples and families who do not have equal protection under the law to marry the person they love who are the victims.
* It is transgender people who are targeted for brutal beatings and murders such as Angie Zapata in Colorado who are the victims.
* It is every child in our public school who is bullied to the point of suicide with taunts of "you're so gay" who are the victims.
* It is the foster children who are denied a permanent home because gay couples are barred from adopting in state after state who are the victims.
* It is the parents and family of gay people who watch their loved ones suffer persecution and discrimination on the job who are the victims.
In America we have a separation of church and state. Churches and synagogues do not control civil marriage. Conservative people of faith remain free to practice their religion--and even their prejudices. They are not forced to marry anyone in their congregation.
Our founding fathers were wise when they made sure that no religion was the official religion of the United States. They separated religion from civil law. Carrie and National Organization for Marriage want to be viewed as the victims but they are among those who plot against marginalized people who have been forced to live in fear and silence.
Carrie and National Organization for Marriage claim that they are the victims and that Carrie lost the pageant for her beliefs. But one judge, Alicia Jacobs, spoke out afterwards and blogged:
Could Miss California have answered her question in a more sensitive manner? Yes, I believe she could have and she probably should have. Interestingly, her sister is a gay rights activist in the military...go figure? I do not fault her for her beliefs...I fault her for her complete lack of social grace.
Esther spoke up for the underdog and her family. Esther spoke up for justice at the risk of her own life. So if we are to look to Queen Esther, we must all speak out to expose the mass of misinformation about marriage and gay families. There is no threat to straight marriage--only equal opportunity for every person to marry the one they love.
Is Miss Carrie Queen Esther?
I think not.
Are we all called to be like Queen Esther and speak out for fairness and truth "in such a time as this"?
I think so.
Rabbi Denise L. Eger is the founding Rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood, CA. She is a founding steering committee member of California Faith for Equality and the President of the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-denise-eger/standing-up-to-miss-calif_b_195383.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-denise-eger/standing-up-to-miss-calif_b_195383.html)
-
Yeah, well tell THAT to Rush Limbaugh and he'll be back on drugs in a flash, lol!
Won't that be fun?? He's intolerable now, I can't imagine what he'd be like high.
-
She looks like she had quite nice boobies.. why did she need impants I wonder?
-
She looks like she had quite nice boobies.. why did she need impants I wonder?
proportion, apparently. So that her 34 inch hips would be matched by newly rounded 34 inch Barbie chest.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
and ya'll just keep giving her more time and more celebrity....
-
Heh. The leopard is showing her spots, as predicted. :laugh:
Miss CA's such a hypocrite.
We live in a great country; a nation that was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
She left out the part about our country also being founded on equality. But she's all about forgetting certain things - touting how religious she is, but posing for nudie shots and probably violating some commandments that she finds inconvenient. How typical of the type. ::)
-
momma always told me that if you can't say something nice, don't say nuthin'.
:laugh:
And Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, "If you can't say anything nice, come sit by me." ;)
-
"I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.
Oh, she's a right good Christian, ain't she? Displayin' her nearly nekkid body to the lustful eyes of men. ...
The shameless hussy. ...
::) ;) :laugh:
-
They keep the good woman in the forefront because of an utter and complete sense of guilt.
Any vaguely open-minded person with the smallest amount of respect for individual opinion would coward with shame over the way in which the fascist lefties have skewered Prejean.
I actually enjoy seeing the so-called caring, compassionate, understanding, tolerant, diverse, and big-tent liberals pushing this young woman into their metaphoric gas chamber. They just want to box her up, ship her off, and do her in. And they are all scrambling to be the one to drop the gas pellets and watch her squirm.
Lovely how the political/social spectrum is not linear. The farther these people dash to the left in the circular political landscape the closer they come to the fascists on the far right.
are the cattle cars that far away? I think not...
-
They keep the good woman in the forefront because of an utter and complete sense of guilt.
Any vaguely open-minded person with the smallest amount of respect for individual opinion would coward with shame over the way in which the fascist lefties have skewered Prejean.
I actually enjoy seeing the so-called caring, compassionate, understanding, tolerant, diverse, and big-tent liberals pushing this young woman into their metaphoric gas chamber. They just want to box her up, ship her off, and do her in. And they are all scrambling to be the one to drop the gas pellets and watch her squirm.
Lovely how the political/social spectrum is not linear. The farther these people dash to the left in the circular political landscape the closer they come to the fascists on the far right.
:laugh: :laugh:
I stick around this thread because it's a lot of fun to watch a self-righteous bigot get her own hypocrisy thrown back in her face.
If anyone does this out of guilt, Herr, I'm sure they'll let you know. ;D
-
:laugh: :laugh:
I stick around this thread because it's a lot of fun to watch a self-righteous bigot get her own hypocrisy thrown back in her face.
If anyone does this out of guilt, Herr, I'm sure they'll let you know. ;D
I'm waiting to post the news of her getting dethroned as Miss California. She can say it was ACORN and the Courage Campaign did it to her.
-
:laugh: :laugh:
I stick around this thread because it's a lot of fun to watch a self-righteous bigot get her own hypocrisy thrown back in her face.
If anyone does this out of guilt, Herr, I'm sure they'll let you know. ;D
I dont think anyone is doing it out of guilt...jealousy maybe...she IS an attractive young woman that has been handed a career on a silver platter.
Miss USA who? It has turned out much better for her than she could have hoped.
She should send ol Perez some chocolates...
-
I dont think anyone is doing it out of guilt...jealousy maybe...she IS an attractive young woman that has been handed a career on a silver platter.
Miss USA who? It has turned out much better for her than she could have hoped.
She should send ol Perez some chocolates...
Heh, she might have at first, but then the nudie pictures came out and now she has a chance of losing her crown altogether. She might be regretting all this hype right about now... :laugh:
-
What 'nudie' pics are those? Such poses are not much different than any of the ads for many retailers and clothing lines. by referring to them as 'nudie', it implies an absense of understanding of the situation.
Guess you missed this part?
"Alicia Jacobs, Entertainment Reporter at KVBC in Las Vegas and a Miss USA judge, has seen all six of the photos and says some are much more revealing"
As for an 'absence of understanding', I'm just wondering if the pics are "biblically correct' as Miss CA is so adamant about being. 8)
-
Heh, she might have at first, but then the nudie pictures came out and now she has a chance of losing her crown altogether.
Those pics would've come out anyway. Remember VAnessa Williams? Those pics came out quickly, and the internet wasn't as widespread as it is now.
-
What 'nudie' pics are those? Such poses are not much different than any of the ads for many retailers and clothing lines. by referring to them as 'nudie', it implies an absense of understanding of the situation.
:laugh: :laugh:
I am sure they have never seen such a thing before....forgive them their puritanical recoiling Herr...
-
Those pics would've come out anyway. Remember VAnessa Williams? Those pics came out quickly, and the internet wasn't as widespread as it is now.
and we all know how horrible HER life has turned out....and she didn't even have a internet group panting over her!!
we'll NEVER stop hearing about this woman...she is gonna be everywhere...come on...a pretty little blonde? Her career is MADE....cha ching!!
-
obviously, scratching at anything to degrade her because she ruffled the feathers of the intolerant left will continue. but, deluvia, you might check out the artwork over the centuries that appear in major catherdrals and churches and the Vatican. Your sense of 'biblically correct' is only, it seems, useful to lash out at Prejean because you hate her. Maybe try something positive.
do YOU understand what "biblically correct" means? which Bible is she refering to? Mine doesnt' mention photography...(it not being invented at the time) it doesnt' even have any restrictions on painting that I am aware of (except that whole "no Gods before me" thing)
-
obviously, scratching at anything to degrade her because she ruffled the feathers of the intolerant left will continue.
So, that means, you didn't read that part?
but, deluvia, you might check out the artwork over the centuries that appear in major catherdrals and churches and the Vatican. Your sense of 'biblically correct' is only, it seems, useful to lash out at Prejean because you hate her. Maybe try something positive.
Heh, Miss CA is not Catholic and PLEASE tell me you weren't just comparing a bimbo's half-naked model shots with real ART.
I was being positive. She's a bigot who needs to be criticized as much as possible so people like her don't keep trying to keep gays 'in their place'. She tried to hide behind her religion, but now it seems her hypocrisy is making her piety a laughing stock.
-
do YOU understand what "biblically correct" means? which Bible is she refering to? Mine doesnt' mention photography...(it not being invented at the time) it doesnt' even have any restrictions on painting that I am aware of (except that whole "no Gods before me" thing)
But it sure has a lot about women being modest and being seen and not heard... 8)
-
Those pics would've come out anyway. Remember VAnessa Williams? Those pics came out quickly, and the internet wasn't as widespread as it is now.
That's right, forgot about that. And she did lose her crown. But Vanessa landed on her feet, she has talent after all.
-
so are you supporting 'biblically correct' or objecting to it?
???
Miss CA is who said she was being "biblically correct" instead of "PC correct" in her opinion on gay marriage.
I was just pointing out the obvious. She's only concerned about being "biblically correct" when it comes to other people, not herself.
-
Since you engendered the Bible, you should defend or embrace your point. If you are evaluating her photos on Biblical premise, so is the art in the Vatican.
And please explain for us you "positive" view of this talented young woman? And more importantly, you charge her as a 'bigot'; do you actually know what a bigot is or are you just using buzz words to display emotion?
Read my above post re the bible and you're going to go back about 20 pages or so - I am using the word bigot correctly.
-
Any vaguely open-minded person with the smallest amount of respect for individual opinion would coward with shame over the way in which the fascist lefties have skewered Prejean.
Oh please... skewered? People are just pointing out hypocrisy when they see it. As Jess and Clyde pointed out, she's getting great publicity from all this. Vanessa Williams? The most "skewered" beauty contestant in history, and the most successful in her subsequent showbiz career.
It is interesting, though, that Prejean's "fall from grace" is because of... showing her body. ::) I mean please, beauty contests – however they want to gloss it – are all about sex appeal... fuckability. Prejean knows it, and the Miss California organization knows it. Hence the boob job.
Did beauty pageants originate in the USA? They must, because there's that puritanical hypocrisy thrown in: You must be perfect-looking and perfectly "proportioned" (fuckable) — but also conduct yourself with "decorum and modesty".
Meanwhile, every photographer you meet wants a shot of your bare ass.
Navigating the maze of double-standards in the pageant world necessitates a certain mental "blocking out" function in order to maintain any sanity (especially if you're also navigating the ones that can exist in the evangelical community). Her attitudes, therefore, are not surprising. (For the record, I don't think she's evil... she expressed her lil' opinion as diplomatically as she could... and even threw in the requisite bit of patriotism "it's great that we live in a country where..." Clever, that.)
-
It is hard to take this post seriously. is there really anyone of credible posture who would compare the debate/discussion of 3000 year old marriage traditions to 21st century pop culture semi nude publicity photos? Oy vey.
I've been told 'God doesn't change'. Take it up with the religious people Herr.
-
sorry deluvia, you are not using 'bigot' correctly relative to Ms Prejean. In fact, "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own" which clearly shows she is NOT the bigot...but you are the one who takes offense at and are intolerant of her opinion. ;)
You left out the rest of the definition - from an earlier post:
Bigotry is focusing a hatred or dislike against a class of people for holding a belief different from one's own or for an innate quality they exhibit
That applies to disliking blacks for the color of their skin, Asians for having an epicanthic fold, and gays for having sexual desire for the same sex. See also: intolerance
;D
-
...the left wing liberals have jumped hook line and sinker on the bandwagon of attempting to ruin her.
"The left wing liberals"? (You mean every one in the country? Only a few? No moderates? No one else?) Who is doing this exactly?
-
Patience is a virtue I do have....
delluvia, your selected definition only indicts you further. Ms Prejean had nothing negative to say about disliking or hating anyone; she simply stated her belief that marriage is male/female. In fact her words were quite similar to those used by Obama during his campaign, as well as joe biden. Are these men bigots, too?
I recommend you reconsider what bigotry really is and comes to grips with the reality that the bias and bigotry is coming from the side you support and targeted squarely against Ms Prejean.
And your selected piece of her opinion (and your definition!) indicts you, my man. That's not all she said. She included the little addendum that for her "country" as well as for herself, she believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's bigotry right there. And while you might not feel any dislike in the pride she took in wanting to deny gay people's civil rights, other people certainly do.
-
I'm glad you noted that phrase and quoted it. I deliberately used that terminology as a parallel to the frequently used "right wing conservatives" to define all those who have opinions that differ from the democrat party platform.
So you really didn't mean it then? That's cool, because I (as a left-wing liberal, or at least a moderate one) agree with her right to say what she thinks. And I don't think it was technically fair to ask her a potentially inflammatory question if the other contestants got away with softball ones: the winner may agree with Prejean, but we'll never know; only Prejean had to field the question. As for the nudie pictures — here in the internet age they would have come out anyway, whether or not their possessor is a "left-wing liberal".
-
sorry delluvia, the circles you are spinning in are just not registering. If she "believes" in male/female marriage, that is an opinion. For you to hate and/or dislike her for that, you have defined bigotry by virtue of your own post.
So you're not going to comment on Miss CA's belief that some people don't deserve civil rights the same as her is a problem?
What distinction are you trying to make? She gave her opinion that she believes that the only marriage the country should have is male/female. What's not bigoted about that?
Prejean specifically stated she recognizes other opinions on the matter and knows there are differing views; your position, obviously, refuses to allow her the view she holds, and that is bigotry.
She said she was 'glad people have a choice' but she didn't really mean that since she just became a spokesperson for this marriage group to spearhead man/woman only marriage.
Again, she is being bigoted.
And why do you conveniently not respond to the fact that Mr. Obama holds the same opinion as Ms Prejean?
Because no one brought it up? Yep. I'm unhappy with him about that. Luckily he does believe in civil unions - I have my doubts about what Miss CA believes about that - and that wasn't the only reason I voted for him because McCain had a similar opinion about gays.
-
It helps any debate to be honest. Where did Prejean say "people don't deserve civil rights the same as her"? You made that up.
Are you being tediously literal on purpose? What do you THINK she meant by saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman?
IIf giving an opinion that is different than your own makes one a bigot
And no one here has made this claim, so stop trying to make this something it's not. It's not that she expressed her opinion. She made it, no one is arguing that she shouldn't have been free to express her opinion. It's what her opinion was that's at issue.
"she didn't really mean that..." You CAN'T be serious. this is getting laughable that now you are making up what Prejean really means based on your own biases. Wow.
Hmmm, she said she she was 'glad people have a choice'. And now she's spokesperson for a group that wants to take choice away from gay people. So are you saying that she can be glad that something exists while trying to take that same thing away at the same time?
I brought Obama up twice.
Sorry Herr, guess I wasn't paying attention to your post. ;D
All you can say is you're "unhappy" with him? Why not treat him the same way you are treating Prejean--call him a bigot, talk about what he "really" means when he refers to civil rights, etc.
For myself, because Obama is a politician. And he didn't go to a fundamentalist Christian college. So I'm willing to be 'unhappy with him' instead of outright outraged because chances are fairly good that his opinion on gay marriage was politically expedient. Unlike Miss CA.
-
Obama has made no secret of the fact that he will throw the weight of the bully pulpit behind the repeal of DADT and DOMA and to support civil rights legislation across the board. And that is a vastly different opinion from that of the National Organization for Marriage who believe that if gays get to marry then they'll spread gay all over little kids and teach them how to be gay.
-
So, that means, you didn't read that part?
Heh, Miss CA is not Catholic and PLEASE tell me you weren't just comparing a bimbo's half-naked model shots with real ART.
I was being positive. She's a bigot who needs to be criticized as much as possible so people like her don't keep trying to keep gays 'in their place'. She tried to hide behind her religion, but now it seems her hypocrisy is making her piety a laughing stock.
so people like her? do you even realize how you sound? How is bigotry so wrong for her but not for you?
-
But it sure has a lot about women being modest and being seen and not heard... 8)
aha!! so this has nothing to do with her comments about gay marriage. You are after her because she is a Christian...got it..
-
???
Miss CA is who said she was being "biblically correct" instead of "PC correct" in her opinion on gay marriage.
I was just pointing out the obvious. She's only concerned about being "biblically correct" when it comes to other people, not herself.
as apparently you do too...so you and she have a lot in common..
-
I've been told 'God doesn't change'. Take it up with the religious people Herr.
now you are reading God's mind? I thought you didn't believe in God?
-
You left out the rest of the definition - from an earlier post:
Bigotry is focusing a hatred or dislike against a class of people for holding a belief different from one's own or for an innate quality they exhibit
That applies to disliking blacks for the color of their skin, Asians for having an epicanthic fold, and gays for having sexual desire for the same sex. See also: intolerance
;D
where did she focus on her hatred for anything?
-
Are you being tediously literal on purpose? What do you THINK she meant by saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman?
And no one here has made this claim, so stop trying to make this something it's not. It's not that she expressed her opinion. She made it, no one is arguing that she shouldn't have been free to express her opinion. It's what her opinion was that's at issue.
Hmmm, she said she she was 'glad people have a choice'. And now she's spokesperson for a group that wants to take choice away from gay people. So are you saying that she can be glad that something exists while trying to take that same thing away at the same time?
Sorry Herr, guess I wasn't paying attention to your post. ;D
For myself, because Obama is a politician. And he didn't go to a fundamentalist Christian college. So I'm willing to be 'unhappy with him' instead of outright outraged because chances are fairly good that his opinion on gay marriage was politically expedient. Unlike Miss CA.
there it is...Herr she is not mad about Ms Prejeans opinion, she hates her because she is beautiful and a Christian.
And it is SOO telling that it is ok to state the opinion that marriage should be male/female if it is for politics...in other words if you can get some personal gain for it..if you are LYING..even if that person is in a position to cause great harm...
but it is NOT ok to state the same opinion if you believe it...even though you have no power to harm anyone.....hmmm..
-
Obama has made no secret of the fact that he will throw the weight of the bully pulpit behind the repeal of DADT and DOMA and to support civil rights legislation across the board. And that is a vastly different opinion from that of the National Organization for Marriage who believe that if gays get to marry then they'll spread gay all over little kids and teach them how to be gay.
Apparently the National Organization for Marriage has suffered several scandals and/or embarrassing situations since their founding in 2007.
From Wiki:
On March 19, 2009, Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint[10] with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the National Organization for Marriage was established by the Mormon Church and served as a "pass-through committee" to direct two million dollars in church funds toward the passage of proposition 8. A church spokesman and NOM president Gallagher both denied the allegations[11].
And this...
The NOM staff did not realize that in gay parlance "2M4M" is used as personal ad code for two men seeking a third male sexual partner, creating an unintentional gaffe that was mentioned in the media. They also failed to secure the domain name and other net resources that matched their campaign. Activists for marriage equality purchased the domain "2M4M.org" [23] and branded it as "Two Men For Marriage," running material counter to NOM's 2M4M aims.[24][25] This has since spread to other internet networking sites such as Twitter [26] and LiveJournal [27] with various users co-opting the name.
And this...
NOM has refused to make its Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 forms public, as required by law. This has led to a formal complaint filing made to the IRS by the Californians Against Hate (CAH) organization. CAH representatives went to the Princeton, New Jersey, offices of NOM twice to get copies of their IRS 990 reports "to no avail," said CAH's president, Fred Karger. Karger continued, "Then our representative, Ben Katzenberg, sent two certified letters to the NOM office on March 18, 2009, requesting its two 990 forms. Federal law requires NOM to furnish copies of these IRS filings within 30 days after the request has been received. And 40 days later, still no 990s." NOM could be charged penalties of up to $10,000 if the organization remains resistant to complying with law by releasing its IRS 990 forms.
And we already know about the developing scandal regarding Miss California. :-\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage)
-
there it is...Herr she is not mad about Ms Prejeans opinion, she hates her because she is beautiful and a Christian.
Again - Oh for goodness sake!
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51WIykNTUV0[/youtube]
-
then why keep bringing up her religion? and why give Obama a pass when he said the same thing?
-
yes. and you would be well served to be more precise and literal rather than infusing emotional bias and bigotry into your views.
Sorry, you didn't answer my question. Now who is it that is avoiding being precise?
Her opinion is a majority POV, including the POTUSA, your Obama.
Yes and the majority is always correct. I mean, the majority don't believe women should have equal rights, the majority used to believe slavery was OK and the majority used to believe the world was flat.
It is bigotry on anyone's part to deny her access to any freedoms (including the opportunity to be miss usa) for her opinion.
A beauty pageant isn't a democracy, Herr. It would help if you read the previous posts. ;) The pageant judges can vote for whoever they and their sponsors like. And I'm fairly sure the gay judges didn't like her answer. That's their perogative.
She expressed her opinion as a belief for HER life, and you nor anyone else has a right to hurt her for that.
Again, she didn't say it just for herself - which is bad enough - she said ti for herself AND her country. Which she has since gone on to prove. Bigotry should be pointed out and no one withheld from criticism about it just because they might get their feelings hurt. ::)
You're mixing and matching here. A 'choice' is choice for opinion.
:laugh: That's a good spin. Choice = choice of opinion to have or not have an opinion. Er, no. Nice try though.
Fact is, same sex marriage is not allowed except in 4 states, one of which is not her state of CA. So she is taking nothing away; it does not exist.
Which was pointed out as her ignorance since that's something she believed and said. ;D
She, like the majority of americans AND THE ADMINISGTRATION offer civil unions.
it helps if you do! ;D
Well, if you read earlier posts, a great many states DON'T offer civil unions and indeed rushed to the polls to vote marriage in as man/woman only. So the great many don't even believe that...
And the majority is always...oh wait, no they're not. Mob rule and all that.
good answer but a major cop out. How much BS is that? It is the policticians who are making and passing the laws, particularly the ones at issue here. Iowa now allows gay marriage; no citizen was allowed to vote on this. The legislature did not even allow a vote to be called to provide for a public forum.
I don't like people to vote on whether minorities should have civil rights or not. Why should there even be a vote? People either have civil rights or they don't.
And you say let the politicians off the hook for their positions? You take a very dangerous view of civics and governament and public policy.
Sorry, but I don't "let them off the hook". YOU said that, not me. I'm not happy with Obama's decision, but he was the lesser of two evils IMO. MUCH lesser and I have plenty of reason to believe he was sucking up to Miss CA's conservative religious crowd in his statements - I might be wrong on her political affiliation, but I doubt it.
-
so people like her? do you even realize how you sound? How is bigotry so wrong for her but not for you?
Yes Jess people like her. Bigots. I don't like them much. I'm not the one being bigoted. Miss CA is obstinately devoted to her bigotry - irrationally so.
Now if you can explain why she should be bigoted against gays in that she doesn't believe they deserve to have the same choices as she, please do.
-
aha!! so this has nothing to do with her comments about gay marriage. You are after her because she is a Christian...got it..
A bigoted fundamentalist Christian. That's the big part you left out. And I'm always against religious bigots. They're the worst kind.
-
as apparently you do too...so you and she have a lot in common..
Sorry, Miss CA brought it up in her defense, not me. I was just pointing out - as did the previous Miss CA now ordained Pastor - that Miss CA is cherry-picking in what she thinks is biblically correct.
-
now you are reading God's mind? I thought you didn't believe in God?
:laugh:
I wasn't told this by god!! :laugh:
I was told this by other people who worship him and yes, those people probably think they can read his mind.
-
where did she focus on her hatred for anything?
What do you call wanting to keep a minority from having civil rights? She focused that on the gay population, then went on to prove it by her position as spokeswoman for that marriage group.
-
What do you call wanting to keep a minority from having civil rights? She focused that on the gay population, then went on to prove it by her position as spokeswoman for that marriage group.
:laugh: :laugh:
she did not 'focus on the gay population'...she was asked a question!!
I don't see you on the thread about Joe the Plumber....this is about a pretty woman that is a Christian...
-
there it is...Herr she is not mad about Ms Prejeans opinion, she hates her because she is beautiful
Putting words in my mouth
and a Christian.
A bigoted fundamentalist Christian.
[And it is SOO telling that it is ok to state the opinion that marriage should be male/female if it is for politics...
More putting words in my mouth. You said this not me.
in other words if you can get some personal gain for it..if you are LYING..even if that person is in a position to cause great harm...
Lying - sadly so. Miss CA and probably Obama both, but I have more confidence in Obama being flexible than I do Miss CA. He IS a politician after all, and she's not.
but it is NOT ok to state the same opinion if you believe it...even though you have no power to harm anyone.....hmmm..
Nope, again, YOUR words, not mine or anyone else's for that matter. The right to stating an opinion has never been the issue here, no matter how many times you and others keep trying to make this the issue.
-
:laugh: :laugh:
she did not 'focus on the gay population'...she was asked a question!!
And who was her answer about? Oh, yeah, little green martians not deserving the same rights as she. ::)
C'mon Jess you know better than that.
I don't see you on the thread about Joe the Plumber....this is about a pretty woman that is a Christian...
You missed my post then.
-
If it's OK for Ms. Prejean to believe what she beileves and take steps to prevent gays from getting married, isn't it OK for the judges to believe what they believe and take steps to prevent Ms. Prejean from becoming Miss USA?
-
If it's OK for Ms. Prejean to believe what she beileves and take steps to prevent gays from getting married, isn't it OK for the judges to believe what they believe and take steps to prevent Ms. Prejean from becoming Miss USA?
Or maybe in the future questions should be restricted to something like, "Are you in favor of world peace?"
-
What an ugly thread this turned out to be, I'm glad I stayed away.
-
If it's OK for Ms. Prejean to believe what she beileves and take steps to prevent gays from getting married, isn't it OK for the judges to believe what they believe and take steps to prevent Ms. Prejean from becoming Miss USA?
they DID...end of story. IF Mr Perez had not thrown a hissy fit. All the rest is in HIS lap...not hers.
-
they DID...end of story. IF Mr Perez had not thrown a hissy fit. All the rest is in HIS lap...not hers.
Not sure, but wasn't Perez asked his opinion as well?
-
they DID...end of story. IF Mr Perez had not thrown a hissy fit. All the rest is in HIS lap...not hers.
As much as you try to make it, this in not Perez Hilton's responsibility. They each made their own choices.
For all I know If the question had never been asked, and she had won, (which Donald Trump said she would not) we might be watching her as Miss USA in anti-gay-marriage commercials.
-
As much as you try to make it, this in not Perez Hilton's responsibility. They each made their own choices.
For all I know If the question had never been asked, and she had won, (which Donald Trump said she would not) we might be watching her as Miss USA in anti-gay-marriage commercials.
but we are making our choice to continue to give her publicity, arent' we? let me go see how many pages the plumber has....
I smell a whiff of sexism in the air...
-
Not true. The pageant is essentially a job interview. Perez is in a power position over the contestants and as such is obligated to not create a hostile atmosphere and judge fairly, unbiasedly.
He has a responsibility to his sponsors as well. A Miss USA pageant is nothing but a subjective contest. He didn't create a hostile environment, all his comments came after it was over. Yes, he's one of the judges, he holds the power to decide, not Miss CA. No surprises there.
He may have the authority to ask any question he wanted in this venue because of its "show" qualities, but imagine being asked that question in a real job interview...and not getting the job because of the wrong answer--whether the interviewer was anti marriage or for it and the interviewee on the other side.
Imagine NOT getting asked this question at a job interview but getting asked another question and getting the answer wrong. Same result.
-
but we are making our choice to continue to give her publicity, arent' we?
You're here, too. ;D
]
-
He has a responsibility to his sponsors as well. A Miss USA pageant is nothing but a subjective contest. He didn't create a hostile environment, all his comments came after it was over. Yes, he's one of the judges, he holds the power to decide, not Miss CA. No surprises there.
Imagine NOT getting asked this question at a job interview but getting asked another question and getting the answer wrong. Same result.
maybe you could make up a list of what people are allowed to say or not say and we can summarily execute anyone that goes off script.. ::) ::)
-
Not true. The pageant is essentially a job interview. Perez is in a power position over the contestants and as such is obligated to not create a hostile atmosphere and judge fairly, unbiasedly. He may have the authority to ask any question he wanted in this venue because of its "show" qualities, but imagine being asked that question in a real job interview...and not getting the job because of the wrong answer--whether the interviewer was anti marriage or for it and the interviewee on the other side.
What has this got to do with Perez Hilton somehow controlling Ms Prejean's actions? He picked what he would do and she picked her own responses to that.
-
but we are making our choice to continue to give her publicity, arent' we? let me go see how many pages the plumber has....
I smell a whiff of sexism in the air...
I believe you tried to compare the 'popularity' of this topic as opposed to the Joe the Plumber gay offensive thread.
Ah yes ... this is your post in the plumber thread:
it doesn't Clyde...I think it is kinda sad there is 28 pages of vitriol toward her comments about her opinion of marriage and here is 8 pages of fairly mild commentary about a man that says 'queers' aren't allowed around his kids..
I know which one I think is truly damaging
First, I believe this thread has been around a little longer than the other.
And second, you yourself have posted 68 times on this thread (by my current count) out of 354 replies. Me thinks YOU are keeping this thread alive just as much as anyone else - maybe more.
28 pages of vitriol? You realise you are responsible for 6 to 7 of those votriolic pages, don't you.
-
I believe you tried to compare the 'popularity' of this topic as opposed to the Joe the Plumber gay offensive thread.
First, I believe this thread has been around a little longer than the other
And second, you yourself have posted 68 times on this thread (by my current count) out of 354 replies. Me thinks YOU are keeping this thread alive just as much as anyone else - maybe more.
probably.. I stopped posting for a day and it didn't die so here I am again..
-
I guess it's because it's actually more newsworthy than what the plumber had to say - what with her making the talk circuit, becoming the poster girl against same-sex marriages, new revelations about her implants (can you say - barbie doll? I love the comment about plastic people having the right to wed but not fags :laugh: ) and today, the apparent revelation of nude pics.
She's more newsworthy than Britney - for all her shallowness.
-
I guess it's because it's actually more newsworthy than what the plumber had to say - what with her making the talk circuit, becoming the poster girl against same-sex marriages, new revelations about her implants (can you say - barbie doll? I love the comment about plastic people having the right to wed but not fags :laugh: ) and today, the apparent revelation of nude pics.
She's more newsworthy than Britney - for all her shallowness.
yep a middle age man can NOT compete against a naked blonde...
-
First, I believe this thread has been around a little longer than the other.
Yup this thread's been around since April 20 - 17 days ago - while the plumber made 'news' just 3 days ago - May 4
Of course there are going to have been more responses to the 'naked girl' than to the 'middle age man'
Not to mention the second point I made.
now let's see 36 pages in 17 days - that's a little more than 2 pages a day - for the 'naked blonde' thread.
And 9 pages in 3 or 4 days - that's 3 pages per day. I wonder if your percentage of posts on the plumber thread is as great as your imput into this thread.
Seems to me that the two threads are receiving the same amount of attention. The dif'rence is that the 'naked blonde' story seems to have more legs (pun intended) - again, the second point I made. Edit by Sheriff Roland: Oops - sorry. I meant the second post I made - about new revelations every two or three days.
-
whatever, Roland...like I said, I stopped posting and the thread went on...and on...you act like I am the only reason people post in here. That is not true.
and it doesnt' bother me if she gets more celebrity..see I KNOW she is just another blonde and there will be a new one tomorrow...
-
You're not aware of HR laws and protocol. Interview questions that are not applicable to the assignment are off limits. In this case because of the commerical affects, the questions are obviously more broad, but nonetheless, perez was seeking, and found, an uneven playing field on which to descriminate against one contestant. I think she has a legal case.
* cough* - I'd very much doubt it. Certainly with my knowledge, from my degree in HR, of (admitedly mainly UK) HR polcies and law, she'd be laughed out of court.
-
* cough* - I'd very much doubt it. Certainly with my knowledge, from my degree in HR, of (admitedly mainly UK) HR polcies and law, she'd be laughed out of court.
a degree in Human Relations - imagine that! Maybe you DO know what you're talking about!! ;)
-
Homophobia Abounds in Prejean Divorce
"All Men With Mustaches are GAY!"
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/)
So how does a beauty queen turn into the poster child against gay marriage? In the case of Miss California Carrie Prejean, the answer may lie in an ugly divorce that may have cemented her views on gay relationships.
Carrie's parents filed for divorce in 1988 and the divorce and custody fights went on for more than a decade -- it was a divorce filled with homosexual allegations hurled by both sides.
In one of the docs, Carrie's dad describes a confrontation he had with her mom in 1996, in which he recounts an argument in a restaurant parking lot, where "Ms. Prejean accused me, in front of our daughter, of homosexuality."
The papers also quote a court-appointed doctor who said "The mother questioned [within hearing of the girls] whether [her father] was a homosexual or had a homosexual roommate."
Carrie's mom says the "gay" allegations went both ways. In court papers dated May 16, 2000, a report from the court-appointed counselor says "The mother also alleges the father told the girls their stepfather was gay, that all men with mustaches are gay." The father's response: "The father acknowledges talking with the girls about the stepfather's brother being gay, not the stepfather."
Also in the docs -- a handwritten letter from Carrie's older sister, in which she recounts a weekend stay with her dad: "One time my sister & I went in the hallway of my dad's apartment, & his roommate's door was open all the way & we saw [the roommate] in bed with another man. I don't think it's right for my sister & I to have to live that way."
So does Carrie believe gays broke up her parents' marriage? We called her rep ... no comment so far. We could not reach Carrie's dad for comment.
For the record, there are other allegations -- absolutely hideous -- in the divorce and custody papers -- which we have elected not to publish.
-
Homophobia Abounds in Prejean Divorce
"All Men With Mustaches are GAY!"
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/)
So how does a beauty queen turn into the poster child against gay marriage? In the case of Miss California Carrie Prejean, the answer may lie in an ugly divorce that may have cemented her views on gay relationships.
Carrie's parents filed for divorce in 1988 and the divorce and custody fights went on for more than a decade -- it was a divorce filled with homosexual allegations hurled by both sides.
In one of the docs, Carrie's dad describes a confrontation he had with her mom in 1996, in which he recounts an argument in a restaurant parking lot, where "Ms. Prejean accused me, in front of our daughter, of homosexuality."
The papers also quote a court-appointed doctor who said "The mother questioned [within hearing of the girls] whether [her father] was a homosexual or had a homosexual roommate."
Carrie's mom says the "gay" allegations went both ways. In court papers dated May 16, 2000, a report from the court-appointed counselor says "The mother also alleges the father told the girls their stepfather was gay, that all men with mustaches are gay." The father's response: "The father acknowledges talking with the girls about the stepfather's brother being gay, not the stepfather."
Also in the docs -- a handwritten letter from Carrie's older sister, in which she recounts a weekend stay with her dad: "One time my sister & I went in the hallway of my dad's apartment, & his roommate's door was open all the way & we saw [the roommate] in bed with another man. I don't think it's right for my sister & I to have to live that way."
So does Carrie believe gays broke up her parents' marriage? We called her rep ... no comment so far. We could not reach Carrie's dad for comment.
For the record, there are other allegations -- absolutely hideous -- in the divorce and custody papers -- which we have elected not to publish.
My, what tangled webs we weave!
-
Homophobia Abounds in Prejean Divorce
"All Men With Mustaches are GAY!"
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/)
So how does a beauty queen turn into the poster child against gay marriage? In the case of Miss California Carrie Prejean, the answer may lie in an ugly divorce that may have cemented her views on gay relationships.
Carrie's parents filed for divorce in 1988 and the divorce and custody fights went on for more than a decade -- it was a divorce filled with homosexual allegations hurled by both sides.
In one of the docs, Carrie's dad describes a confrontation he had with her mom in 1996, in which he recounts an argument in a restaurant parking lot, where "Ms. Prejean accused me, in front of our daughter, of homosexuality."
The papers also quote a court-appointed doctor who said "The mother questioned [within hearing of the girls] whether [her father] was a homosexual or had a homosexual roommate."
Carrie's mom says the "gay" allegations went both ways. In court papers dated May 16, 2000, a report from the court-appointed counselor says "The mother also alleges the father told the girls their stepfather was gay, that all men with mustaches are gay." The father's response: "The father acknowledges talking with the girls about the stepfather's brother being gay, not the stepfather."
Also in the docs -- a handwritten letter from Carrie's older sister, in which she recounts a weekend stay with her dad: "One time my sister & I went in the hallway of my dad's apartment, & his roommate's door was open all the way & we saw [the roommate] in bed with another man. I don't think it's right for my sister & I to have to live that way."
So does Carrie believe gays broke up her parents' marriage? We called her rep ... no comment so far. We could not reach Carrie's dad for comment.
For the record, there are other allegations -- absolutely hideous -- in the divorce and custody papers -- which we have elected not to publish.
Boy, aren't they a piece of work? :-\
-
Andrew Sullivan posted about this kerfuffle on his blog AndrewSullivan.com (http://AndrewSullivan.com). As a conservative he naturally defended Miss Prejean with the typical it's free speech blah blah blah and how she didn't deserve the attacks blah blah blah, No one has argued against her 1st amendment rights. Although his blog does not have a comments section, he does post reader dissents. What I like about Andrew Sullivan is that he capable of changing his mind when presented with thoughtful rebuttals to his posts. Here is what he posted today 5-7. I don't know if he changed his mind, but I think he posts dissents when they make him think a little more deeply on a topic and engage him with ideas from different perspectives.
Dissents Of The Day
A reader writes:
You wrote:
Carrie Prejean has had to go through some really bad stuff she didn't deserve, just for inarticulately expressing a valid opinion in front of Perez Hilton.
But it's not a valid opinion Andrew and you know it. It's an opinion, yes, but valid? Come on now. Let's say the same thing had happened during a beauty pageant in say, 1965, and the contestant had said, essentially, I don't think whites and blacks should be able to be marry because that's just not how it should be and the Bible said and blah blah blah. Now say said contestant was vilified by liberals and the civil rights movement for expression, and in turn conservatives and libertarians and First Amendment hounds complained she was being attacked for her "valid" opinion.
Now flash forward almost 25 years. Do you think anyone short of KKK members, and maybe those people we all saw going to Palin rallies last fall would look back at that answer and think it was actually valid? Dated/a sign of the times, probably. Bigoted, maybe. An opinion, of course. But just because someone thinks something and has the god and Constitutional given right to say something (say anything!) does not make their opinion valid.
I'm sorry. But I think you know that. And I honestly think the reason you are hedging around this Carrie Prejean thing a bit is because her answer had a Christian bent, not because of free speech, or because you think we need to deal realistically with what people on the opposite side (you know, those who only want "opposite marriage") think or where they're coming from.
Another reader argues along similar lines:
Twenty years ago, I watched an interview with Anita Bryant on Larry King where she claimed that the gay community had destroyed her career. "The very same thing they accuse me of doing to them, they did to me," she said in a paraphrased burst of self-pity. It was apparently lost on her that she brought it on herself, that people will fight back and that her suffering was mild compared to the injury she inflicted on countless people who were already objects of hatred.
Perez Hilton (who I'd never heard of before this ridiculous beauty queen flap) strikes me as something of a jerk and a very bad "face" for gay marriage equality. But come on - the insults that Prejean has had to endure are mild compared to the vicious and hateful invective I've been subjected to for being gay my entire life. Hell, I get attacked and insulted more in five minutes on a chat room for being gay than Prejean has had to suffer since this entire affair began.
Millions of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of California were stripped of their rights in a deeply insulting and grossly unfair vote fueled by bigotry, and the right wingers are upset because a beauty queen was treated a bit badly? Please.
These two dissenters express quite well the way I feel and what I think about this whole brouhaha.
-
Perez Hilton (who I'd never heard of before this ridiculous beauty queen flap) strikes me as something of a jerk and a very bad "face" for gay marriage equality. But come on - the insults that Prejean has had to endure are mild compared to the vicious and hateful invective I've been subjected to for being gay my entire life. Hell, I get attacked and insulted more in five minutes on a chat room for being gay than Prejean has had to suffer since thisentire affair began.
so that makes it right? does this poster feel relief? does Ms Prejean being insulted somehow erase the memory of the insults HE faced? why does Ms Prejean have to pay for the people that insulted him?
-
why does Ms Prejean have to pay for the people that insulted him?
because darling Injest, Ms Prejean is a perfect and convenient target for the PC left to attack, and conceivably fundraise around.
she is :
1) an attractive woman, therefore she is not disabled by homeliness - how dare she!
2) a white woman, therefore not enabled by a minority status - You chose your parents unwisely didn't ya Prejean?
3) bold about expressing a "conservative" POV, therefore she can be attacked by the left for an opinion that is identical to THE ONE, who can not be attacked by the left.
4) a hetero therefore she can not have an opinion about same sex marriage anyway.
if nothing else, this whole increasingly tiresome episode does ONCE again illustrate the duplicity and double standards of the left and the media in the US. so for some it is a "teachable moment" - to use a Hillary phrase. ;)
-
so that makes it right? does this poster feel relief? does Ms Prejean being insulted somehow erase the memory of the insults HE faced? why does Ms Prejean have to pay for the people that insulted him?
She doesn't. But any gay man who is out has suffered insults many times worse than what has happened to her. Being called a bitch by a gossip columnist is tame in comparison. Please forgive us if we're not impressed.
It's interersting that the gays are always wrong, and everybody else is always right.
-
She doesn't. But any gay man who is out has suffered insults many times worse than what has happened to her. Being called a bitch by a gossip columnist is tame in comparison. Please forgive us if we're not impressed.
It's interersting that the gays are always wrong, and everybody else is always right.
who said that? Does the fact that Mr. "Perez" is wrong in THIS instance, somehow mean all gay people everywhere are wrong? Does he stand in for all gay people? are gay people NEVER wrong?
-
who said that? Does the fact that Mr. "Perez" is wrong in THIS instance, somehow mean all gay people everywhere are wrong? Does he stand in for all gay people? are gay people NEVER wrong?
This woman is working to keep your son from being able to get married and you are defending her about a silly name calling as though she'd been attacked and mugged.
I don't understand.
-
This woman is working to keep your son from being able to get married and you are defending her about a silly name calling as though she'd been attacked and mugged.
I don't understand.
I know she had no power....there was nothing she could do. I dont' care if someone doesn't LIKE my son. I just dont' want them to have the POWER to hurt him. I have to be fair. I dont' think she did anything wrong, I would rather KNOW the truth about what people think rather than have them lie...
Perez gave her the power, he made her name a household thing...he gave her a platform to leap off of. Now she is the darling of the anti gay marriage...and people are rallying to her. She needs to be allowed to fade off the public stage, instead the gay community is ginning up SUPPORT for her...everything that is brought out to 'harm' her is going to backfire.
-
I know she had no power....there was nothing she could do. I dont' care if someone doesn't LIKE my son. I just dont' want them to have the POWER to hurt him. I have to be fair. I dont' think she did anything wrong, I would rather KNOW the truth about what people think rather than have them lie...
Perez gave her the power, he made her name a household thing...he gave her a platform to leap off of. Now she is the darling of the anti gay marriage...and people are rallying to her. She needs to be allowed to fade off the public stage, instead the gay community is ginning up SUPPORT for her...everything that is brought out to 'harm' her is going to backfire.
Perez gave her no power. The people that make the ads gave her the power. And as far as I know they would also have given her that power if she had been Miss USA.
She chose to act as spokesperson and tell people nationally not to let gay people get married. That is her choice. No one held a gun to her head and made her do it. She was given the opportunity and she took it, quite possibly because of the public exposure it gives her.
No one made Hilton insult her, he chose to do that himself, and no one made her choices for her except herself.
-
Right, you don't understand, and seem to be resisting the explanations.
"But any gay man who is out has suffered insults many times worse than what has happened to her." This is exemplory of one's inabilty to understand because the desire to maintain and nurture a pathetic victim status, often exaggerrated to draw unwarranted sympathy, clouds a persons' ability to see beyond their own little 'whoo is me' insular dwelling place.
the phrase is "get over yourself" that I would apply to folks who cannot get past their own need for self inflicted wounds from past experiences and pass off real time issues because they want the center stage of pity.
No one knows the pain she has suffered and no one knows how anyone else has suffered. All we know is that people are not very nice to others, and those who determine that their past traumas are sufficient to annul someone else's unpleasant situation is is good shape to join the brown shirts, imo.
I doubt seriously you would expect an Iraqi vet who has shrapnel wounds to be impressed by someone with a hangnail.
Aren't you the one with the mirror collection?
-
Perez gave her no power. The people that make the ads gave her the power. And as far as I know they would also have given her that power if she had been Miss USA.
She chose to act as spokesperson and tell people nationally not to let gay people get married. That is her choice. No one held a gun to her head and made her do it. She was given the opportunity and she took it, quite possibly because of the public exposure it gives her.
No one made Hilton insult her, he chose to do that himself, and no one made her choices for her except herself.
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. IDEALLY, people would make their decisions entirely logically and free from outside influense...unfortunately few people are able to do that.
Perez slapped her...she responded by slapping back. Unfortunately HE isn't the only one that will suffer.
-
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. IDEALLY, people would make their decisions entirely logically and free from outside influense...unfortunately few people are able to do that.
Perez slapped her...she responded by slapping back. Unfortunately HE isn't the only one that will suffer.
So Perez slapped her, she had no choice but to slap back? Is that the Biblically correct thing to do?
Sorry, we all make our own choices, unless you believe those criminal defenses where the criminal "had to" commit the crime.
-
So Perez slapped her, she had no choice but to slap back? Is that the Biblically correct thing to do?
Sorry, we all make our own choices, unless you believe those criminal defenses where the criminal "had to" commit the crime.
I thought that was "turn the other cheek" - in Carrie's case maybe it's her ass cheek.
-
So Perez slapped her, she had no choice but to slap back? Is that the Biblically correct thing to do?
Sorry, we all make our own choices, unless you believe those criminal defenses where the criminal "had to" commit the crime.
no I think people are human. it is wholey human to want to defend yourself if you feel attacked...(and I do see that may be what Perez was doing himself..)
I think it is a little silly to keep making references to the Bible....being a Christian does not make you perfect or infallible...quite the opposite, you realize how flawed you are. It is a journey to be better, not a belief that you are better.
-
obsessed much with the lady's body?
-
no I think people are human. it is wholey human to want to defend yourself if you feel attacked...(and I do see that may be what Perez was doing himself..)
I think it is a little silly to keep making references to the Bible....being a Christian does not make you perfect or infallible...quite the opposite, you realize how flawed you are. It is a journey to be better, not a belief that you are better.
I was using an idea that Prejean expressed herself - that she was being Biblically correct. I simply borrowed it from her.
I agree that improving the way we do things is a journey. But one of the cornerstones of that journey is realizing that regardless of what someone does to me, what I do next is solely up to me and to me alone. I can choose to vent my rage, or laugh, or attack or create understanding or listen or any one of a million choices.
The same is true for us all.
-
I was using an idea that Prejean expressed herself - that she was being Biblically correct. I simply borrowed it from her.
I agree that improving the way we do things is a journey. But one of the cornerstones of that journey is realizing that regardless of what someone does to me, what I do next is solely up to me and to me alone. I can choose to vent my rage, or laugh, or attack or create understanding or listen or any one of a million choices.
The same is true for us all.
if you have achieved that perfection then I congratulate you. I know I haven't....I am notorious for wanting to hit back when I feel attacked.
-
I know she had no power....there was nothing she could do. I dont' care if someone doesn't LIKE my son. I just dont' want them to have the POWER to hurt him. I have to be fair. I dont' think she did anything wrong, I would rather KNOW the truth about what people think rather than have them lie...
Perez gave her the power, he made her name a household thing...he gave her a platform to leap off of. Now she is the darling of the anti gay marriage...and people are rallying to her. She needs to be allowed to fade off the public stage, instead the gay community is ginning up SUPPORT for her...everything that is brought out to 'harm' her is going to backfire.
So you don't think they way she is acting gives power over your son & Jeff? See to me she has got power and is weilding it over them. If you have a 1000 of these peeople saying "no offence but you can't get married on my watch mate" well what's that saying? There is strength in numbers. Break down those numbers & you break down the power. This is what the civil rights movement did and it got us to a better place, not perfect still but definitely better than then.
-
I couldn't agree with you more. The people here (I assume the royal "we" are the haters here of Prejean) who are doing their best to harm and hurt this young woman do indeed weave tangled webs. ;)
I wonder why the court docs were released in the first place; they are not always public. The extent to which you folks will go, and encourage others to go, to hurt people is shameless. How dare you find glee in some jerk writer who tries to leverage a personal family tragedy into a manufactured slur against this person? And then passively accept some miserably lame attempt at psychoanalysis? If this forum was a business, the posts that so casually degrade Prejean would be an entire course in diversity training classes to demonstrate how hate is a tangled web of liberal bigotry.
Umm, Did I dig those files up in my sleep or something? Cos I can't remeber doing that!
But its an interesting case you're making here. That reporters shouldn't dig up fact and figures to add to a story? I think thats a double standard there becasue yo have provided plenty of facts and figures to back up your stories, why not here?
-
because darling Injest, Ms Prejean is a perfect and convenient target for the PC left to attack, and conceivably fundraise around.
she is :
1) an attractive woman, therefore she is not disabled by homeliness - how dare she!
2) a white woman, therefore not enabled by a minority status - You chose your parents unwisely didn't ya Prejean?
3) bold about expressing a "conservative" POV, therefore she can be attacked by the left for an opinion that is identical to THE ONE, who can not be attacked by the left.
4) a hetero therefore she can not have an opinion about same sex marriage anyway.
if nothing else, this whole increasingly tiresome episode does ONCE again illustrate the duplicity and double standards of the left and the media in the US. so for some it is a "teachable moment" - to use a Hillary phrase. ;)
and dont forget...
5) because she showed a very un PC attitude which people have called her on.
-
and YOUR attitude IS PC? oh I guess so, since liberals think only OTHER people are to be held to standards...
it is quite an education to see the jeaousy and vitriol poured on someone for speaking their mind, forging a chain for one person allows that chain to be used on you. Liberals dont' want equality, they want their feet on the throats of anyone that dares speak up. Nasty nasty nasty attitudes....gleeful at the thought of someone else hurt.
Freedom can't be for just a few select people.
Animal Farm was more true than I realized...some ARE more equal than others.
-
and YOUR attitude IS PC? oh I guess so, since liberals think only OTHER people are to be held to standards...
it is quite an education to see the jeaousy and vitriol poured on someone for speaking their mind, forging a chain for one person allows that chain to be used on you. Liberals dont' want equality, they want their feet on the throats of anyone that dares speak up. Nasty nasty nasty attitudes....gleeful at the thought of someone else hurt.
Freedom can't be for just a few select people.
Animal Farm was more true than I realized...some ARE more equal than others.
Well I believe in gay rights - so against her viewpoints I would saymy attitude here is more PC on this issue.
With regard to the bit I've coloured in red... Exactly, that's why I believe she was un PC in this situation. She has the freedom to say what she wants but I believe she is wrong, and I ahve the freedom to say that too.
I have not shown any jealousy or anger. I have only said that i think a) she was wrong in what she said and explained why I think this and alsio mentioned that b) as a beauty queen she should have had more common sense than to word what she said in the way she did. She was swimming in waters full of gays. Ie The beauty pagent world is full of gay men - why did she think that her words wouldn't cause a storm?
-
stereotyping much?
-
stereotyping much?
with regard to gays being part of the beauty pagent business?
If you look back at the news articles you'll see thet many people in the pagentry business have mentioned this in the discussions about this case. The Californian Miss USA Board people mention it specifically in her case that she had many openly gay represntatives helping her in a) getting the californian crown and B) shooting for the Miss USA crown.
-
if you have achieved that perfection then I congratulate you. I know I haven't....I am notorious for wanting to hit back when I feel attacked.
I'm not a believer in perfection. As you said, it's a journey. It's a choice made every single time we make a response.
-
The Californian Miss USA Board people mention it specifically in her case that she had many openly gay represntatives helping her in a) getting the californian crown and B) shooting for the Miss USA crown.
Which just goes to show that Carrie Prejean is another one of those people willing to take advantage of gays for their own profit but still deny us full civil rights in this country. >:(
The clueless little bitch. ...
-
Which just goes to show that Carrie Prejean is another one of those people willing to take advantage of gays for their own profit but still deny us full civil rights in this country. >:(
The clueless little bitch. ...
Kind of like...."Shut-up and make me look pretty!" :laugh:
(But above all, shut-up)
Or from another angle:
Shut-up and look straight!
Your constant "whining & screeching" is "hurting the cause" for "respectable" gays.
-
you can say that twice and mean it!
-
Aren't you the one with the mirror collection?
No HK is the one with a "successful career", I am the one who has nice mirrors.
-
and dont forget...
5) because she showed a very un PC attitude which people have called her on.
yes, and to her credit, she definitely does not subscribe to the robot thinking of the political correctness agenda. however, she may subscribe to other robotic agendas - so its a wash as far as I'm concerned.
-
Miss California gay-marriage debate coming to a head
The saga over Miss California and the whole gay-marriage debate may come to a head Monday.
The Miss California USA Pageant has scheduled a news conference on Monday in Beverly Hills to discuss the controversy surrounding title-holder Carrie Prejean.
Prejean made national headlines last month when during the Miss USA pageant she said that marriage should be between a man and woman. She said in later interviews that she does not support gay marriage (California voters voted to prohibit gay marriage last November).
Some have questioned whether her comments cost her the Miss USA title, and she's been the subject of much criticism from pro-gay-marriage activists.
Now, Miss California officials say they are looking into whether Prejean violated rules by working for a group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-nude. It's unclear whether she could lose her California crown if officials determine that she broke the rules. Prejean has said she did nothing wrong.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/miss-california-gay-marriage-debate-coming-to-a-head.html
-
ahhh, now we'll get to the bottom of it. ;D
-
I hope she doesn't lose her crown over this.
And why? Because if it happens the religious right will turn her into some sort of martyr.
"She lost her crown because of those mean old fags homosexuals and their nasty ways".
I can just hear it now.... :P
-
I hope she keeps her crown and joins all the dozens of Miss Whateverstates that have gone before her and who we do not know or care about.
-
and I hope Perez finds something productive to do with his time...
-
I hope she doesn't lose her crown over this.
As much as I despise the hypocritical little bitch, it still strikes me as wrong that she might lose her title over something she did before she became a contestant--provided she had no role in the photos becoming public now.
-
and I hope Perez finds something productive to do with his time...
Well, I'm following him on Twiitter and according to his 'tweets', he just spent a couple of days with his mom at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara loooved it! They spent a relaxing time being spa-pampered, he should be back in LA now but his mom stayed there for anoter day. ;D
-
Well, I'm following him on Twiitter and according to his 'tweets', he just spent a couple of days with his mom at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara loooved it! They spent a relaxing time being spa-pampered, he should be back in LA now but his mom stayed there for anoter day. ;D
:laugh:
-
I doubt very much Perez knows what 'something productive' truly is. The guy is a big time loser. One productive endeavor he could pursue is taking butch lessons; even if he got a D-, he'd be better off. ;D
And it finally comes out., the real reason he is so reviled.
::)
-
And it finally comes out., the real reason he is so reviled.
You mean this is the first time on Bettermost anyone has communicated that they don't like Perez Hilton because he's a queen??
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that he's a gossip "writer" puts him at near the bottom of the humanity heap right off the bat. He gets an even lower rating from me because he's so bitchy. The fact that he publicly presents an effeminate stereotype of homosexual men is just icing on the cake, and it takes him down a notch further.
-
Lying Is Biblically Correct
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/11/carrie-prejean-whos-the-boob-now/ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/11/carrie-prejean-whos-the-boob-now/)
Those topless photos of Miss USA California Carrie Prejean were taken after she turned 18, according to one of her former pageant sponsors. This contradicts Carrie's position that she posed for the pics when she was only 17.
We obtained an email sent by the sponsor (we were asked not to use his name) and he says Carrie sent him one of the topless photos after January 6, 2009, asking "if she was in good enough shape for the Miss USA Pageant." The date is significant, because that's the day Carrie got a boob job. The former sponsor says the pic was post boob job and she was well over 18.
TMZ obtained 4 topless photos a week ago. Her rep contacted us and said Carrie's position was that she was naive at the time she posed. Then we got a second email stating she was only 17. As a result we did not publish the photos. But the sponsor says he's positive they were taken when Carrie was a full-grown adult.
UPDATE 9:40 AM ET Carrie Prejean will NOT be stripped of her crown today. There's a news conference at 2:00 PM ET by the peeps from the Miss California USA pageant, but they won't be pulling the plug on Carrie. That's Donald's decision, and he'll make it tomorrow.
-
So let make bets on what decision The Donald ( :P) will make. (Whichever one gets him more publicity I imagine....)
-
Miss California Blames Satan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/carrie-prejean-satan-was_n_201687.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/carrie-prejean-satan-was_n_201687.html)
As Miss California Carrie Prejean's fate is being decided by Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump, who has called a Tuesday morning press conference to announce if she'll keep her crown or will lose it due to contract violations, Prejean is keeping busy talking to Dr. James Dobson about how Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant.
She is a guest Monday and Tuesday on "Focus on the Famiy," as TMZ is revealing just how badly she lied about the topless photos she took. She took not only more than one (obviously), which she lied about, but she took them this year, not when she was 17.
An exchange with Dobson:
Dobson: Why did you give the answer you did with regard to the affirmation of marriage?
Prejean: . . . I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA."
And I knew right here that it wasn't about winning. It was about being true to my convictions.
Meanwhile, thedirty.com keeps finding more (pre-free implants) shots of Prejean. They just found old photos of her with alleged hook-up Michael Phelps, whom she supposedly met in Las Vegas. Phelps denied a relationship
-
Prejean: . . . I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA."
And I knew right here that it wasn't about winning. It was about being true to my convictions.
This young person and people like her just make me sick.
The implication is that God is OK with the chicken-cutlet implants and the topless photos and an allegedly Christian person flaunting her body as a lingerie model but He is against society giving legal sanction to a relationship just because it happens to be between two people of the same gender.
Oh, come on. ...
-
This young person and people like her just make me sick.
The implication is that God is OK with the chicken-cutlet implants and the topless photos and an allegedly Christian person flaunting her body as a lingerie model but He is against society giving legal sanction to a relationship just because it happens to be between two people of the same gender.
Oh, come on. ...
and the question remains, what will "The Donald" do?
-
and the question remains, what will "The Donald" do?
On the basis of the satan comment, I say I hope he fires her ass... and her chicken cutlets..
-
You mean this is the first time on Bettermost anyone has communicated that they don't like Perez Hilton because he's a queen??
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that he's a gossip "writer" puts him at near the bottom of the humanity heap right off the bat. He gets an even lower rating from me because he's so bitchy. The fact that he publicly presents an effeminate stereotype of homosexual men is just icing on the cake, and it takes him down a notch further.
One last question.
Why is it that Perez Hilton's insults to a hetero Xian hypocrite makes him a 'Repulsive & Annoying Bitchy Queen who should find something useful to do with his miserable life' while Michael Savage's rabid homophobic rantings make him a 'Free Speech Avocate'? ???
It's so confuuuusing! ;D
-
One last question.
Why is it that Perez Hilton's insults to a hetero Xian hypocrite makes him a 'Repulsive & Annoying Bitchy Queen who should find something useful to do with his miserable life' while Michael Savage's rabid homophobic rantings make him a 'Free Speech Avocate'? ???
It's so confuuuusing! ;D
Hilton's bitchiness has nothing to do with who his target is. He's bitchy all the time. I don't recall defending anything Savage has ever said.
-
Hilton's bitchiness has nothing to do with who his target is. He's bitchy all the time. I don't recall defending anything Savage has ever said.
I just find it strange that the conservative contingent here, not you necessarily, was so quick to defend Savage on that other thread, despite him being one of the biggest public homophobes in the country. Hilton insults one brainless bigoted beauty queen and he is positively reviled.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
-
I dont' see the contradictions at all...I have defended both Prejean and Savage based on free speech, I haven't advocated Perez be fired or sanctioned in any way, he is free to say what he wants to. I have a right to point out he is shooting himself in the foot.
-
One last question.
Why is it that Perez Hilton's insults to a hetero Xian hypocrite makes him a 'Repulsive & Annoying Bitchy Queen who should find something useful to do with his miserable life' while Michael Savage's rabid homophobic rantings make him a 'Free Speech Avocate'? ???
It's so confuuuusing! ;D
this is not really funny but somehow it strikes me very funny. The silver lining for Mario here is that for him, trucking as he does in the lowbrow end of media, there is no such thing as bad publicity. A man who will go out in public in a Hello Kitty showercap has absolutely no fear of the Christian right.
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/05/30/perezhilton_narrowweb__300x437,0.jpg)
-
Hilton insults one brainless bigoted beauty queen and he is positively reviled.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
You have it somewhat mixed up. It wasn't Hilton's treatment of Prejean that pissed people off. The Prejean incident was just the latest insult to our sensibilities. Hilton's reputation as an obnoxious bottom-feeder goes further back than that.
-
The silver lining for Mario here is that for him, trucking as he does in the lowbrow end of media, there is no such thing as bad publicity. A man who will go out in public in a Hello Kitty showercap has absolutely no fear of the Christian right.
A man who will go out in public in a Hello Kitty showercap ain't nothin' but a clown. A screaming queen who goes out in public in a Hello Kitty shower cap is just a pathetic attention hog. Christian right or no Christian right. Unfortunately for Mario, the only way he can hold onto his position in the entertainment industry is by constantly debasing himself and being ever the provocateur.
-
Well I personally like his Hello Kitty showercap! :P#
Now oilgun - get back to more inportant things - like the TAR thread please!!!! : ;D
-
Satan Donald Helps Carrie Keep Miss California Crown (And her cutlets)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/miss-california-keeps-the_n_202093.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/miss-california-keeps-the_n_202093.html)
NEW YORK — Miss California USA can retain her crown even though she failed to reveal she had posed in her underwear as a teenager, pageant owner Donald Trump said Tuesday.
Carrie Prejean appeared by Trump's side as he made the announcement at New York's Trump Tower.
Trump also defended the answer that Prejean gave at last month's Miss USA pageant when she was asked her view of marriage by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. She said she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
"It's the same answer the president of the United States gave; it's the same answer many people gave," Trump said. "She gave an honorable answer; she gave an answer from her heart."
Trump said he and other pageant officials had reviewed racy photos of Prejean and decided they were acceptable.
"We are in the 21st century. We have determined the pictures taken are fine," he said, adding that "in some cases the pictures were lovely."
After Trump spoke, the 21-year-old Prejean, who was accompanied by her parents, took her turn at the lectern, defending herself against what she described as vicious attacks.
She talked about getting thousands of letters and e-mails from people supporting her and said, about the marriage question, that Hilton had asked her a "politically charged question with a hidden personal agenda."
"I stated my honest belief," she said.
Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, is best known as a celebrity blogger but has also branched off into gay rights advocacy.
-
Well, that avoids the awkward question of "Do we ask for our chicken cutlets back, or not?"
-
A man who will go out in public in a Hello Kitty showercap ain't nothin' but a clown. A screaming queen who goes out in public in a Hello Kitty shower cap is just a pathetic attention hog. Christian right or no Christian right. Unfortunately for Mario, the only way he can hold onto his position in the entertainment industry is by constantly debasing himself and being ever the provocateur.
I don't think Bettermost is the appropriate forum for using homophobic slurs.
-
Well, that avoids the awkward question of "Do we ask for our chicken cutlets back, or not?"
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
clearly the Donald has no problem with her work for National Organization for Marriage OR with her new cutlets.
-
Satan Donald Helps Carrie Keep Miss California Crown (And her cutlets)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/miss-california-keeps-the_n_202093.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/miss-california-keeps-the_n_202093.html)
NEW YORK — Miss California USA can retain her crown even though she failed to reveal she had posed in her underwear as a teenager, pageant owner Donald Trump said Tuesday.
Carrie Prejean appeared by Trump's side as he made the announcement at New York's Trump Tower.
Trump also defended the answer that Prejean gave at last month's Miss USA pageant when she was asked her view of marriage by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. She said she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
"It's the same answer the president of the United States gave; it's the same answer many people gave," Trump said. "She gave an honorable answer; she gave an answer from her heart."
Trump said he and other pageant officials had reviewed racy photos of Prejean and decided they were acceptable.
"We are in the 21st century. We have determined the pictures taken are fine," he said, adding that "in some cases the pictures were lovely."
After Trump spoke, the 21-year-old Prejean, who was accompanied by her parents, took her turn at the lectern, defending herself against what she described as vicious attacks.
She talked about getting thousands of letters and e-mails from people supporting her and said, about the marriage question, that Hilton had asked her a "politically charged question with a hidden personal agenda."
"I stated my honest belief," she said.
Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, is best known as a celebrity blogger but has also branched off into gay rights advocacy.
How not surprising, lol!
Anyway, just because her answer was "from her heart" doesn't mean it wasn't deserving of derision.
The Beauty Pageant is the Monster Truck Rally's bimbo girlfriend, anyway, just there to promote and reward gender stereotypes.
-
clearly the Donald has no problem with her work for National Organization for Marriage OR with her new cutlets.
Nope, as long as he's getting publicity, it's all A-OK with him. And I imagine he's rather fond of her cutlets. ::)
-
I forget already when it was that I recently saw The Donald on the Today show, but this is the response I was expecting form him. But where does this leave the pageant people who just appointed the first runner-up as their "ambassador" because Miss Chicken-Cutlets has been so busy advocating for the homophobic Christian Right that she hasn't been fulfilling her responsibilities as the title-holder? :-\
-
I forget already when it was that I recently saw The Donald on the Today show, but this is the response I was expecting form him. But where does this leave the pageant people who just appointed the first runner-up as their "ambassador" because Miss Chicken-Cutlets has been so busy advocating for the homophobic Christian Right that she hasn't been fulfilling her responsibilities as the title-holder? :-\
that was temporary until The Donald could make a determination.
-
Shanna Moakler Resigns as Miss California Pageant Director
The day after Carrie Prejean was told she could keep her Miss California crown, Shanna Moakler has resigned, she confirms to Usmagazine.com exclusively.
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization," Moakler tells Us.
"I cannot with a clear conscious move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth," she continues. "I want to be a role model for young woman with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children. I am sorry and hope I have not let any young supporters down but wish them the best of luck in fulfilling their dreams."
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/shanna-moakler-resigns-as-miss-california-pageant-director/22472?nc
-
Shanna Moakler Resigns as Miss California Pageant Director
The day after Carrie Prejean was told she could keep her Miss California crown, Shanna Moakler has resigned, she confirms to Usmagazine.com exclusively.
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization," Moakler tells Us.
"I cannot with a clear conscious move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth," she continues. "I want to be a role model for young woman with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children. I am sorry and hope I have not let any young supporters down but wish them the best of luck in fulfilling their dreams."
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/shanna-moakler-resigns-as-miss-california-pageant-director/22472?nc
Oh, God. ... :P Off topic and pedantic, I know, but did she really issue a written statement that used the phrase "a clear conscious"? If she doesn't know the difference between conscious and conscience, then not only does she need to resign her position with the pageant, she needs to go back to grammar school. Aaargh! :P
-
might have been a bad transcript, who knows?
-
Oh, God. ... :P Off topic and pedantic, I know, but did she really issue a written statement that used the phrase "a clear conscious"? If she doesn't know the difference between conscious and conscience, then not only does she need to resign her position with the pageant, she needs to go back to grammar school. Aaargh! :P
So, you're saying you never had an unclear conscious? Not even a little bit blurry?
-
Nope, as long as he's getting publicity, it's all A-OK with him. And I imagine he's rather fond of her cutlets. ::)
The Donald's response was expected. I was rather appalled though unsurprised at his admission that he liked semi-nude photos of 17 year olds and what else he said was just as ridiculous, something about, "if she wasn't so beautiful no one would care..."
::)
But it's his show. It's his decision to make. And yes, I agree, the more publicity, the better he likes it.
I did like Miss Nevada, who was stripped of her crown for her racy pics, going on E! and stating that there was an obvious double-standard going on.
-
might have been a bad transcript, who knows?
how very tolerant of you! no comments on her lack of intelligence? oh wait....she is expressing the 'correct' attitude so mistakes are allowed... ;)
-
I don't think Bettermost is the appropriate forum for using homophobic slurs.
Indeed.
A man who will go out in public in a Hello Kitty showercap ain't nothin' but a clown. A screaming queen who goes out in public in a Hello Kitty shower cap is just a pathetic attention hog. Christian right or no Christian right. Unfortunately for Mario, the only way he can hold onto his position in the entertainment industry is by constantly debasing himself and being ever the provocateur.
Why not just call him a Faggot? No Homophobia on Bettermost my ass. I do agree however, that Perez Hilton is an obnoxious attention whore.
-
Why not just call him a Faggot? No Homophobia on Bettermost my ass. I do agree however, that Perez Hilton is an obnoxious attention whore.
so does that make YOU homophobic?
-
Why not just call him a Faggot? No Homophobia on Bettermost my ass.
Why not just put words in my mouth?? I hate that shit!! I choose my words carefully. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I stand behind my comments. That's how real men argue. They don't go around putting words in people's mouths. If you're going to get all up in my grill, then do it based on what I actually said, not what you feel I "really" meant. That kind of behavior is more in line with the bitchiness that Hilton dishes out.
Again, there is a big difference between homophobia, and a distaste for attention-grabbing, screaming queens. If you can't see that difference, then you are supporting the idea that homosexual men and effeminacy are synonymous.
-
Why not just call him a Faggot? No Homophobia on Bettermost my ass. I do agree however, that Perez Hilton is an obnoxious attention whore.
I suppose if you can refer to Hilton as a whore, one could refer to him as a faggot. What is the difference, Retropian? Both words are as disparaging.
Brad
-
The guy is an embarrassment the way Marion Barry is an embarrassment.
Tell me about it!! No way in hell do I want the likes of Marion Barry representing blacks.
And yes, we do use the word "niggah" at each other in all kinds of ways, including pejoratively.
I often hear gay men do the same thing with "faggott." I worked in an office with a couple of swishy guys, and they used it all the time. Used call each other (and me BTW) "stupid faggott," "drunk faggott," etc. One day, during a heated argument, A said to B, "why don't you shut up and get your faggott ass out of my face!!" A hush fell over the office because we all knew they were really angry at each other. Luckily the phone wrang and it was a customer.
-
The bitch must miss being in the limelight, LOL!
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid84048.asp
Sarah Palin Defends Miss Calif.
Click the byline to view more stories by this author.By Julie Bolcer
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin issued a statement in defense of Miss California on Wednesday, saying that she could relate to the “liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean” and framing the controversy as a matter of free speech.
“Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself,” said Palin, also a beauty queen before she entered the spotlight as the Republican vice presidential nominee last year.
“What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Palin.
“I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights,” she said.
Palin’s attempt to align herself with Prejean, who sparked a national debate for her views against marriage equality and appearance in seminude photographs, marks her latest effort to remain in the public eye outside Alaska. On Wednesday, HarperCollins announced that it will publish the governor’s memoir next spring.
-
Miss California, Hero of the Right
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/05/14/miss-california-on-cable-news-fox--friends-gives-carrie-prejean-her-chance.html (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/05/14/miss-california-on-cable-news-fox--friends-gives-carrie-prejean-her-chance.html)
Miss California on Cable News: Fox & Friends Gives Carrie Prejean Her Chance
May 14, 2009 03:24 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
Miss California and Miss USA runner-up, Carrie Prejean, tossed around in the battle over gay marriage, will be a one-day guest host for Fox News Channel's popular morning show Fox & Friends, Whispers learns. She will host the 6 a.m.-to-7 a.m. slot on May 27, filling in for Gretchen Carlson—the 1989 Miss America—who will be off that day.
The decision to make her a one-day cohost was finalized yesterday—the same day Prejean and Miss USA owner Donald Trump appeared on Fox & Friends.
Suzanne Scott, Fox vice president for programming, filled me in on the details of the gig for Prejean, who was thrust into the headlines when she rejected gay marriage during the Q&A part of the pageant. "We're just using her one time," she said, "to sit with the boys and have some fun." The boys are cohosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade. "She has become a national celebrity in the last few weeks, and it's a fun thing to do," said Scott. "It's a good way to try get a little buzz and fun for the show. We'll see what happens with it," she added.
Fox & Friends has used news celebs before, and some have gone on to bigger and better things. Scott recalled using Tiki Barber on Fox & Friends while he was a member of the New York Giants. "He went off to become a TV star," she said. However, said Scott, there have been no talks with Prejean about a future with Fox.
Scott didn't know yet what the focus of the May 27 show will be, and Prejean might have to come in the day before to prepare.
-
So, you're saying you never had an unclear conscious? Not even a little bit blurry?
Are you suggesting Moakler could stay with the pageant if she were drunk?
-
For the record, I think Perez Hilton is a screaming queen, but I would only call him a faggot in the private company of other fellow faggots, not in a public forum with a mixed membership like Bettermost.
Just in case anyone was wonderin'. ... ;)
-
I think Ms Prejean should send him some flowers or something. He has made her a star.
:P
-
Milo actually did NOT call PH a "faggot", he called him a screaming queen and an attention whore. But I personally would have no probelm with calling Perez Hilton a faggot, the way that black folks refer to other black folks as n*****s. Note, I dont use the word myself, being white, it aint mine to use.
As a gay man, I am disgusted that someone like perez Hilton is out there representing me. And yeah, when took it on himself to give sermons to beauty pageant contestants on the rightthinking way to be, he cast himself as a warrior for the great cause of gay rights. Unfortunately, Perez Hilton is someone who makes a living writing nasty gossip (mostly against women, I notice) and thinks that Hello Kittie shower caps are appropriate head covering for a grown man to sport in public. So while he imagines himself as Rosa parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus, he actually just looks like a jackass.
Theres nothing wrong with being a jackass, its a free country and God Bless America, so long as hes just doing it as a private citizen. But now that hes out representing, I got a serious problem with being represented by a guy that seems to have being going down a list of negative stereotypes of gay men and checking off the boxes. Black folks have a problem with being represented by pimp-looking guys loudlky acting a stereotype in public, and I got a problem with Perez hilton doing the equivalent. Black folks employ the ultimate insult at their own to express their disapproval, as in "dont act like a n*****."
Well, Perez Hilton is acting like a faggot, a loud, shallow, silly trivia, woman-hating female impersonater, and if there was such a thing as the "cone of silence" (and darkness) like in "Get Smart" I would hunt the guy down and put it over him to remove him from view. The guy is an embarrassment the way Marion Barry is an embarrassment.
And note, I did not say, "kill him" or "kick his ass".
Well that's the thing, Perez Hilton is NOT representing you, he's gay gay gay! Not an androphile not an msm, but gay! You guys want "nothing to do with anything GAY" so lay off him. Oh and the word Faggot belongs to GAYS so I don't want an effin androphile using it! :laugh:
-
Well that's the thing, Perez Hilton is NOT representing you, he's gay gay gay! Not an androphile not an msm, but gay! You guys want "nothing to do with anything GAY" so lay off him. Oh and the word Faggot belongs to GAYS so I don't want an effin androphile use it! :laugh:
Oh well.
Theres advantages to being a big knuckledragging Neanderthal ;)
-
Well, isn't this nice:
The bitch must miss being in the limelight, LOL!
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid84048.asp
Sarah Palin Defends Miss Calif.
Click the byline to view more stories by this author.By Julie Bolcer
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin issued a statement in defense of Miss California on Wednesday, saying that she could relate to the “liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean” and framing the controversy as a matter of free speech.
“Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself,” said Palin, also a beauty queen before she entered the spotlight as the Republican vice presidential nominee last year.
“What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Palin.
“I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights,” she said.
Palin’s attempt to align herself with Prejean, who sparked a national debate for her views against marriage equality and appearance in seminude photographs, marks her latest effort to remain in the public eye outside Alaska. On Wednesday, HarperCollins announced that it will publish the governor’s memoir next spring.
Seems we've got a bit of a theme going:
From the London Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1172123/God-testing-faith-says-Miss-California-Perez-Hilton-calls-dumb-bitch-gay-marriage-row.html
...Prejean picked celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, who is openly gay and calls himself 'queen of all media'.
Hilton asked her: 'Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?'
Prejean paused for a moment before replying: 'Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.'
She continued: 'And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
'No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be - between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.'
Unimpressed to say the least, Hilton promptely described Prejean as a 'dumb bitch' on his blog.
He went on to describe her as having 'half a brain' and said he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.
You know, for many years, though I was active in gay politics and I wasn't a separatist per se, I could never manage to throw more than most tepid support behind gay issues that weren't specifically lesbian issues, even at the height of the AIDS crisis. The reason was the undercurrent of misogyny, sometimes subtle, sometimes right in your face, that I encountered in the gay community.
It was more pronounced among older men, and though the younger generation seems to be more integrated than mine was, every now and then it raises its highlighted little head enough to remind me that it's alive and well.
Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin affirm their belief in traditional values, and are not only criticized for it, which is legit, but are slurred with a particularly personal and gender-specific insult for which no male equivalent exists. And even if there were one, I somehow don't think it would be deployed against President Obama for expressing virtually identical beliefs:
From the Chicago Daily Tribune: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
.... Perez Hilton is someone who makes a living writing nasty gossip (mostly against women, I notice)...
Well, Perez Hilton is acting like a faggot, a loud, shallow, silly trivia, woman-hating female impersonater,
What a coincidence, AJ, I've noticed the same thing--why a man whose blog is largely a catalogue of the physical defects of women would want to judge a beauty pageant is beyond me. Revenge, perhaps, on the ghosts of cheerleaders past--I'm sure high school was one long, continuous swirly for this guy. (I suppose here I have to admit I've logged onto his site more than once, but I also pick at hangnails and rubberneck at traffic accidents, too.) I won't comment on your observation about "woman-hating female impersonators," though it seems to me this is ultimately the heart of things--say no more, this real woman could blow the wannabe out of the water in the cattiness department if she allowed herself to be led into temptation!
Well that's the thing, Perez Hilton is NOT representing you, he's gay gay gay! Not an androphile not an msm, but gay! You guys want "nothing to do with anything GAY" so lay off him. Oh and the word Faggot belongs to GAYS so I don't want an effin androphile use it! :laugh:
While we're about it, let's be very clear that GAY means GAY MALE--include me out, please! None of y'all are any girlfriends of mine.
Except you, of course, AJ ;).
-
While we're about it, let's be very clear that GAY means GAY MALE--include me out, please! None of y'all are any girlfriends of mine.
Except you, of course, AJ ;).
>:( >:( >:(
what about me? I know we haven't talked as much as you and AJ or Brad or anything.... :'( :'(
but yeah. I have noticed that cattiness too, the intensity of the anger just seems so far out of proportion for the 'transgression'
-
Oh well.
Theres advantages to being a big knuckledragging Neanderthal ;)
We know who to call when we need someone to lift something heavy. ;)
-
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! :o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
-
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! :o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself by defending hate-mongers like Savage.
-
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! :o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself by defending hate-mongers like Savage.
No, it's because Perez Hilton is a screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitchy-faggoty queen, and they don't like screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitch-faggoty queens.
-
No, it's because Perez Hilton is a screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitchy-faggoty queen, and they don't like screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitch-faggoty queens.
and pussies.
-
No, it's because Perez Hilton is a screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitchy-faggoty queen, and they don't like screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitch-faggoty queens.
and pussies.
Ooops. Forgot that one. ... ::)
-
Well that's the thing, Perez Hilton is NOT representing you, he's gay gay gay! Not an androphile not an msm, but gay! You guys want "nothing to do with anything GAY" so lay off him. Oh and the word Faggot belongs to GAYS so I don't want an effin androphile using it! :laugh:
Well I guess that was a joke gone bad, LOL! My humour rarely seems to translate well online.
I thought my post managed to be funny while making a point about what I've noticed on this site lately: blatant & virulent anti-gay sentiments.
It's like it's suddenly open season on gays or something. Some of the posts I've seen are so offensive that they would probably create controversy on a FOCUS ON THE FAMILY forum, yet here, they barely raise an eyebrow. [*see note below].
Of course, this anti-gay faction denies that they are being homophobic. They claim that stereotyping and insulting men who don't measure up to their acceptable level of masculinity is not homophobia. I think that is complete bullshit. Anyway, regardless of what you call it, it's still pretty offensive as are these examples:
Openly gay Perez Hilton is completely reviled, seemingly because he is not masculine enough, while über homophobe Michael Savage is defended as a free-speech activist. -This one just makes my head spin.
The word 'gay' is defined by listing all the negative stereotypes associated with gay men, exactly the same way bigots do it. Then being so repulsed by this definition they do everything they can to disassociate themselves from it. They become 'androphiles' and 'men-who-have-sex-with-men'.
Anyway, it seems my suspicions have been confirmed, when you scratch a conservative, whether hetero or homo, you reveal a bigot underneath. :'(
This gay guy's "hissy fit", as I'm sure this post will be reduced to, is over.
(I'll be in my blog, which I've called the Sissy-Boy Slap-Party specifically as a statement against all the macho posturing.)
NOTE: I wrote the above response BEFORE seeing all the "raised eyebrows" that were posted today. Reading them was a real tonic, I thought I was going insane there for a while, LOL!.
-
::) ::) ::)
there is no point in trying to have a conversation with people that have such closed minds. I didnt' realize those 'queens' at Stonewall fought for the right to denigrate others. I thought they fought for people to have choices.
oh well.
enjoy wallowing in your victimhood...
(and my on screen name is injest. Is it REALLY that hard to remember?)
-
>:( >:( >:(
what about me? I know we haven't talked as much as you and AJ or Brad or anything.... :'( :'(
but yeah. I have noticed that cattiness too, the intensity of the anger just seems so far out of proportion for the 'transgression'
No Jess, of course I'm not talking about you. I was talking about something very specific, viz, that it seems to be just okey-dokey for gay men to refer to women with whom the disagree politically as BITCHES, and this seems to get a free pass, because gay men, as we all know, are members of a persecuted minority, et cetera.
What I said was that I, as a gay woman, most certainly do not recognize this free pass. When I hear, "BITCH" thrown into the mix of criticisms leveled at a woman for her political views (and not some specific wrongdoing that she personally has committed against against the critic) even if I disagree with those views, it tends to turn me against the one tossing the slur, even if I may have been sympathetic to his original position.
When I hear "BITCH," you've lost me. But you know how us women are, we're such emotional creatures, we take everything personally ::).
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! :o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself by defending hate-mongers like Savage.
No, it's because Perez Hilton is a screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitchy-faggoty queen, and they don't like screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitch-faggoty queens.
Congratulations, all, on missing the point. And where did Michael Savage come from?
and pussies.
Gawd, no comment. Except maybe, this might apply here:
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself ....
Well I guess that was a joke gone bad, LOL! My humour rarely seems to translate well online.
I thought my post managed to be funny while making a point about what I've noticed on this site lately: blatant & virulent anti-gay sentiments.
It's like it's suddenly open season on gays or something. Some of the posts I've seen are so offensive that they would probably create controversy on a FOCUS ON THE FAMILY forum, yet here, they barely raise an eyebrow. [*see note below].
Of course, this anti-gay faction denies that they are being homophobic. They claim that stereotyping and insulting men who don't measure up to their acceptable level of masculinity is not homophobia. I think that is complete bullshit. Anyway, regardless of what you call it, it's still pretty offensive as are these examples:
Openly gay Perez Hilton is completely reviled, seemingly because he is not masculine enough, while über homophobe Michael Savage is defended as a free-speech activist. -This one just makes my head spin.
The word 'gay' is defined by listing all the negative stereotypes associated with gay men, exactly the same way bigots do it. Then being so repulsed by this definition they do everything they can to disassociate themselves from it. They become 'androphiles' and 'men-who-have-sex-with-men'.
Anyway, it seems my suspicions have been confirmed, when you scratch a conservative, whether hetero or homo, you reveal a bigot underneath. :'(
This gay guy's "hissy fit", as I'm sure this post will be reduced to, is over.
(I'll be in my blog, which I've called the Sissy-Boy Slap-Party specifically as a statement against all the macho posturing.)
NOTE: I wrote the above response BEFORE seeing all the "raised eyebrows" that were posted today. Reading them was a real tonic, I thought I was going insane there for a while, LOL!.
Yeah, I get all that. I'm not that dense in real life, though I do like to play devil's advocate, what can I say, I'm a Libra. And yeah, I get the whole gay vs. andro thing--you guys are welcome to slug it out to resolve it,and frankly I think that's all that's left to do, I've heard that's how men settle their differences, since agreeing to disagree, as someone said waaaaayyy back there, does not seem to be an option.
That Perez Hilton is openly gay and a walking stereotype is beside the point, and Michael Savage (how does he figure in this again, and how did he end up in the middle of a beauty pageant?) has a right to believe...whatever he believes, again, beside the point.
My point was that "Perez Hilton" made a name for himself with his blog, which is disproportionately devoted to saying cruel things about women in the nastiest way possible, despite the fact that he personally is <<ahem>>nothing special in the looks department and decidedly on the chunky side.
So he's not quite on the same footing as Oprah, or even Al Gore, to be taking anyone to task for anything in the arena of personal morality or integrity, and then to top it off, instead of enumerating the pain and suffering caused by denying gay people the right to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the law, instead, after this hapless beauty queen answered his question honestly and politely, he called her a "dumb BITCH." Which of course put him right in the stratosphere with other civil rights pioneers like MLK Jr. and Gandhi (not).
And he was echoed, in a completely gratuitous swipe at Gov. Sarah Palin, herself a former beauty queen and born-again, for having the temerity to come to Ms. Prejean's defense, right here.
Yeah, it was a joke, hear me not laughing?
As to the above justification, believe it or not, I get the "gay" side just as well as the "andro" side, though since I don't have a dog in that fight, I can also see the willful blindness on both sides, and that there is plenty of bias to go around several times. As I said earlier, I really don't see it ever being resolved.
But this does come down to a discussion of gay/andro/whatever rights. Homosexual rights, to use a term that hopefully can be agreed on. Just remember, that half of all homosexuals are female, and us humorless lesbians aren't right-on, post-feminists who "get it" about those women who aren't deserving of respect and can therefore be casually dismissed as "bitches." We're liable to go all miltant and Molly Yard about how an insult to one of us is an insult to all of us.
And funny thing, it's not coming from the right-wing-all-things-girly-despising-androphiles, either. Wonder why that is (non-sarcastically)?
Discuss--if you can manage it without killing each other.
-
No Jess, of course I'm not talking about you. I was talking about something very specific, viz, that it seems to be just okey-dokey for gay men to refer to women with whom the disagree politically as BITCHES, and this seems to get a free pass, because gay men, as we all know, are members of a persecuted minority, et cetera.
What I said was that I, as a gay woman, most certainly do not recognize this free pass. When I hear, "BITCH" thrown into the mix of criticisms leveled at a woman for her political views (and not some specific wrongdoing that she personally has committed against against the critic) even if I disagree with those views, it tends to turn me against the one tossing the slur, even if I may have been sympathetic to his original position.
When I hear "BITCH," you've lost me. But you know how us women are, we're such emotional creatures, we take everything personally ::).
Congratulations, all, on missing the point. And where did Michael Savage come from?
Gawd, no comment. Except maybe, this might apply here:
Yeah, I get all that. I'm not that dense in real life, though I do like to play devil's advocate, what can I say, I'm a Libra. And yeah, I get the whole gay vs. andro thing--you guys are welcome to slug it out to resolve it,and frankly I think that's all that's left to do, I've heard that's how men settle their differences, since agreeing to disagree, as someone said waaaaayyy back there, does not seem to be an option.
That Perez Hilton is openly gay and a walking stereotype is beside the point, and Michael Savage (how does he figure in this again, and how did he end up in the middle of a beauty pageant?) has a right to believe...whatever he believes, again, beside the point.
My point was that "Perez Hilton" made a name for himself with his blog, which is disproportionately devoted to saying cruel things about women in the nastiest way possible, despite the fact that he personally is <<ahem>>nothing special in the looks department and decidedly on the chunky side.
So he's not quite on the same footing as Oprah, or even Al Gore, to be taking anyone to task for anything in the arena of personal morality or integrity, and then to top it off, instead of enumerating the pain and suffering caused by denying gay people the right to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the law, instead, after this hapless beauty queen answered his question honestly and politely, he called her a "dumb BITCH." Which of course put him right in the stratosphere with other civil rights pioneers like MLK Jr. and Gandhi (not).
And he was echoed, in a completely gratuitous swipe at Gov. Sarah Palin, herself a former beauty queen and born-again, for having the temerity to come to Ms. Prejean's defense, right here.
Yeah, it was a joke, hear me not laughing?
As to the above justification, believe it or not, I get the "gay" side just as well as the "andro" side, though since I don't have a dog in that fight, I can also see the willful blindness on both sides, and that there is plenty of bias to go around several times. As I said earlier, I really don't see it ever being resolved.
But this does come down to a discussion of gay/andro/whatever rights. Homosexual rights, to use a term that hopefully can be agreed on. Just remember, that half of all homosexuals are female, and us humorless lesbians aren't right-on, post-feminists who "get it" about those women who aren't deserving of respect and can therefore be casually dismissed as "bitches." We're liable to go all miltant and Molly Yard about how an insult to one of us is an insult to all of us.
And funny thing, it's not coming from the right-wing-all-things-girly-despising-androphiles, either. Wonder why that is (non-sarcastically)?
Discuss--if you can manage it without killing each other.
Please unroll your eyes, it's gotta hurt lol! (My post wasn't directed at you, BTW. Just the dense people, I guess. :-\)
I apologize for calling Sarah Palin, an alledged women, a Bitch. "It came from the heart and I meant no offense." ;) I have to say however, that in a bizarre way, I felt comfortable using the word Bitch because of all the anti-gay shit I was reading that seemed to go unchallenged here. I'm not trying o justify it, it was horribly passive-aggressive of me, just trying to show how things can quickly deteriorate.
Is it still okay to call Michael Savage a Bastard? (my post explains why I brought him up) Probably not. I think it would be a good idea to stop this childish name-calling even if "it comes from the heart" and we "mean no offense". So from now on i will make every effort to keep my level of discussion civil and free of gratuitous insults. :)
-
Nevermore, you make great points in how casually certain words/terms are thrown around, almost always at the expense of someone else or the opposite sex. While it was filled with justification and incredulously, contained yet another insult (in the midst of saying 'sorry' at the first) to a woman, I hope the above apology cuts it.
terry
-
Nevermore, you make great points in how casually certain words/terms are thrown around, almost always at the expense of someone else or the opposite sex. While it was filled with justification and incredulously, contained yet another insult (in the midst of saying 'sorry' at the first) to a woman, I hope the above apology cuts it.
terry
Filled with justification?! I even said I wasn't trying to justify anything! That means I am taking responsibility for he insult but also indicating how easy it is for discussions to deteriorate when insults are thrown around without being challenged. If you have a problem with my post, why not address me, instead of just fanning the flames?!
Yeah and my alleged woman comment was my way to introduce some humour into the post, I forgot the smiley face.
-
Congratulations, all, on missing the point. And where did Michael Savage come from?
Nevermore if you looked back at my comment, my comment was not directed at you. :)
-
Congratulations, all, on missing the point.
I didn't miss anybody's point, thank you very much. My post that you quoted was a response to Kelda and Retropian, whose posts immediately preceded mine, and not to anything else. I think my response was quite pertinent to their posts. :)
-
Please unroll your eyes, it's gotta hurt lol! I apologize for calling Sarah Palin, an alledged women, a Bitch. "It came from the heart and I meant no offense." ;) I have to say however, that in a bizarre way, I felt comfortable using the word Bitch because of all the anti-gay shit I was reading that seemed to go unchallenged here. I'm not trying o justify it, it was horribly passive-aggressive of me, just trying to show how things can quickly deteriorate.
Is it still okay to call Michael Savage a Bastard? (my post explains why I brought him up) Probably not. I think it would be a good idea to stop this childish name-calling even if "it comes from the heart" and we "mean no offense". So from now on i will make every effort to keep my level of discussion civil and free of gratuitous insults. :)
I'm aware that there are certain words that provoke hyper-hysterical responses in Current Events; and apparently here as well. I have no problem calling Palin and California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson bitches; nor would I have a problem calling Michael Weiner a bastard or SOB. Let no one waste their time asking for apologies for that from me; they're not going to get one.
One of the things that's been showcased in this and other controversies is how selective most peoples' notions of "free speech" is, at all points of the political spectrum. There's been much weeping, wailing and pontificating about how California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson is being "attacked" for 1) stating her opinion, 2) "standing up for Jesus" and/or 3) standing up for the "family" decency, morality, and nostalgia for the days when America was mythically populated by hard-working Christian heterosexual white people. So she had a right to say what she did. And guess what? People who are offended have exactly the same right to speak up, whether any conservatives here want to be reminded of that or not.
Part of the conundrum in this whole controversy is that at this stage in American history, commenting on same-sex marriage essentially amounts to commenting on a civil rights issue. (No apologies for using that term either.) In that sense, it was probably an inappropriate question to ask in a beauty pageant. But on the other hand, if California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson wanted to respond that gay people are just lovely as long as they stay in their place, then people who find that offensive had bloody well better speak up and they have a right to do that.
One aspect of the desire in some quarters for California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson to resign that hasn't gotten much ink or hot air is that in parleying this incident into a career as a professional right-wing spokesperson she's saddled herself with an image that would get in the way. When Anita Bryant embarked on her homophobic crusade her contracts as a pitchwoman for orange juice was dropped and the wingnuts of that era did much of the same bleating that we're hearing now. But there really wasn't any other choice. People viewing her orange juice commercials wouldn't be thinking of orange juice; they'd be thinking of the whole controversy one way or another. Similarly, that's going to be a stumbling block California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson would face in representing.... well, whatever the hell it is a galactic beauty queen is supposed to represent.
-
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! :o
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
This excerpt from the article is specifically dedicated to Savage fans on this forum:
Savage told listeners: "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in (the same) league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses is defamation.
"Moreover I have been endangered by this lunatic. She has painted a target on my back, linking me with people who are in prison for killing people.
"I thought this was a joke or a mistake... How could they put Michael Savage in the same league with mass murderers when I have never avowed violence? She picked an easy target.
"As a result of this I'm going to sue her (Miss Smith). I don't know if I can win, I don't know the law of England. I have seven lawyers working on this right now."
Hell, why stop at suing England's Home Secretary? Why not sue England?
-
I think Miss California is representing the Trump empire. And as long as she gets publicity, I think he'll be happy.
-
I'm aware that there are certain words that provoke hyper-hysterical responses in Current Events; and apparently here as well. I have no problem calling Palin and California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson bitches; nor would I have a problem calling Michael Weiner a bastard or SOB. Let no one waste their time asking for apologies for that from me; they're not going to get one.
One of the things that's been showcased in this and other controversies is how selective most peoples' notions of "free speech" is, at all points of the political spectrum. There's been much weeping, wailing and pontificating about how California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson is being "attacked" for 1) stating her opinion, 2) "standing up for Jesus" and/or 3) standing up for the "family" decency, morality, and nostalgia for the days when America was mythically populated by hard-working Christian heterosexual white people. So she had a right to say what she did. And guess what? People who are offended have exactly the same right to speak up, whether any conservatives here want to be reminded of that or not.
Part of the conundrum in this whole controversy is that at this stage in American history, commenting on same-sex marriage essentially amounts to commenting on a civil rights issue. (No apologies for using that term either.) In that sense, it was probably an inappropriate question to ask in a beauty pageant. But on the other hand, if California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson wanted to respond that gay people are just lovely as long as they stay in their place, then people who find that offensive had bloody well better speak up and they have a right to do that.
One aspect of the desire in some quarters for California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson to resign that hasn't gotten much ink or hot air is that in parleying this incident into a career as a professional right-wing spokesperson she's saddled herself with an image that would get in the way. When Anita Bryant embarked on her homophobic crusade her contracts as a pitchwoman for orange juice was dropped and the wingnuts of that era did much of the same bleating that we're hearing now. But there really wasn't any other choice. People viewing her orange juice commercials wouldn't be thinking of orange juice; they'd be thinking of the whole controversy one way or another. Similarly, that's going to be a stumbling block California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson would face in representing.... well, whatever the hell it is a galactic beauty queen is supposed to represent.
Yes. What she said! :D Thank you Marge.
-
There's been much weeping, wailing and pontificating about how California's Anti-Gay Spokesperson is being "attacked" for 1) stating her opinion, 2) "standing up for Jesus" and/or 3) standing up for the "family" decency, morality, and nostalgia for the days when America was mythically populated by hard-working Christian heterosexual white people. So she had a right to say what she did. And guess what? People who are offended have exactly the same right to speak up, whether any conservatives here want to be reminded of that or not.
post links where ANYONE said she was attacked for 'standing up for Jesus'.
I won't hold my breath...it is yet ANOTHER member reimagining the conversation. Maybe you could go back and actually READ the thread so you won't appear to be uninformed.
I never said "Perez" couldn't throw his lil hissy fit. He had a perfect right to. I have a perfect right to be pissed off that he couldn't let be and instead now has given this woman an entire career and more fame. Who was the winner of the Miss USA contest? can anyone tell me? is she famous because of HER answer or is she famous for Perez's nasty rant?
you can deny it, you can stomp your feet and squeal about how it isn't FAIR to blame Perez...but I do...and nothing will change my mind. If it were not for his self indulgent verbal diarhea, they would not have a pretty young blond to rally the anti gay marriage AROUND.
-
you can deny it, you can stomp your feet and squeal about how it isn't FAIR to blame Perez...but I do...and nothing will change my mind. If it were not for his self indulgent verbal diarhea, they would not have a pretty young blond to rally the anti gay marriage AROUND.
yep, as I have said before : there is a sick symbiosis between the Bible thumping right and the radical PC left - they both use each other for publicity, rallying the base, and fundraising.
-
yep, as I have said before : there is a sick symbiosis between the Bible thumping right and the radical PC left - they both use each other for publicity, rallying the base, and fundraising.
Big time.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZM-mwXY830[/youtube]
Axelrod: Obama Considered Naming Their Dog 'Miss California'