Miss California Denied Miss USA Crown Over Homosexual 'Marriage' Question [Archive]

ClydeR

04-20-2009, 04:37 PM

At the Las Vegas pageant, Carrie took a question on same-sex marriage from judge Perez Hilton, who asked her how she felt on the subject.

“In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she said on Sunday night. She went on to come in second to Miss North Carolina.

“It did cost me my crown,” Carrie told Billy, who co-hosted the ceremony, on Monday. “I wouldn’t have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that’s all I can do.”

“It is a very touchy subject and he is a homosexual and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would’ve wanted me to be more politically correct,” she added. “But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.”

More... (http://www.accesshollywood.com/miss-california-my-sister-is-a-gay-rights-activist_article_16936)

When beauty pageants are decided on the basis of political correctness, you know something is wrong.

Allereli

04-20-2009, 04:39 PM

dude, you have a super red dot! Awesome

ElvenFury

04-20-2009, 04:40 PM

If it makes you feel any better, people aren't neg-repping you because of your opinions, but rather because you're ugly as sin.

So it evens out, right?

Parkbandit

04-20-2009, 05:20 PM

Don't piss of Perez Hilton.. he will scratch your eyes out and vote against you.

Parkbandit

04-20-2009, 05:52 PM

She'll end up getting more publicity for losing the crown and telling the truth than whoever ended up winning.

Sean of the Thread

04-20-2009, 05:55 PM

Agreed and bravo for standing up on a stage and keeping true to your belief.

However I personally don't give a shit what people do sexually. Not my fucking business.

Warriorbird

04-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Publicity stunt for them both?

Bhuryn

04-20-2009, 06:29 PM

It's somewhat hypocritical of the government anyway. All they do all day is rape taxpayers in the ass.

Methais

04-20-2009, 07:35 PM

Parkbandit

04-20-2009, 07:54 PM

Agreed and bravo for standing up on a stage and keeping true to your belief.

However I personally don't give a shit what people do sexually. Not my fucking business.

100% agreed on both counts.

ClydeR

04-24-2009, 12:07 PM

MONTGOMERY -- The Alabama House has approved a resolution that praises Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean for speaking out against gay marriage.

More... (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/04/house_approves_resolution_prai.html)

I'm glad the Alabama Legislature is getting involved in this beauty pageant controversy.

Trouble

04-24-2009, 12:12 PM

Deathravin

04-24-2009, 12:35 PM

A) Her answer was a deer-in-headlights answer. It was a horrible answer no matter what position she had. She deserved not to win.

B) What idiot had Perez Hilton as a judge in the first place? Did they expect fair and balanced judging from him?

Get the Howard Stern's best friend to come and judge those chicks. He does a good job, finds every tiny flaw.

Parkbandit

04-24-2009, 01:41 PM

Yeah she's a real hero to some people. I just read an article this morning where she's expected to become the new RNC poster girl and that we'll likely see her on the road with candidates. I see an aldulterous infraction between her and one of the candidates bringing the whole thing down.

:bananahit:

Wish I was that candidate.....

http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/photos/2009/04/22/45451199-5ca9-48e9-83d9-4ce7036d03bdnews.ap.org_t350.jpg?1640fae913a1dac1b 26c7eb88806b9f9b0341305

PS - fucking pic/link is fucked up.

Androidpk

04-24-2009, 07:00 PM

Props for giving an honest answer and standing by your beliefs.

AestheticDeath

04-24-2009, 07:06 PM

heard she is dating micheal phelps? now the swimming guy from the olympics

Proxy

04-24-2009, 07:07 PM

Contestant looses crown bid for not being PC? LOLZ

CrystalTears

04-24-2009, 07:54 PM

Perez: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

It is somewhat mindless of them to ask a contemporary political question and then act shocked when she.. answers it. I might personally disagree with the reply, but why exactly are they hyper-politicizing a beauty pageant in the first place?

It's the same as them asking her: "Americans recently voted a slew of Democrats, along with President Obama, into office. Do you think voters in future elections should follow suit?" And when she says "No, I'm actually an Independent/Republican," people boo because the audience happens to be liberal. Would they have preferred she lie? Her answer was structured, coherent and in accordance with her beliefs.

He punished her for not having the same opinion as he has, in admittedly a superficial fashion contest. Just goes to show you that Perez doesn't believe having peaceful, differing viewpoints is acceptable. He called her a "dumb bitch," and then apologized for it. Perez is an idiot, and regardless of what he thinks of himself, he is not the leader of the "gay community."I fucking hate you right now because I completely agree with you. :tongue:

Back

04-24-2009, 10:14 PM

:whocares:

This board needs a :drama: gif.

Methais

04-24-2009, 10:50 PM

Since Backlash doesn't care, I suggest we close and delete this thread immediately.

Tisket

04-25-2009, 04:58 AM

Why should I be worrying about the political views of someone in a beauty pagent. Ten minutes earlier she was being parading around in a bikini and high heels.

If you want to be sure that no one gives an answer you might disagree with politically, go back to asking pageant contestants their views on puppies and starving children.

Edit: I cannot stand that perez hilton dude. He seriously needs to slither back into some hole somewhere and shut the fuck up forever and ever, amen.

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 05:23 AM

Like I said previously... I imagine they both did it for the attention.

All the little sorority Elle Woodses in my law school just loooove Perez Hilton.

Parkbandit

04-25-2009, 08:48 AM

Like I said previously... I imagine they both did it for the attention.

All the little sorority Elle Woodses in my law school just loooove Perez Hilton.

I doubt that Miss California did it for attention at the time. I think she's trying to cash in on the publicity that it generated, but her answer wasn't that good and it was randomly drawn from a fishbowl.

Gan

04-25-2009, 09:01 AM

Edit: I cannot stand that perez hilton dude. He seriously needs to slither back into some hole somewhere and shut the fuck up forever and ever, amen.

Just for you Tisket.

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg

Parkbandit

04-25-2009, 11:13 AM

Just for you Tisket.

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg

I realize the hair is photoshopped, but did someone kick his ass to give him that shiner? I need to send that guy a thank you card.

OH WAITZ!! IT WUZ A H8 CRIME!!!!111

Deathravin

04-25-2009, 11:56 AM

Her answer was structured, coherent and in accordance with her beliefs.

Did you LISTEN to the answer? Did you watch the YouTube clip? Her answer was NOT structured, and could hardly be considered coherent. It was 2 steps away from that miss North Carolina answer. The last 6 words seemed to make some sense together, and that's what you see on the news clips.

It WAS in accordance with her beliefs.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post. Perez voted against her because of her beliefs, not because of the shitty answering she did. But If I were a judge on that panel, I would have knocked her down more than enough points to knock her out of the running because she can't put a coherent sentence together.

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 12:03 PM

Given the grave import of this whole thread I think we need to take some time out to Autotune the news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI&

Rolton-Sammich

04-25-2009, 02:23 PM

I realize the hair is photoshopped

Nope.

Methais

04-25-2009, 02:35 PM

Like I said previously... I imagine they both did it for the attention.

Is there anything you're not in denial about?

Methais

04-25-2009, 02:36 PM

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/perez-hilton.jpg

http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/perez-hilton-pimples-02.jpg

http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/reminder.jpg

Bobmuhthol

04-25-2009, 02:38 PM

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 02:47 PM

Is there anything you're not in denial about?

I don't like racism, torture, or homophobia.

Obsessing about Perez Hilton means you're either a chick or...

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/77/Gay_ernie_and_bert_.jpeg

There's a different sort of denial going on.

Ravenstorm

04-25-2009, 02:56 PM

Obsessing about Perez Hilton means you're either a chick or...

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/77/Gay_ernie_and_bert_.jpeg

There's a different sort of denial going on.

Ummm, no. Perez Hilton is a fucking idiot. Obsessing about him only means they're as big a moron as he is.

Methais

04-25-2009, 02:59 PM

I don't like racism, torture, or homophobia.

Obsessing about Perez Hilton means you're either a chick or...

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/77/Gay_ernie_and_bert_.jpeg

There's a different sort of denial going on.

Calling a retard a retard =/= obsessing.

The point of my post is you said that Miss California gave the answer she did for attention. I don't know how you managed to come to that conclusion, other than being in denial of reality.

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 03:03 PM

Methais

04-25-2009, 03:16 PM

The sheer amount of publicity angled for and gotten afterward. She could have said something noncommittal.

Pragmatism.

As for the 'random draw' they could've come up with the 'event' beforehand and briefed the girls.

God forbid it couldn't possibly be the fact that she actually spoke her beliefs, right?

You probably believe all those Grammy night confrontation 'events' are unplanned too, right?

I bet you think pro wrestling is fake too huh?
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gif

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 03:20 PM

God forbid it couldn't possibly be the fact that she actually spoke her beliefs, right?

Fox News is 'fair and balanced.'

Dan Rather totally didn't make up stories.

Playboy models are never airbrushed (or photoedited these days).

They're really going to find love on reality tv.

Pageant wins are never pre-determined.

Methais

04-25-2009, 03:22 PM

:banghead:

Deathravin

04-25-2009, 03:28 PM

The sheer amount of publicity angled for and gotten afterward. She could have said something noncommittal.

You think she, in the split second she had, she came up with that bullshit complete waste of an answer, she actually thought about how good morning America would think about it?

I'm with Warf on this one.

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 03:30 PM

Like I said previously... I imagine they both did it for the attention.

Does not equal THEY PLANNED IT. THAT IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

The possibility is definitely there though... and heightened due to Perez Hilton's involvement.

Deathravin

04-25-2009, 03:34 PM

All the pageant contestants are fucking retards anyway, so I am not really unimpressed by the manner in which she answered it. They don't practice being able to speak coherently but rather to throw in a mix of stupid phrases/idioms/cliches.

Exactly my point. The only reason to ask these dummys a question is to see just how mentally retarded all the years of reading Cosmo has made these girls, and to sit and laugh at their complete lack of answer.

Heaven forbid a women get up there with half a brain, give herself half a moment to formulate a somewhat articulate answer to the question. I'd rather see somebody waste 1/4th of their time thinking about the answer than just rattling off idioms at me. But then again, I'm far more attracted to a woman that CAN form an articulate sentence than I am how well they fit into a bikini so I'd be a bad judge to begin with.

Parkbandit

04-25-2009, 03:44 PM

Does not equal THEY PLANNED IT. THAT IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

The possibility is definitely there though... and heightened due to Perez Hilton's involvement.

If you make the claim that they (Miss California and Perez Hilton) did it for attention.. then you would have to believe that it was planned.

Since the question was random and her answer was close to incoherent.. either she's the best actress on the planet for pretending not to know what her answer was going to be.. or you are wrong.

Let's just say the streak continues...

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 04:07 PM

All early questions of obsession aside... we definitely know where your obsession lies.

It's funny how you live in a world of black and white when you don't seem to believe in racism.

Parkbandit

04-25-2009, 04:13 PM

All early questions of obsession aside... we definitely know where your obsession lies.

It's funny how you live in a world of black and white when you don't seem to believe in racism.

The streak is turning into a world record of futility.

Seriously.. do you have a coherent thought in your head at all?

It's not that big of a deal to be wrong WB.. one would think you should be used to it by now.

Warriorbird

04-25-2009, 04:20 PM

Parkbandit

04-25-2009, 10:33 PM

So... you've got commentary beforehand about Perez Hilton... "should she be afraid?".... you've got a long pause and camera adjust... and you have her give a multi paragraph answer with barely a stumble.

"THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY ANY OF THIS WAS PLANNED TO MAKE THE PAGEANT EDGY AND GO VIRAL!"

Hilton calling it the "Youtube moment" of the pageant after...

I think you're more obsessed with attacking me (for attempted lulz) than any question of fact or philosophy.

It's pretty easy to figure out... and with some guidence, I think I can help you to come to the fact that you are wrong once again. I'll dumb it down for you:

1) Questions are randomly drawn from a bowl. (see video for evidence)

2) Miss California's answer was obviously unrehearsed because it was poorly worded and poorly delivered. Your claim that she delivered an Oscar worthy performance without a "stumble" is complete fiction, as this youtube video clearly demonstrates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

For those individuals who are video impaired, I offer the 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.”

Now, if you claim that she is doing what she did AFTER this horrible answer for publicity, like I've already claimed.. then you might have a point. Unfortunately for you though, I see no such evidence of this interaction being staged, rehearsed or planned at all... sorry chump. :(

CrystalTears

04-26-2009, 11:23 AM

Miss California was just answering a question. She's already in the pageant for attention, but a different kind of attention. Perez Hilton insulted a pageant contestant because of her beliefs for the attention. If anything was planned it was on Perez's side because he was going to be a dick if she didn't answer right.

No one is looking to hear a soul searching response from a beauty pageant and no one should expect to. Unfortunately they have to spend a year being a "representative", so as long as they can deliver a sentence, they should be good to go.

Perez Hilton takes pride in being an asshole. I have no idea why he's as popular as he is.

Warriorbird

04-26-2009, 12:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30322011#30322011

I can see where folks are coming from. Still seems a little bit too laid out for me. She's dated Michael Phelps too? Phelps came out swinging with the denial... but.

http://sports-odds.com/entertainment/042609-miss-usa-runner-up-carrie-prejean-dating-michael-phelps.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/04/24/2009-04-24_michael_phelps_says_hes_not_dating_miss_usa_run nerup_carrie_prejean.html

Androidpk

04-26-2009, 01:33 PM

Phelps denying it doesn't say much.

Methais

04-26-2009, 03:02 PM

Perez Hilton takes pride in being an asshole. I have no idea why he's as popular as he is.

What's not to like about an overly arrogant flaming pole smoker that refers to himself as "The Queen of all media" and changed his name to mirror America's most famous skank?

Back

05-02-2009, 04:48 PM

This just in...

Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED (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.

Parkbandit

05-03-2009, 12:28 AM

This just in...

Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html)

Are implants against the "rules" of Miss USA pagents.. or is this just another smear campaign because she's not a liberal?

TheEschaton

05-03-2009, 10:13 AM

Isn't character one of the qualities supposedly being judged in a Miss USA pageant? If so, and Perez Hilton, one of the judges (who arranged that clusterfuck and why is a different fucking story) judged her to have a poorer character, isn't voting against her what he's supposed to do?

IMO, the person to have issue with is the person who picked Perez Hilton as a judge, hoping the glitzy celebrity-loving whore showed up instead of the mildly retarded "political" whore, and not realizing it could have never been otherwise. At least pre-screen the questions.

This would have been my answer: Well, I'm Catholic, so I think gays should be allowed to marry. This may seem contradictory, but if you look closely at Vatican II, the Church finally admitted that marriage is equally about love as procreation. Recently, it has also admitted that homosexuality is not a choice, but inherent to who a person is. Given that it is who they are to be gay, and that it is possible for gays to love, then marriage, and sex, should be an option. The Church would claim that such a love is disordered, because it has no possibility of procreation, but the Church does not condemn infertile married couples who continue to have sex out of love, despite their inability to have children, because if they could, they would. If this procreative intent is enough for infertile couples, it should be enough for homosexual couples - thus, the Church must, at the very least, believe in gay adoption, if not gay marriage. What the Church disapproves of, rightly so, is promiscuity, and meaningless sex for physical gratification - but that is just as much a heterosexual problem as a homosexual problem. Therefore, I am completely for gay marriage, because I am a Catholic, despite my Church's complete refusal to move from its stubborn position.

By the way, this wouldn't be a problem if intelligence was actually a factor into getting into the final rounds. I know Miss Massachusetts (Alison Cronin) from a charity event I was running, and she's a sweet, charming girl, WHO GOES TO SCHOOL AT NYU. IE, she's not retarded. Yes, she's not blonde, and maybe she's not hotter than Miss California (I beg to differ), but oh fucking well.

-TheE-

Clove

05-03-2009, 10:32 AM

You know, when this thread was started I think everyone was really, really hoping for a critique on the Catholic position concerning gay marriage E. Thanks!!1!!!!

On a more serious note, how can you take the Vatican's position on some points as true (i.e. marriage being about love as much as procreation and homosexuality being an inherent quality) but reject the Vatican's position on other points (i.e. gay marriage being unacceptable). If you can spin like this in the courtroom, you're going to make a million.

TheEschaton

05-03-2009, 10:37 AM

Fuck you, you raging douchebag. No one cares about your iCynicism and how supposedly wholly rational you propose to be.

Clove

05-03-2009, 10:55 AM

Fuck you, you raging douchebag. No one cares about your iCynicism and how supposedly wholly rational you propose to be.Oh I'm far from wholly rational, but I'm pretty sure every social issue involving morals doesn't have to become an apology for how you reconcile your Catholicism either.

Gan

05-03-2009, 11:00 AM

Once you go to confession, THE SLATE IS CLEAN FOR MORE DEBAUCHERY!

Clove

05-03-2009, 11:28 AM

Recently, it has also admitted that homosexuality is not a choice, but inherent to who a person is. Given that it is who they are to be gay, and that it is possible for gays to love, then marriage, and sex, should be an option.This point has always held a lot of interest for me in debates over homosexuality.

Let me begin by saying, I believe that homosexuals should have the same equal protection and opportunities as anyone else; homosexual partners ought to have the same rights as any heterosexual spouses (including adoption, tax benefits, power of attorney, community property etc). It is simply wrong to treat someone as a second class citizen simply because some don't approve of their lifestyle. On the other hand (as long as the rights and privileges are the same) I don't feel that a homosexual union has to be designated as a marriage, necessarily. You won't find me protesting laws that allow homosexual marriage, but if a civil union provides all the same rights and privileges you won't see me screaming to make it officially a marriage either. I only describe my opinion so that maybe it will deflect some of the inevitable flaming as I play devil's advocate here.

When discussing if a behavior is acceptable or not what does it matter if it is voluntary? If society determines that taking property from another without permission is wrong and you are a kleptomaniac your inability to control yourself shelters you from the punishment for your behavior it doesn't buy approval for it. In other words your behavior is tolerated, not endorsed. You wouldn't be given a license to steal and every attempt would be made to control and neutralize a behavior you could not control on your own.

I am not saying homosexuality is wrong or a mental illness, what I am saying is that if a society (or group) DOES in fact consider it wrong, not being able to control your preference isn't really material. There are lots of examples of people who can't control "wrong" or unacceptable behavior.

The other point that strikes me is that preferences can be inborn and cultivated. While I won't argue against homosexuality being a condition some people are born to, I'm not convinced that others don't simply acquire the taste. In my opinion this possibility complicates the argument.

In the end people will either embrace you or condemn you for who you are and I don't believe that we can "legislate respect". What we should do is ensure that people (regardless of who they are) are equal under the law and the message we should promote is tolerance of each other (which unfortunately is not the same as approving of each other).

Methais

05-03-2009, 01:49 PM

Methais

05-03-2009, 02:22 PM

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifMiss California Denied... 05-03-2009 01:15 PM No, he called her a bigot because she's a fucking bigot. Twat.

You're a fucking moron. If you think she's a bigot because her opinion doesn't match yours, then you're actually the bigot. She respectfully disagreed with gay marriage, and you and these other fucks go all OMG U DISAGREE WITH US UR A FAKING BIGOT OMG OMG OMG ARCHIE BUNKER WTF HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

If she was a bigot she woulda said something like "Man fuck those cocksucking asspounding fudgepacking purse wearing shoe shopping Oprah watching ex-lax eating crying on Richard Simmons' shoulder pieces of shit! They need to fucking die and rot in hell because they're gay! Thank you!"

You're also a huge vagina for having to respond via anonymous rep instead of in the thread. You're a huge vagina anyway, but now you're an extra fishy unwashed and unshaven vagina.

Twat.

Parkbandit

05-03-2009, 03:00 PM

In that case, Perez should have voted her up and voted himself down, because he's the real douche in this whole situation. She spoke her beliefs, and he calls her a bigot because her opinion doesn't agree with his. Yeah that makes sense.

He actually called her a dumb bitch because his opinion differed from hers.

Methais

05-03-2009, 03:14 PM

He actually called her a dumb bitch because his opinion differed from hers.

I'm confusing flaming homos with the PC again. My bad.

Warriorbird

05-03-2009, 03:22 PM

In that case, Perez should have voted her up and voted himself down, because he's the real douche in this whole situation. She spoke her beliefs, and he calls her a bigot because her opinion doesn't agree with his. Yeah that makes sense.

So... I'm not allowed to call David Duke a bigot for speaking his beliefs? (All the rest of this aside)

Stretch

05-03-2009, 03:57 PM

I think we should all take a step back, breathe, and remember that at the end of the day Miss California's opinion doesn't matter because she's a woman.

Stanley Burrell

05-03-2009, 04:27 PM

I think we should all take a step back, breathe, and remember that at the end of the day Miss California's opinion doesn't matter because she's a woman.

Damn rep-whoring pyramid scheme.

CrystalTears

05-03-2009, 07:01 PM

So... I'm not allowed to call David Duke a bigot for speaking his beliefs? (All the rest of this aside)
Holy motherfucking Christ.:forehead:

Warriorbird

05-03-2009, 07:11 PM

The justification used was, "You shouldn't be allowed to call somebody a bigot for speaking their beliefs."

Clove

05-03-2009, 07:16 PM

So the question wasn't "What's your opinion on gay marriage" it was "Are you a bigot". You're allowed to have an opinion on this question (pro or con) as long as you realize you're only allowed to have ONE opinion. Nice.

According to Miriam-Webster, "Bigot" is defined as:

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 don't believe Miss California displayed hatred or an intolerant devotion to her opinion, she simply answered a question honestly. But that's just me. I'm not sure I could really say the same of David Duke's statements (and hardly think they compare) and frankly Perez' response came off as more bigoted to me (if going by the definition above).

Ravenstorm

05-03-2009, 07:36 PM

Sincerely held beliefs don't preclude one from being a bigot. In fact, they quite often go hand in hand. But regardless of whether one considers her original statement enough to qualify her as a "bigoted dumb bitch", I'd say she's more than justified it now.

Of course, if only that horrible homosexual had stayed quiet she wouldn't now be forced to speak out against those people.

Warriorbird

05-03-2009, 07:55 PM

So the question wasn't "What's your opinion on gay marriage" it was "Are you a bigot". You're allowed to have an opinion on this question (pro or con) as long as you realize you're only allowed to have ONE opinion. Nice.

According to Miriam-Webster, "Bigot" is defined as:

I don't believe Miss California displayed hatred or an intolerant devotion to her opinion, she simply answered a question honestly. But that's just me. I'm not sure I could really say the same of David Duke's statements (and hardly think they compare) and frankly Perez' response came off as more bigoted to me (if going by the definition above).

You're justifying the Ricky Bobby "If I say it politely it isn't an insult." ideal. Do you really want to go there?

Clove

05-03-2009, 08:10 PM

You're justifying the Ricky Bobby "If I say it politely it isn't an insult." ideal. Do you really want to go there?No, I'm not. You're equating expressing an opinion against gay marriage as a hatred for gays or an intolerant attitude towards other opinions on gay marriage, i.e. bigotry; which frankly it isn't. Calling someone a "dumb bitch" etc., because you disagree with their opinion in an internet tirade demonstrates much more intolerance (not to mention childishness).

Warriorbird

05-03-2009, 08:19 PM

Methais

05-03-2009, 08:40 PM

So... I'm not allowed to call David Duke a bigot for speaking his beliefs? (All the rest of this aside)

Quit being so retarded. Chances are Miss California doesn't want gay people to be exterminated. Comparing her to a KKK guy that wants the world to be rid of all blacks is just being absurd, though not surprising coming from you.

Not to mention I'm quite sure David Duke makes it a point to ram his beliefs down everyone's throat and probably wakes up thinking "How can I kill a nigger today?", whether people ask him about his beliefs or not.

Meanwhile, Miss California only spoke her beliefs when specifically asked about it, and I'm sure she doesn't wake up thinking, "How can I stop those fags and dykes from getting married? Those dirty fuckers." And chances are if nobody asked her about it, nobody would know. Can you say the same about David Duke? Or are you going to make another ridiculous far fetched claim, like compare her to Hitler next?

I'm sure the Confederate Flag is always about 'Southern Heritage' to you too.

I know a few people that treat it as just that and are probably some of the most non-racist bleeding hearts you'll ever meet. You'd have a blast bashing on Bush and capitalism with them. No I'm not saying that there aren't people who use it as justification for racism. I'm saying there actually are some people who do see the Confederate Flag as a heritage thing and not a tool for racism.

Sincerely held beliefs don't preclude one from being a bigot. In fact, they quite often go hand in hand. But regardless of whether one considers her original statement enough to qualify her as a "bigoted dumb bitch", I'd say she's more than justified it now.

Of course, if only that horrible homosexual had stayed quiet she wouldn't now be forced to speak out against those people.

Gimme a fucking break. Her not agreeing with gay marriage doesn't make her intolerant and hateful of gay people. I don't believe in gay marriage although I could really care less if gays get married or not.

I have a cousin that's gay, and he's flaming fucking gay. Probably moreso than you and Drew2 combined could ever hope to be on national rainbow day in a fudge packing factory. He's probably all for gay marriage, but regardless we get along fine, and if he married some dude I really wouldn't give a rat's ass.

I must be a bigot too huh?

Ravenstorm

05-03-2009, 08:46 PM

Gimme a fucking break. Her not agreeing with gay marriage doesn't make her intolerant and hateful of gay people.

What she has said and done since and with whom is what makes her bigoted.

You? When you start publically advocating against it that would make you one as well. But since you don't have to give a rat's ass about it, it's a non-issue to you. That's fine.

Warriorbird

05-03-2009, 08:50 PM

There's issues of gradation. I mainly took issue with the idea that somebody can't be a bigot for 'just stating their opinion.'

Some of the most racist people I know are terribly 'well-mannered' about it. The same can quite obviously hold with homophobia.

Methais

05-03-2009, 09:00 PM

What she has said and done since and with whom is what makes her bigoted.

You? When you start publically advocating against it that would make you one as well. But since you don't have to give a rat's ass about it, it's a non-issue to you. That's fine.

People who don't like Bush are bigots against whites.

People who don't like Obama are bigots against blacks.

People who don't like vanilla ice cream are bigots against vanilla.

People who don't agree with all my posts are bigots against awesomeness.

I mainly took issue with the idea that somebody can't be a bigot for 'just stating their opinion.'

I mainly take issue with the idea that somebody is labeled a bigot for 'just stating their opinion'.

Back

05-04-2009, 12:30 AM

Are implants against the "rules" of Miss USA pagents.. or is this just another smear campaign because she's not a liberal?

How could this possibly be a smear campaign? They funded her tits and admitted it. The truth is not a smear on anyone... its the frigging truth.

Now I’m not against boob jobs but certainly an organization that funds a boob job for a contestant in that organization’s contest raises some questions...

I don’t think she was wrong to voice her opinion but it is questionable whether that answer was the reason she took second place. Just sounds like beauty pageant drama to me.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

05-04-2009, 01:30 AM

Okay.

I may be only one of few gunning for Miss California, but here goes.

In her response, she was obviously trying to do her best within her own education/moral stand point to state her opinion and yet not upset anyone else.

Obviously she didn't accomplish that, but IMO it was clear she was not trying to be inflammatory or cruel, merely honest about her own opinions and upbringing.

I'm not saying I agree with her view or feelings, or even think she is fully educated on the point, but I think that if the question had only one acceptable answer in a forum like this (meaning these questions are not intended to be clear cut "how many stares are there in the USA?" type questions), then it's not really a fair question to ask.

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 10:50 AM

When discussing if a behavior is acceptable or not what does it matter if it is voluntary? If society determines that taking property from another without permission is wrong and you are a kleptomaniac your inability to control yourself shelters you from the punishment for your behavior it doesn't buy approval for it. In other words your behavior is tolerated, not endorsed. You wouldn't be given a license to steal and every attempt would be made to control and neutralize a behavior you could not control on your own.

That's obviously a sticky point, and I hate trying to bring the "It's who they are" bit into it, but I don't know that it works otherwise. Many psychologists would say pedophilia is latently genetic, but I doubt anyone would say this should excuse them from responsibility for it. The question then becomes - when is genetic predisposition to behavior so unacceptable as to warrant telling people they cannot be who they naturally are. I think the line definitely resides somewhere near pedophilia and sociopaths, not homosexuals and blacks (as per "being black" was associated with certain behaviors in the past).

Edit: Also, the homosexual population is probably larger due to modern environmental acceptiveness (sp? is that a word?), but it is by no means wholly made up of people choosing that lifestyle. Homosexuality has been documented throughout human and higher mammals for centuries, sometimes even millenia (in the case of humans).

-TheE-

Fallen

05-05-2009, 11:10 AM

Nah, it is because it is between two consenting adults. That is the argument for it being ok that I see the most. Meaning, "I don't care what two grown adults do in the privacy of their bedroom." Pedophilia obviously involves a minor, who is considered to be until the age of 17? unable to make their own decisions on such matters. Same reason with animal fuckers. People are against it because they technically don't have a "choice" in the matter.

I still find the thought of homosexuality wrong, but I can't argue with the logic that it is none of my business what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. However, whether you approve of homosexuality really should have nothing to do with the issue of gays getting married. It has to do with whether government should be involved in the marriage process, and whether or not you believe in the concept of the sanctity of marriage.

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 11:14 AM

Fallen

05-05-2009, 11:16 AM

Jorddyn

05-05-2009, 11:20 AM

What's to stop two roommates from getting married so that they can get all the benefits which go with it?

Who cares? What's to stop two heterosexuals from doing the same?

Lumi

05-05-2009, 11:40 AM

Well, government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Homosexuals aren't asking to be married in the Catholic Church or the First Church of Whatever, they just want a marriage license from the state, which should be a wholly governmental right - despite its sacramental name.

This.

It boggles my mind that in this day and age it's even a question. Churches (of any denomination) are perfectly within their rights to say "we refuse to marry homosexuals". I happen to think it's foolish, but they're religious organizations and are free to abide by their own tenets.

The government, on the other hand, should wise the fuck up and remember that one of the greatest achievements of the Founding Fathers was having the foresight to separate church and state. A non-religious civil union damn well ought to be the right of ANY two people in this country, with all the corresponding benefits and responsibilities.

When gays start demanding that the Catholic Church marry them, then the Catholic Church will have a leg to stand on to oppose them.

ClydeR

05-05-2009, 11:55 AM

I want to point this out preemptively so that none of you will rush to believe it. I certainly don't believe it. There's no way the naked woman in those photos is actually Miss California.

TheDirty.com Exclusive: Self-proclaimed bible thumper Miss California, Carrie Prejean, should start pointing the finger at herself for her own indiscretions. TheDirty.com has received exclusive images of the homophobic debutante that would clearly strip her of her Miss California crown.

More (Warning: Dirty pictures at this link)... (http://thedirty.com/?p=157850)

Fallen

05-05-2009, 11:57 AM

My point was that if the only stipulation that states are going to put on marriage is that one person is a man, and the other the woman, then I will agree that is pretty stupid. IMO, People are simply choosing to make a stand on the issue of acceptingness of homosexuality by trying to make it legal/illegal to marry. The "sanctity of marriage" issue just sort of muddies the water.

A lot of people find homosexually wrong. A lot of people find a lot of things wrong. It all just seems a massive waste of time/effort.

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 12:12 PM

The point is people who find it wrong do so irrationally, even from a religious perspective, which is what my first post in this thread was about.

Fallen

05-05-2009, 12:18 PM

The point is people who find it wrong do so irrationally, even from a religious perspective, which is what my first post in this thread was about.

All people that find any fault with homosexuality do so irrationally? Or do you just mean gay marriage?

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 12:20 PM

All people who find something "wrong" with the idea of gays marrying do so irrationally, even from a religious (at least Christian) perspective, according to my first post.

-TheE-

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 12:22 PM

In fact, I'll even assert that the Christian attitude of accepting people for who they are makes any belief in the "wrongness" of being gay equally irrational, even from a religious perspective. Only a utilitarian can have a real, "justified" philosophical objection to homosexuality, but utilitarians are idiots.

-TheE-

TheEschaton

05-05-2009, 12:44 PM

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifMiss California Denied... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=932086#post932086)05-03-2009 11:02 AMWTF. Get laid.

The only relevant feedback I've ever gotten here on the PC. ;)

Methais

05-05-2009, 04:44 PM

tldr

Fallen

05-05-2009, 08:08 PM

He used you a lot, so I chose to take it personally and not read.

Lumi

05-06-2009, 11:22 AM

Gay marriage, mostly. The people arguing for and against equal marriage rights are arguing for different things. Most of the religious based oppositions come off as irrational, because there's very little thought put into the process and outcome of the matter..

Your personal religion saying "homosexuality is wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that a person of that religion should vote that the government--not an institution of the religion--declare that members of the group that your religion finds wrong, can't marry.

Likewise, my religion might say that it's wrong for people to not worship my God or gods, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think the secular government should prohibit those from marrying.

Do people trying to enforce their religious beliefs through the government somehow believe that by doing so, their God(s) will be pleased, or that the behavior they personally think is immoral will be affected in some way? Will the group they're targeting--gays--somehow be less gay, or not gay at all, and choose not to date each other because the government won't give them the same tax benefits other non-religious people, or different religious people, enjoy?

The reasoning behind opposing equal, secular marriage rights makes very little sense from any number of perspectives--even religious ones, which is most likely why TheE says they're irrational. If you're basing an opposition to equal, civil marriage on say, Christianity, what is the justification for limiting civil marriage to gays? If you're adopting the stance that civil marriage--as it exists today, in law--is only for members of your religious group (one specific sect of Christianity? Or all of it?)--why not try to legislate that non-believers like Buddhists, agnostics, etc, can't marry? Why limit it to gays? How can an atheist participate in the "sanctity of marriage" if said marriage is only valid when bestowed power by your religion?

The point is that it's not a religious institution--churches do perform their OWN religious ceremonies, but they're only recognized by the state because of specific agreements for the sake of convenience. It's why priests/reverends/etc, say "By the power vested in me by the state of (x)."

If you believe in the ideals that the nation was founded on--the separation of church and state, there's absolutely no justification for supporting a religious attempt at denying civil contracts to classes/minorities that your religion finds morally questionable--and in any case, completely contradicts the behavior of the person, Christianity, as the largest example, is based on. Christ lived by example, hoping that others would see the light. Did he seek to punish, ostracize or belittle minority groups, or force others to live as he did, or prevent others from living differently? Why is our government now a theocratic platform to enforce the religious ideals of Christianity on the rest of the populace?

If you disagree with gay marriages because your religious beliefs oppose them, fine. Don't have one. But what right have you to declare that your religion supersedes my freedom and that I can't have one? Because Christians are a larger population?

So, I presume, that person that would be okay with that, is equally fine with all their women being forced to wear a Burqa if Muslims become the largest population, or that no one is allowed to wear crosses, if agnostics become the largest population? Protection for minorities from overbearing majorities is yet another ideal that the country was founded upon.

If you disagree with the basis that the government isn't an ideally neutral, secular institution that doesn't pick religious sides--then what? Is it merely a vehicle upon which to enforce conformity to the tenets of your religion? If so, you might enjoy other countries that do just that--Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so forth.

You are currently my favorite person on the forums.

Lumi

05-06-2009, 01:13 PM

Thanks. Cue Clove's "OMG! LUMI IS ASHLIANA!" post in 5.. 4.. 3..

Huh?

Anyway, Maine just legalized gay marriage (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/maine-governor-signs-allowing-gay-marriage/)--signed by the governor. Fifth state to do so.

w00t.

Warriorbird

05-06-2009, 01:14 PM

Lumi != Ashliana... but it is an entertaining idea.

Clove

05-06-2009, 01:45 PM

LOL wut

Ashliana: Have you, or have you not ever used an alt login to agree with yourself?

Parkbandit

05-06-2009, 01:48 PM

LOL wut

Ashliana: Have you, or have you not ever used an alt login to agree with yourself?

Queue PB in 5,4,3,2,1

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Assliana.jpg

Warriorbird

05-06-2009, 02:11 PM

Oh... Ashliana has... but I've actually met Lumi apart from the PC.

Methais

05-06-2009, 02:12 PM

MAYBE ASHLIANA HACKED LUMI'S ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!1

http://www.growingwealthmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/investigator.jpg

diethx

05-06-2009, 02:23 PM

MAYBE ASHLIANA HACKED LUMI'S ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!1

http://www.growingwealthmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/investigator.jpg

lolol

That's gotta be the case. Who would actually like It other than It?

Clove

05-06-2009, 02:40 PM

lolol

That's gotta be the case. Who would actually like It other than It?Asexual reproduction.

diethx

05-06-2009, 03:09 PM

Asexual reproduction.

That's frightening. :(

Clove

05-06-2009, 03:39 PM

So... "Where I'm from we don't believe black people should be able to marry white people."(closest comparison...as black people can actually get married) isn't bigoted?

I'm sure the Confederate Flag is always about 'Southern Heritage' to you too.If someone expressed the opinion, "I don't believe white and black people should marry" it would not be, in and of itself bigoted. Because it does not express an intolerance for conflicting opinions and it does not automatically express a hatred or prejudice against a group of people. It likely does, but not necessarily because the reasons for the opinion aren't being expressed.

As to the Confederate flag, don't be ridiculous. You've never seen a teen-ager use it as a symbol of general rebellion (with no intention of joining the KKK)?

Narc said it best (and it is the point I was attempting to make). Don't ask for an opinion if I'm not allowed to give one. There were only two ways (that I'm aware of) to answer a pro/con question; why was she being asked if there was only one acceptable answer, like some sort of homophobic litmus test.

Parkbandit

05-12-2009, 03:47 PM

And Obama saves Miss California:

President Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning — the debate over Miss California’s position on gay marriage.

At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.

“It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump’s statement, telling reporters: “The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.”

In the final round of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean told judge Perez Hilton: “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

Methais

05-12-2009, 04:48 PM

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i13/cudasgirl/121130184740460.jpg

Sean of the Thread

05-12-2009, 04:57 PM

Methais

05-12-2009, 05:07 PM

The video was silly bad however. The statement in your post was ten times better.

Hello it's a competition with judges that you willfully entered to be judged by uhm JUDGES.

It's like crying about your son not getting enough playing time or that his team is getting blown out. Oh welllls.

It's more like a Yankees fan being a judge and asking someone "Do you prefer the Yankees or the Red Sox?"

What I'm trying to say is the Yankees are gay.

AestheticDeath

05-12-2009, 05:42 PM

So what was that video/press conference about? Was that supposed to just the thing about whether she would be stripped of her current title? Or was the whole thing more to do with why she didn't win the miss USA?

The snippet about her marriage rights answer didn't really tell much about why they had gathered.

Was she stripped of the title? I assume not. And I assume they are not trying to reverse the Miss USA title position?

Androidpk

05-12-2009, 05:56 PM

It was about the pictures she had taken for Victoria's Secret. Trump decided to let her keep her title after a 6 hour boning session.

AestheticDeath

05-12-2009, 06:10 PM

Yeah so she kept her title. And they had found more nudes of her right before they did all this apparently.

Kudos to anyone who finds the un-censored versions of the pre-breast implant topless ones. google failed me

Parkbandit

05-13-2009, 04:52 PM

Shanna Moakler stepped down as director of the Miss California USA pageant on Wednesday, saying her conscience won't allow her to serve an organization she "no longer" believes in. The decision comes a day after Donald Trump cleared the way for Carrie Prejean to keep her crown.

Moakler, who recently shot a print ad supporting gay rights, told Us Magazine that she has "had a chance to think about what has taken place" since Prejean began voicing her opposition to gay marriage at the pageant.
Skip over this content "I cannot with a clear conscious (sic) 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," said.
"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."
Prejean caused a fire storm at the Miss USA pageant on April 19 after she told judge Perez Hilton that she did not believe in nuptials between persons of the same sex, instead preferring what she dubbed "opposite marriage." She has blamed her answer for ending up as the runner-up.
Since then, several semi-nude photos of the beauty queen have emerged. She told the press conference on Tuesday that it was an attempt to mock her faith in God.
On Tuesday, pageant owner Trump announced he would allow Prejean to continue her reign as Miss California USA.

http://www.popeater.com/television/article/shanna-moakler-leave-miss-california/481202

:rofl: