Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast

[24KT]

She is entitled to be a bigot.  That is what is great about the USA.  You can believe anything you want, so long as you dont impose on anyone else. 

What the heck do you call Prop 8? Gay marriage was legal until the bigots chose to impose their beliefs on gays. 

[24KT]

Furthermore, the winner of this pageant represents this country. And last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of people in the USA clearly believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Bingo! And that's why the winner should be someone who has the ability to answer with intellligence & diplomacy.

Saying "Sorry if I offend, ...but that's just how I was raised" shows neither. It was a lazy answer given with fore-knowledge that she was going to offend. She should have composed a better answer, one that showed her worthy of an ambassadorial role. She didn't.

[24KT]

Why was her answer wrong?

Because "That's just the way I was raised" is a lazy cop out. C'mon Jake. Regardless of your position,
...an educated, intelligent man like you can how stupid an answer that was can't you?

That's like asking some guy in Afghanistan to comment. Now that gov of Afghanistan allows women in NATO controlled territory to work and be educated, do you think this policy should apply throughout all of Afghanistan? Why or why not? And the guy answers "No, ...cause that's just how I was raised".  Can you not see what a butt stupid lazy answer that would be?

Now if he said "No, because the entire country is not yet under NATO control. The mentality of the people has not progressed far enough that this could be implemented without adding further fuel to the insurgency... which could risk setting back the gains NATO and the women of Afghanistan have made thus far..."  while we may not agree with him, he would have at least put some thought into a response, that despite not being what some would want to hear, ...shows at least one or two synapses at work. Her answer showed none. It was a piss poor brain dead answer, ...and she deserved to be marked down for it.

[24KT]

LOL i agree you talk to ppl like jag or others on here and say you are not in favor of it and all of a sudden your a homophobe 

No, ...not homophobe, just anti-gay. I thought we already established that. 

[24KT]

When did the "private employer" state that kissing a gay judge's behind and acquiescing to his "gay rights" mantra are required to "get the job"?

Probably about the same time that "the pivate employer" stuck a gay judge on the panel.
And not just any gay judge... this was not Svend Robinson, ...we're talking Perez Hilton. {lol}

[drkaje]

Because "That's just the way I was raised" is a lazy cop out. C'mon Jake. Regardless of your position,
...an educated, intelligent man like you can how stupid an answer that was can't you?

That's like asking some guy in Afghanistan to comment. Now that gov of Afghanistan allows women in NATO controlled territory to work and be educated, do you think this policy should apply throughout all of Afghanistan? Why or why not? And the guy answers "No, ...cause that's just how I was raised".  Can you not see what a butt stupid lazy answer that would be?

Now if he said "No, because the entire country is not yet under NATO control. The mentality of the people has not progressed far enough that this could be implemented without adding further fuel to the insurgency... which could risk setting back the gains NATO and the women of Afghanistan have made thus far..."  while we may not agree with him, he would have at least put some thought into a response, that despite not being what some would want to hear, ...shows at least one or two synapses at work. Her answer showed none. It was a piss poor brain dead answer, ...and she deserved to be marked down for it.

I realize you're being facetious but diatribes like that really are giving people the impression that all Canadians are dumbasses.

Since you're not an American and no fan of civil liberty or common sense I'll type this explanation really slow: People are ignoring the bigger issue here. Ultimately, I would have never voted against gay marriage until Bigdumbass and others finally proved this issue is becoming a new litmus test. When she loses her right to respectfully disagree, we all do. This is a free thought/speech issue with far reaching ramifications because if it's acceptable to punish her for disagreeing there becomes a point where other citizens will suffer the same fate. Prospective employers cannot ask about religion, pregnancy intentions and a host of other issues, having the right to ask about gay marriage allows people to discriminate based upon religious views. Americans are pretty lazy and we always tend to overcorrect on issues instead of applying thought. Her, or anyone else, losing the right to disagree on a social issue has bigger consequences than people are willing (or able) to understand.

Plenty of people do things because they were 'raised that way'. I'm generally polite to elders because of being raised to respect them, is that a lazy cop out? We're supposed to assume people who lived a long time have managed to learn something.

This is a simple case of some guy deciding to grandstand. Unfortunately he ended up showing no tolerance or class and proved to people that this is is an issue where no other opinion can be respected.

We all know free speech isn't free, that's a given. But not even being able to say 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' severely limits people's rights. If she said "I hate gays and think same sex marriage endangers children and should be illegal" being punished would make some sense in the competition's context. Having no right answer that didn't appease one judge makes no sense. We shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water", LOL!

[24KT]

I realize you're being facetious but diatribes like that really are giving people the impression that all Canadians are dumbasses.

Since you're not an American and no fan of civil liberty or common sense I'll type this explanation really slow: People are ignoring the bigger issue here. Ultimately, I would have never voted against gay marriage until Bigdumbass and others finally proved this issue is becoming a new litmus test. When she loses her right to respectfully disagree, we all do.

That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.

This is a free thought/speech issue with far reaching ramifications because if it's acceptable to punish her for disagreeing there becomes a point where other citizens will suffer the same fate. Prospective employers cannot ask about religion, pregnancy intentions and a host of other issues, having the right to ask about gay marriage allows people to discriminate based upon religious views. Americans are pretty lazy and we always tend to overcorrect on issues instead of applying thought. Her, or anyone else, losing the right to disagree on a social issue has bigger consequences than people are willing (or able) to understand.

I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.

Plenty of people do things because they were 'raised that way'. I'm generally polite to elders because of being raised to respect them, is that a lazy cop out? We're supposed to assume people who lived a long time have managed to learn something.

Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.

This is a simple case of some guy deciding to grandstand. Unfortunately he ended up showing no tolerance or class and proved to people that this is is an issue where no other opinion can be respected.

Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. 

We all know free speech isn't free, that's a given. But not even being able to say 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' severely limits people's rights. If she said "I hate gays and think same sex marriage endangers children and should be illegal" being punished would make some sense in the competition's context. Having no right answer that didn't appease one judge makes no sense. We shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water", LOL!

Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.

If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that?  And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit?    I'm embarrassed for you

[MCWAY]

What the heck do you call Prop 8? Gay marriage was legal until the bigots chose to impose their beliefs on gays. 

Or, you could say that marriage was a 1M-1W union until the "bigots" (judges) chose to impose their beliefs on the citizens of California.

[24KT]

Or, you could say that marriage was a 1M-1W union until the "bigots" (judges) chose to impose their beliefs on the citizens of California.

Your issue is with the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights, ...not gay people who want equality.

[MCWAY]

Bingo! And that's why the winner should be someone who has the ability to answer with intellligence & diplomacy.

Saying "Sorry if I offend, ...but that's just how I was raised" shows neither. It was a lazy answer given with fore-knowledge that she was going to offend. She should have composed a better answer, one that showed her worthy of an ambassadorial role. She didn't.

Good point made. But, it's the answer itself, not the way she presented that answer that's caused Hilton's infantile tirade. Again, had he not gone off the deep end, he could have simply penalized her for that, gone about his merry way, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As I said, how succintly could she have explained what I just posted earlier, regarding "Baker v. Nelson"?

Plus when you ask that question, you're going to OFFEND SOMEBODY: Either those who support or oppose gay "marriage".

Probably about the same time that "the pivate employer" stuck a gay judge on the panel.
And not just any gay judge... this was not Svend Robinson, ...we're talking Perez Hilton. {lol}

Then, as I said, have a seperate paegant, called Miss "Liberal-left-winged-gay-'marriage'-sympathizing-PC" America. Again, gay judges should not be shocked when someone reflect a view on marriage that is indicative of the vast majority of this country (especially when the contestant is from California, where Prop. 8 was just passed less than six months ago).


Plus, you could just as easily argue that Hilton should have known that this young lady (a student at San Diego Christian College) would more than likely believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

[MCWAY]

Your issue is with the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights, ...not gay people who want equality.

Why would my issue be with the Bill of Rights or the Supreme Court (at least the federal one) on this issue?

As for the equality thing, therein lies the irony of this discussion. We have a gay judge who wails about "equality", when it comes to marriage, penalizing a beauty paegant contestant, for her disagreement with his view on gay "marriage" (not on the style or delivery of the message, but the message itself).

[MCWAY]

That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.

I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.

Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.

Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. 

Another good point there, regarding Hilton.

Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.

If she didn't answer the question, why are you claiming that her answer was poor? She was asked if other states should follow Vermont's example.

By saying that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, apparently her answer was "NO!".

Now, with regards to "why or why not?" (as Hilton asked), I can see your point, there. But, on the other hand, her answer has to be short and sweet. I don't think that, for example, the "Baker v. Nelson" argument can be summed up in a quick sound byte.

If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that?  And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit?    I'm embarrassed for you

He stating that he's concerned about civil liberties being lost, because some people with Hilton's drama-queen-hissy-fit mindset judge FAR more than just a beauty contest.

[drkaje]

That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.

I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.

Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.

Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. 


Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.

If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that?  And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit?    I'm embarrassed for you

There's a distinct difference between respectfully disagreeing and throwing out silly answers just to get in the last word.

A lazy answer would have been some religious reason or saying "gays are icky".

I've met more old dumbasses than wise ones. At this point I've come to respect people managing to survive long periods of time despite being stupid. Becoming a 'glass half full' kinda guy. Ultimately, the people who said "Always respect your elders" grew up in an era where grandparents were older and had managed to accumulate wisdom in most cases. These days some people are becoming grandparents in their 30s so it probably doesn't apply. 

Sadly, Hilton was placed in that position and failed miserably. Displaying one iota of restraint, tolerance or class would have helped but no, he just couldn't resist the attention. My expecting him to show tolerance is naive? That's a lame answer especially considering everyone is criticizing the chick for not answering properly. He should have acted like an adult or thought about other people long enough to realize how the reaction would affect the public's perception on gay marriage.

[George Whorewell]

McWay- Dont argue law with Decker. He thinks the laws of this country should only be applied in the  warped manner he sees fit when they are in harmony with his pathetically partisan point of view.

Also- Dont argue facts or history with him either because he will pull up an incredibly disreputable study conducted by a left wing fringe group that demonstrates irrefutably that gay marriage was legal according to our countries forefathers- as was polygamy and bestiality-- Also the study will likely conclude that freedom of speech is a myth perpatrated by Fox News. 

Finally, and most importantly, do not try to argue that the majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. In Deckers opinion, what the majority thinks is irrelevant and wrong, unless of course it applies to elections where democrats are elected or where the majority of terrorists and their supporters think American interrogation tactics are "torture".

[drkaje]

McWay- Dont argue law with Decker. He thinks the laws of this country should only be applied in the  warped manner he sees fit when they are in harmony with his pathetically partisan point of view.

Also- Dont argue facts or history with him either because he will pull up an incredibly disreputable study conducted by a left wing fringe group that demonstrates irrefutably that gay marriage was legal according to our countries forefathers- as was polygamy and bestiality-- Also the study will likely conclude that freedom of speech is a myth perpatrated by Fox News. 

Finally, and most importantly, do not try to argue that the majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. In Deckers opinion, what the majority thinks is irrelevant and wrong, unless of course it applies to elections where democrats are elected or where the majority of terrorists and their supporters think American interrogation tactics are "torture".

Apparently the issue is so important Americans don't have a right to vote on it.

Maybe we should declare marshal law.

[24KT]

Apparently the issue is so important Americans don't have a right to vote on it.

Maybe we should declare marshal law.

"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." 

[drkaje]

"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." 

He asked a stupid and intentionally inflammatory question. People shouldn't ask opinions if they can't handle the answers. A truly lazy answer would have been "I believe whatever the law is".

Crayola isn't the only company to make crayons. Using your logic, a judge preferring another brand could still subtract points.

The PC Nazis shut her up. Given time they'll get to you.

[MCWAY]

He asked a stupid and intentionally inflammatory question. People shouldn't ask opinions if they can't handle the answers. A truly lazy answer would have been "I believe whatever the law is".

Let's see: She's from California, a state that just voted to reverse a state court ruling that legalized gay "marriage". And, she attends San Diego CHRISTIAN college.

I wonder why Hilton never saw that answer coming.

[Straw Man]

Let's see: She's from California, a state that just voted to reverse a state court ruling that legalized gay "marriage". And, she attends San Diego CHRISTIAN college.

I wonder why Hilton never saw that answer coming.

well, first, as you know, not all christians agree on this or any issue

personally - I think it's fine for her to express her true feelings and it's also fine for others to judge her for that.

she has no reason to bitch.   

she disagrees with gay marriage and others disagree with her and some may even hold it against her

seems fair to me

[MCWAY]

well, first, as you know, not all christians agree on this or any issue

This coming from someone, who just posted something about Christian "group think" and "zombies" on another thread.

They may not all agree. But, I think it's safe to say that the odds are quite safe that she'll think marriage is a 1M-1W union.

personally - I think it's fine for her to express her true feelings and it's also fine for others to judge her for that.


she has no reason to bitch. 

Are you talking about Prejean or Hilton?

 

she disagrees with gay marriage and others disagree with her and some may even hold it against her

seems fair to me

Holding a view of marriage, that the vast majority of this country (and at least 52% of her state's voters) holds is now a bad thing?

Again, if that's the case, they should simply hold a Miss Liberal-left-wing-PC-Gay-sympathizer USA.

[Straw Man]

This coming from someone, who just posted something about Christian "group think" and "zombies" on another thread.

They may not all agree. But, I think it's safe to say that the odds are quite safe that she'll think marriage is a 1M-1W union.

Are you talking about Prejean or Hilton?

Holding a view of marriage, that the vast majority of this country (and at least 52% of her state's voters) holds is now a bad thing?

Again, if that's the case, they should simply hold a Miss Liberal-left-wing-PC-Gay-sympathizer USA.

God you're dense.

where to start?

first - 52% is not a vast majority

second - there are plenty of opions and picking and choosing among people who call themselves christian.

The "group think" zombies are the people who follow a leader like Falwell who said things like "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions".   Most people in this country have no problem understanding  the difference.   What's your problem?

Third -  Hilton is a guy so when I refer to "HER" and "SHE" that would be Prejean

[MCWAY]

God you're dense.

where to start?

first - 52% is not a vast majority

The 52% refers to California voters. The words "vast majority" was not referring to them (hence the reason I put the number of CA voters in parentheses).

So, the "dense" moniker is yours alone, on this one.

second - there are plenty of opions and picking and choosing among people who call themselves christian.

The "group think" zombies are the people who follow a leader like Falwell who said things like "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions".   Most people in this country have no problem understanding  the difference.   What's your problem?

My "problem" is that your comments were hardly limited to Falwell's congregation, student body, or TV audience. That is but your feeble attempt to backtrack, when your words betray you.

It's also your pitiful way of feigning ignorance to the fact that the majority of professed Christians believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That means that folks like Hilton should hardly be surprised when a lady from Christian college, in a state that passed Prop. 8, would have such a view.

Third -  Hilton is a guy so when I refer to "HER" and "SHE" that would be Prejean

Again, the "dense" moniker falls on YOU.

[Straw Man]

The 52% refers to California voters. The words "vast majority" was not referring to them (hence the reason I put the number of CA voters in parentheses).

So, the "dense" moniker is yours alone, on this one.

show me some proof of this vast majority you claim exists. 

My "problem" is that your comments were hardly limited to Falwell's congregation, student body, or TV audience. That is but your feeble attempt to backtrack, when your words betray you.

are we talking about comment in two different threads?    I made no comment in this thread about zombie christians.  I made it in another thread regarding a guy at Jerry Falwells University and the quote from my avatar is from Falwell and we all know people who fall into that category.  I'm even starting to suspect that you're in that category.   

It's also your pitiful way of feigning ignorance to the fact that the majority of professed Christians believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That means that folks like Hilton should hardly be surprised when a lady from Christian college, in a state that passed Prop. 8, would have such a view.

since there is no one "christian" church it seems pretty clear that there are many many many interpretations of the bible I have no reason to believe the majority of christians share the same view on anything.  Maybe a majority in your church agrees with you but drive down the road and you'll find another christian church where the majority believe something else.

Again, the "dense" moniker falls on YOU.

you seem a bit defensive.  Are you still confused by my original post.

I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.

Miss California should be free to express her opinion and other should be free to judge her opinion and she has no reason to be upset if people judge her for her opinions and/or if it has negative consequences.   

It's all fine

[MCWAY]

show me some proof of this vast majority you claim exists. 

At last count, at least 43 states have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, 30 of those have state constitutional amendments.

are we talking about comment in two different threads?    I made no comment in this thread about zombie christians.  I made it in another thread regarding a guy at Jerry Falwells University and the quote from my avatar is from Falwell and we all know people who fall into that category.  I'm even starting to suspect that you're in that category.   

Did I not use the words, "in another thread", when I first brought this up here?

since there is no one "christian" church it seems pretty clear that there are many many many interpretations of the bible I have no reason to believe the majority of christians share the same view on anything.  Maybe a majority in your church agrees with you but drive down the road and you'll find another christian church where the majority believe something else.

Once again, your feigning ignorance is astounding.

you seem a bit defensive.  Are you still confused by my original post.

I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.

Miss California should be free to express her opinion and other should be free to judge her opinion and she has no reason to be upset if people judge her for her opinions and/or if it has negative consequences.   

It's all fine

I understand what you said just fine, which is why I can comment on how silly it is. She has reason to be upset, if the judging is supposed to be objective but it is not. Jaguar's point is right on the money. If her being marked down dealt with her lack of smooth delivery, a lack or clarity, or her not giving accurate support of a definitive answer, that'd be one thing.

But, that wasn't the case, as Hilton admitted later.

[Straw Man]

McWay - you can find #'s that support almost anything you want.

I do think that a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage but I don't think it's a "vast majority".

According to Gallup the # is 56%.   Perhaps it's semantics and that # represents a vast majority to you.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I think she should feel perfectly free to express her opinion and she should be smart enought to know that people will judge her for it (she's being judged on everything else) and it might have consequences that she doesn't like.