There’s been such a firestorm of commenting on Carrie Prejean’s predicament in Simon’s Perez Hilton post from yesterday, I thought it was time to give the girl a post of her own.
Miss California has been stumping for the National Organization for Marriage ever since she made her infamous comments that may or may not have (but totally did) cost her the Miss USA crown. She’s appeared on NOM’s behalf on the Today show, and they’ve used her image in their new ad campaign (along with Perez Hilton, as Simon noted below), apparently with her blessing.
Then of course, as always happens in stories like these, someone uncovered photos of her posing naked on the Internet and sent them to the Miss USA organization.
Prejean released a statement about it:
“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 website 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.”
I don’t know that TheDirty.com is mocking her for her Christian faith so much as they are calling her a hypocrite for being Miss California with naked, naked skeletons in her closet.
There’s talk that she might be stripped of the title for being “photographed in a state of partial or total nudity,” which is clearly forbidden under the Miss USA terms and conditions, but for the record, that’s a terrible idea. Though I might disagree with her on gay marriage, she shouldn’t lose her crown over her opinion if that’s what’s actually happening here. That said, she would hardly be the first Miss USA contestant who’s been forced to apologize or resign for depraved behavior unbefitting the tiara.
And with these photographs brought to light, you do have to wonder why NOM would want a “lingerie model” (ahem, without the lingerie) as a spokesperson for traditional values.
Related posts:
- Carrie Prejean: WWII Was Fought To Protect My Opinions Grandmaster Trump has decided that Carrie Prejean will keep her...
- Forget Those Nudie Photos: Carrie Prejean Has a Sex Tape Former Miss California and “opposite marriage” morality advocate Carrie Prejean...
- Carrie Prejean Admits to Hannity That Her Sex Tape Exists In the course of promoting her new tell-all memoir, ex-Miss...
- Hey, Let’s Destroy Carrie Prejean for Agreeing with the President! As you watch the Carrie Prejean brouhaha unfold, you might...
- And Now, Joanna Krupa Naked Well, I can’t just stare at that picture all...
Look at her picture and then tell me there isn’t a God.
If you’re a Christian, this is one of the things you pray FOR. The chance to commit some sin with something like THAT.
Can I gets an “A-men!”?
Her boobs look big in this picture. I thought Perez and co. were spreading around that she got a boob job just before the pageant? Hmm wonder what’s going on there.
“I don’t know that TheDirty.com is mocking her for her Christian faith so much as they are calling her a hypocrite for being Miss California with naked, naked skeletons in her closet.”
I dunno. I think some on the left keep confusing Christians with feminazis and Muslims. She’s pretty, she has a healthy attitude about her body and she has strong values about human and family life – what’s unChristian about her? I think these people are frozen in the fifties.
let her keep the title and I agree that such a ruleo of “partial OR full nudity = firing” is too hard-core for today’s society…in other words Victoria-Secret style yes, Penthouse/Playboy style, no
Can you name Miss USA without Googling it? Me neither.
“Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos”
That’s not totally true. One of my good friends is a model, has been for years, and has NEVER had to do partially nude/lingerie shots.
Red Alert
Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/gay-marriage-opponent-topless-photos-leaked.html
Bruce, I LOL’d.
And Simon, nope, me neither. Though it kind of makes me vomit to realize how rich Donald Trump must be getting over this whole scandal. Who’s cared this much about Miss USA, ever? I always thought it was the poor man’s Miss America.
So the pageant will pay for boob jobs, but gasp in feigned disapproval over ‘nudity’? I think the pageant needs their own Deceiver post.
Does that honestly look like “oh just teenage photos of me posing as a model?” I don’t think so. I think these were pretty recent and post boob-job (from whoever paid for it) and sadly this is falling into the rinse and repeat stories we’ve all heard about winners and semi-winners of these contests. I don’t think anyone really cares enough about them to give a d@mn anymore, so I hope she has a good two-bit career in Implied Nudity Modeling and Softcore.
At this point in time, wouldn’t it be prudent for beauty pageants to just admit that “Partial or Complete Nudity” goes hand in hand with hot chick?
These girls shouldn’t be told their being un-American. They’re just using capitalism to make a buck to pay the bills!
I guess my logic fails again, but I don’t see what’s wrong with this picture (bad pun intended)…I have a problem with some of the statments Ms Prejean has made, but I don’t think this photo is a big deal. That photo looks just like any page out of Victoria’s Secret catalogue, it’s not some pornographic image after all. It’s not even that revealing, she is not nude in it and I think the photo is in good taste. But sadly, I think this photo will be used as a pretext to strip her of her title (the real reason being her stance on gay marriage) and if that happens it’ll be really unfortunate – everyone in gay community will be perceived as an intolerant hateful person. I saw that picture yesterday on Mario’s site and thought it was extremely low even by his standards. He’s doing a great disservice to the entire gay community by going after Prejean. Most people in gay community loathe him, he is in no way a gay community spokesperson he fancies himself to be. I don’t think she should lose her title and if she does, the gay community will most certainly face a backlash, and it’s going to be all that troublemaking troll’s fault.
lmao@Bruce’s picture
As for NOM, they are about as desperate (and credible) as PeTA. I have an abbrevation of my own for NOM – STFU.
ShyAsrai i agree.. and if i read correctly, she did indeed have her boob job paid for!
I’d be more surprised if a model in California didn’t take nude or half nude photos. That said, I’m sure she’s repented and been saved. God bless Christianity.
Just thought you should know
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”, Keats.
Let’s see, on one side ugliness, Mario Laundromat; and on the other side beauty and truth, Carrie Prejean. This isn’t a hard choice.
I don’t think it’s fair that Prejean has to follow to the letter someone else’s idea of how a person with a certain opinion should be to have that opinion, especially when they’d just reject her as ignorant/hateful/intolerant if she were. That said, I’ve been known for my partiality to topless women, so I’ve got a conflict of interest…in my pants.
She actually looks natural in that picture and not like a plastic fantastic walking talking little pageant doll.
Even so, I still think it’s kind of hilarious that these pictures have surfaced.
I think it is hard no adays to hide something like this. Look at how easy it is to access things like this. With phones, internet, etc and look at how many young girls are now showing their parts everywwhere – VH and MC. I believe they also said this happened when she was 17. She is now 21, 22?
I am not sure how this makes her unchristian, just by posing partially nude where she is hiding most of her assets. Now, if she was caught on a porn tape like Paris after she claimed that she was a virgin, that would be hypocracy. I think the bigger hypocracy is that she received a boob job and the pagaent committee paid for it. So much for the natural, girl next door look.
Yet another picture of a topless gay marriage opponent. These look real to me.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/gay-marriage-opponent-topless-photos-leaked.html
I think she really, REALLY shouldn’t have done those photos, for several reasons. That said, I also think that Moakler, et al, did some digging (or handed off the shovel to someone) to get these out there. And Nati’s right: The gay community, like it or not, now looks pretty hateful and intolerant, thanks to Hilton and others like him. Whether they actually ARE hateful and intolerant remains to be seen.
It is amazing these pictures are now such a big deal. They were obviously out there before the competition. Quite frankly, I feel Perez Hilton is milking this way too much and it is for his own benefit, not for the cause. Come on, he got a gig as a judge of beauty…Really??? Him? Have you seen how he dresses and takes care of himself? Then he is mean and distasteful when someone gives their answer on a question he asked. (And he asked knowing this question would destroy the contestant no matter how they answered.) (If any contestant would have answered they believe in gay marriage the ultra-conservatives would have complained that the answer did not follow the family guidelines and was inapporpiate for family tv.) Hilton has parlayed this non-event into a media firestorm for himeslf. He got on Larry King to discuss this is event. Besides being a gay blogger what qualifications does he have?
The facts speak for themselves.
If she would have followed the traditional beauty queen answer – “I just want world peace.” she would have fared much better.
Wow, a model who does figure modeling and shows a little skin. Go figure. In my opinion she is a better candidate than most of the other women who were on the stage last night. As others have stated unless she is doing full nudes in mens magazines then she hasn’t violated any of the rules of the competition. Those rules of course are purely made up and interpreted any way the event organizers want to strip her of her title. If they did take her crown I would sue them and especially that frigging troll doll looking scum bag Pez Dispenser Hilton.
She is also a better candidate for having the guts to stand up for what she believes in and taking a stand against a militant organization that is trying to force their beliefs on a majority of the population. But in this new era you are suppose to conform and do what is told by the radial lefts and fringe groups other wise you are a (insert un PC term here).
The way she’s a hypocrite is if we find out she’s actually married to a lesbian chick. Showing a little skin and being against gay marriage are two completely different issues. It’s not like people who believe in traditions aren’t getting a little freaky too in the bedroom you know.
And she does turn out to be a hypocrite then where are those damn pictures??????
You said: “(ahem, without the lingerie)”….
Aren’t those panties she’s wearing? Open your eyes before you post something like this sh*t. There are plenty of models out there who shoot photos of the exact same thing. Do you see t*ts or just side-boob? Nipple? Not there either. A$$..nope not there either. So explain how she has “naked, naked skeletons in her closet”? (your imbecilic words, not mine)
All you “this photo is not that bad” people need to note that Prejean herself said “photos.” This isn’t the only one. Alicia Jacobs, one of the Miss USA judges, has said she’s seen the others and they are all substantially more revealing (but not public because if it’s true that she was 17 when they were taken, that would make them child pornography). So yeah, this was no lingerie ad.
I agree with the most of you on Perez. He is milking this and loving the attention cause he is an attention whore. I feel bad for my friends who are gay because somehow he has deemed himself the face and spokesperson for all gays when they are nothing like him.
That being said, the way her arm is positioned, looks like she took the picture herself in the mirror, a cliche MySpace self-portrait. The quality smacks of it. This isn’t a professional shot.
Personally, I don’t find this particular picture offensive, nor do I personally think that the naked human body is offensive. However, this sort of thing is egg on the face of a person who discusses publically how Christian they are, because Christianity, for the most part, frowns upon this sort of thing. That the pictures were taken while she was still a minor, even though she was probably months short of her 18th birthday, do make it particularly scandalous and hypocritical. After all, isn’t part of being one of these dog show…er…pageant contestants about setting a good example? Especially if you are out there telling the world how Christian you are and how you don’t think gay people should get married, because presumably, it’s immoral to be gay?
I could care less about how naked she got for these photos, and were it up to me, this sort of thing would have no bearing on whether someone gets to be Miss Stepford or not. I also could care less what her views are about gay people or anything else. But seriously, it is pretty hypocritical and downright hilarious, and I would be interested in knowing how raunchy the other pictures actually are because if they are actually raunchy, then it’s pure comedy gold.
Finally, concrete proof that not all rightwingers wear granny panties!
I’m sorry, those of you saying she can be a topless model AND a Christian…I don’t buy it. I feel if you’re making that concession then you are a lukewarm and insincere Christian. Real Christians value modesty and would never ever want to lead another person astray or into sin with their actions, including inciting others to lust over them, which threatens the other person’s faith by tempting them into carnal actions. I grew up in a Christian household, my father is a pastor. And I wasn’t even allowed to wear tank tops. To this day my sense of modesty is in over drive.
She IS a hypocrite. Because those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Why is her sin any better than the “sin” of homosexuality? Christian values entail modesty. If she’s going to go after those who want to marry, something that in no way threatens her faith, then why shouldn’t we be going after her for just being another blond, fake-tittied bimbo that tries to use Jesus to snag a crown? And the Bible says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And to me, condemning homosexuals as second class citizens who aren’t allowed to marry because their love isn’t “Biblically correct”….that sounds a lot like judgement! Hypocrisy. And now, since she judged, SHE’S being judged…let the punishment fit the crime.
If she loses her crown, I think it will be because of the real, valid reason: those photos. They are in violation of her contract and it would not be the first time a girl was stripped of her title because of indecent photos. I don’t honestly think anyone on the board is so unreasonable that they’re just looking for a reason to drop her because they disagree with her on gay marriage. I just don’t.
WUD, well stated. Very well stated.
Wow, even Miley has learned not to post nakedish photos. Let’s say it together: If you don’t want the rest of the world to see compromising photos of you, don’t take them. If you are dumb enough to take them, don’t post them anywhere. Don’t send them to your boyfriend because you might break up with him. Check that, you will break up with him and those photos may end up out in the universe and you can never take them back.
As for Carrie, apparently, she is dumber than Miley. And that is dumb.
Good thing she ain’t a muslim.
Can she wear a bikini and be a Christian? Can she participate in a beauty pageant and be a Christian? Just trying to determine the parameters.
Watch your step, H. Calming down and using logic in these situations makes you a bigot.
For me, it’s not a question of “can she be a topless model and a Christian” but “can she be a topless model and Miss California.” The whole point of the designation is to be a role model, and should Miss USA be saying that amateur child porn is something to aspire to?
The problem is that if she’s stripped of her title, everyone’s going to assume it had mostly to do with her stance on gay marriage, so it’s a sticky situation.
Whether she’s been a good Christian or not by posing for these photos, Miss Prejean must be psyched to get so much publicity. I mean, does anyone remember who beat her for the Miss USA title? Thought not.
I’m with Simon here, though – what are the limits of undress for a “good Christian”? Anyone?
And?
And as I said above, I don’t think that would be fair.
Queen Bee, Miley did pose for the whole world to see in attire that was not fit for a 15 year old. Miley and Vanessa both did something stupid. And I disagree that you cannot be a Christian and pose like this. I am a Christian and have worn far less clothes and I grew up wearing bikinis and tank tops. Does that make me less of a Christian? I remained a virgin until I was 25 and I should have waited longer if that was what I was waiting for! It is what is in your heart, not what you wear that makes you a Christian. Is it wrong for her to pose like this? probably. However I am sure there is someone gunning for her to get caught based on all of the backlash so I would not put it past some creep to do this to her.
I find it highly unlikely that she’s the only contestant with pictures like this in her past. This is payback for answering a question the “wrong” way. This is now apparently standard operating procedure.
I don’t know what the limits of undress for a “good Christian” are, and am pretty sure they vary depending on what flavor of Christian you are, but though I myself am not a Christian, I know that if my cousin’s 17 year old daughter were posing in states of undress, her parents, grandparents, my mother, sister, and myself would probably have to take turns whipping her ass. And while some flavors of Christian don’t allow tank tops, shorts, or bikinis, and others are okay with it, I am pretty sure that all would agree that partial or full nudity in this context is not okay, especially given that the pictures are meant to be provocative. This is why I am in agreement with WUD on the Christian thing. Do I necessarily agree that published racy photos automatically mean you are a bad Christian? No. But as the resident atheist, my opinion is going to differ. A lot of Christians, good, bad, false or true, would not agree with me, which is what counts, and why she is a hypocrite. The only thing that would make this funnier is if her hidden pictures showed her sticking her tongue down another girl’s throat.
A person that is sitting on a high horse and proclaiming their Christianity to the world while at the same time condemning homosexuals should not have a past that includes naked/half naked modeling pictures that were taken while she was not yet legal.
I agree with Holly as well. Anyone else would be stripped of their title and have been. If it happens that she has her title rightfully stripped, then no one is going to believe that it wasn’t about her comments to Mario. This is why that question had no place being asked in that competition to begin with. Why does anyone care what a human show horse thinks anyway? I’m not saying that these women are vacant bimbo fembots, but for the time that they are on that stage, that’s what they are portraying, and that’s how it should be kept.
You lost me there. When did she condemn homosexuals?
Aw, Simon, she is condemning their lifestyle in saying that she doesn’t think they should be allowed to marry because. The implication is almost not even an implication. She might as well just say it.
I can’t type sometimes, or edit well. Never mind.
I absolutely allow that she’s not the only Miss Whatever with nudie pics in her background. (Others have been caught too — I bet Tara Conner is just so relieved that she’s no longer the most scandalous name in Miss USA history.) She’s also certainly not the only Miss USA contestant who believes gay marriage is wrong.
But “payback”? She posed for the photos and signed numerous documents — including her contract as Miss California — that made her promise she has never appeared nude or partially nude in photographs, knowing full well that was a lie.
In what conceivable sense is this not payback? It wouldn’t be happening if she hadn’t been asked that question, or if she’d lied in her answer. She is being punished for disagreeing, using any means at her opponents’ disposal. Do you really think payback can’t be gotten through technically legal means? It’s classic intimidation tactics.
Your threshold for “condemnation” is almost comically low, Chronic. “No offense to anyone out there,” that was particularly hateful, I thought.
Why? She’s already got everybody putting the words in her mouth.
Again, she’s not the only Miss USA contestant ever to take a hard fall. Did someone go looking for photos like these because of the controversy? Most likely yes. But that doesn’t excuse her for taking them.
Think about it, Simon. The only reason that straight Christians care about preventing gays from marrying is because they don’t approve of that lifestyle and consider homosexuality an abomination. Many state that they feel their own marriages will be cheapened if gay people are allowed to marry. That’s condemnation of a lifestyle right there, and if that means I have a comically low threshold for “condemnation”, so be it, when people come out with these reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t take place, what they are really doing is making a second class citizen of them unworthy of the same rights as any other couple.
I’m not trying to get all Mario here, or calling anyone a “dumb bitch”, but that’s a pretty crap way for people to be treated, and beauty queen supports it, so yes, I think she is condemning homosexuals.
As I recall, Vanessa Williams only got in trouble for that stuff after she won. As if it’s not enough for the judges to admit that they voted against Prejean because of her answer, now she has to be punished further. For expressing an opinion. In the United States of America. An opinion shared by the President of the United States of America.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with you talking about Obama like this.
I know that’s the theory. It just sounds like you’re really having to jump through a lot of mental hoops to arrive at the word “condemnation.” See, to me condemnation would be if she’d stood there and said, “All you queers are goin’ to Hell!” Well, no. She just said she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. (An opinion she was directly asked for.) A lot of people don’t. The President doesn’t. The voters of California don’t. Even some gay people don’t. Apparently they’re not allowed to disagree with you, or they’re hateful bigots.
*shrug* Ultimately if she wants to be a traditional marriage advocate, that’s her choice. It’s an avenue that’s open to her. But if her credibility is tainted by photographs she swore didn’t exist despite the fact they do, she has no one to blame but herself.
Her credibility was tainted the minute she dared to give her honest answer to a direct question. The rest is pitchforks and torches.
Vanessa Williams was Miss America, the most successful one in their history. Nitpicky, I know but Miss USA is a different pageant system. Miss America really tries to act as if they are a scholarship pageant. And did you see Vanessa’s photos? They were raunchy, lesbian activities photos that were shown in Penthouse, I believe. Carrie’s photos seem pretty tame, at least the ones we have seen.
LMAO, Simon!!!!!! St. Obama may strike me down, I know. But I’m hiding out in the UK.
Well, most Christians will say that homosexuals that engage in homosexual activity will go to hell, so it’s not a huge stretch to see that this is where she is coming from.
Honestly, I could care less if someone disagrees with me, and disagreement doesn’t automatically mean that I will declare someone my mortal enemy or some crazy crap. Most of my own family that I love and get along with feel that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. However, yes, I do think that it definitely is a bigoted stance. Hateful? Not always. I think ignorance and conditioning play a big part in it too, as does this sense of being threatened. And I find that a bit sad, really, because there are so many other issues that are more important out there, and people are wasting tons of energy trying to prevent people who love one another from marrying and going about their own lives like anyone else.
I agree with Simon. I also agree with Holly, somewhat. Prejean is to blame for having allowed those photos to be taken, and for having signed a statement that there were no such photos out there when she KNEW there were. Yet, had her answer to the Catch .22 question been different, we likely would have had a different Miss USA (whoopdee do) and these photos in all probability would never have come to light. Hypocrisy right and left, here.
Okay guys, you still haven’t answered the question….Who actually thinks that being Miss USA means you are a role model? And to whom are you the model? I have hundreds, no thousands, of women I know of that are better role models than someone who enters a contest based on physical appearance. Next thing your going to say is that is it not a beauty contest, but a “scholarship contest.”
So being a Christian who doesn’t believe in gay marriage makes you a bigot. Not necessarily a hateful bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. Interesting theory.
The only people I see wasting tons of energy trying to prevent something are the ones trying to shut her up. She answered a question, and she’s been on defense ever since.
Right, but that’s the only beauty pageant winner I can think of who’s gone through something similar.
Interesting theory, perhaps, but just how I feel about it.
I don’t care what she says, honestly. It’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it. I don’t believe that her answer means she shouldn’t have won, or that it’s appropriate to start calling her a “dumb bitch” as Mario has done because she expressed her opinion. I disagree with her, but I don’t think that the question should have even been asked to begin with. She’s defending it because she has expressed that opinion on national television, though. We all defend our opinions at some level or another no matter what that opinion is. I also feel that an answer the other way would have been unfair as well because it too might have swayed judges who did agree with the answer to declare a winner that might have been less than “perfect”. It just wasn’t an appropriate topic for a beauty pageant. The outrage over the answer a beauty pageant contestant has given, not to mention the free publicity for all parties involved, is crazy.
But a lot of people are wasting tons of energy in trying to prevent a group of people from doing something that isn’t hurting anyone else or affecting their lives, and actively out to prevent this group of people from making a formal committment that any consenting adults should be able to make. I see a lot wrong with that.
You know what I would do to her?
I’d hit it.
Jrod is back! He would hit it. All is right with the world!
Thank you for conceding that Prejean isn’t actually condemning anyone, Chronic.
I know what you’re talking about, Chronic. Like NOM’s entire platform and its laughable “A Storm Is Coming” ad with the whining that the law means Christian business owners can’t fire gay employees on the basis of their sexual orientation. OH NOES, how oppressed are we.
Simon, the values she was raised with still condemn them to hell, y’know.
Holly, it does seem rather paranoid, doesn’t it?
So you’re not anti-Prejean, you’re anti-Christian. Anti-religious people of any stripe, really. That’s tolerant.
If she had come out and said that she supported gay marriage then she would be going against her beliefs and would have been the love of Mario’s stinky life. He would be raving aoubt how awesome she is and I bet my bottom bippy that these photos would have either taken longer to surface or never have surfaced.
Becuase she answered a question truthfully that she was asked by this wannabe then she is now ridiculed. I remember loving the USA because we were entitled to our own opinions and were not scorned for speaking out like in other countries. Because she spoke what she believes in, she is now a whore. Well, sign me up cause I am up there with her. It is a personal belief and one that should not have been asked at the pageant.
Not quite, Simon. I am anti intolerance, which is what the religious are known for being in many (no,not all) cases. I don’t mess with people in their churches or expect them to let homosexuals marry in them. They’re allowed to be hateful, bigoted, and intolerant if they want to be, but I have a problem when those attitudes prevent a someone else from legally doing something that they should be allowed to do anyway. See, they are hurting someone with their beliefs, homosexuals are not.
EDIT = Should read: …homsexuals are not hurting anyone with their lifestyle.
Simon: “The only people I see wasting tons of energy trying to prevent something are the ones trying to shut her up. She answered a question, and she’s been on defense ever since.”
She’s been out to (at least) The Rock church talking more about her opinion. That’s not being defensive. That’s spreading the word.
I’m anti-intolerance too. People who I think are intolerant should not be allowed to speak.
So it should be legal because it should be legal. Ironclad.
Which she wouldn’t be doing if all this hadn’t happened. She should just shut up and let these guys say whatever they want about her.
Don’t ask me how I know this, but from a legal standpoint (as in whether you’d be ticketed for it on a public beach), the “offensive” part of the female breast is the nipple. As long as you’re wearing pasties or something that covers your nipples, you aren’t considered nude. Are there more pictures than just the one posted here? Because if not, they have a really crummy case for taking her crown based on her being nude, or even partially nude.
Simon, are you trying to take things I say out of context or am I really not getting my point across? Seriously. I’m not being sarcastic with that question.
I think we all know that when we make a stand against whatever we see as intolerance, we run the risk of being intolerant ourselves. However, there is a difference between not liking someone’s opinion/belief/value system/lifestyle, and actively trying to supress it or make aspects of it illegal.
Homosexual marriage should be legal, not just “because it should be legal”. There is no reason that it shouldn’t be legal. Someone’s religious beliefs should not dictate whether or not someone who isn’t a part of that church should be allowed to marry. Marriage and marriage licenses do not require a religious entity to approve of them because they are in the domain of the state, not the church, so someone’s decision to get married is not the business of the church unless one chooses to involve them. If two consenting adults love one another and wish to marry, then they have every right to do so no matter what their gender, just like any straight couple. No moral police should have a say in that.
If said homosexual couple were fighting to get married in the local Pentacostal church, I wouldn’t back them because the church has every right to decide who they marry within their faith. But the religious groups have no right to tell homosexuals how to live and act, or that they can’t marry. It’s stepping way over the line in terms of freedoms and rights. What next? Mandatory Sunday school for all children? Put Miley in the stocks if she’s caught having sex before marriage? Mandatory de-gaying therapy?
ganzagwenie, apparently, there are nude photos of her that have not been released due to the fact that she was underage when they were taken. This is the tamest one. I don’t know how raunchy they get, but the story is that they do involve nudity.
The latter.
So all the Californians who voted last November were making something illegal, rather than preventing it from becoming legal in the first place. The default position being that it’s legal. Hmm.
Hear that, Obama?
So you’re not saying it should be legal because it should be legal, but that it should be legal because it shouldn’t be illegal.
The ol’ slippery-slope argument. Glad to see it’s not the sole purview of one side.
Which D-lister is gonna side with her to keep their names in the paper? Betcha it happens.
Sorry, then, Simon. I get ahead of myself when I type. That said, the default position is illegal, but it doesn’t make it right. Preventing it from becoming legal is bigotry in action.
Side? What side? I am not a member of any political party. I didn’t even vote for Obama as much as it pained me to vote for Gramps McCain. I have no trust or love for any politician.
And yes, it was a slippery slope, but that’s what a lot of people be happy to do if they didn’t have sticky things like the Constitution in the way.
A game I like to play is replacing the word “gay” with “interracial” and see if people still feel the same way. Interracial marriage was illegal for most of the country’s history and overturning miscegenation laws was politically unpopular with voters (see also: the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and Loving v. Virginia).
Entrenched and popular bias doesn’t make it okay.
Since Carrie Prejean makes such a point of being Christian AND exposing her fake boobs, I thought that the the top 15 Christian Coalition approved nicknames for breasts would be appropriate:
15. The Daughters of Lactiticus
14. Sweater Undulations
13. Racks of lambs of God
12. Pizza Pizza
11. Pearly Weights
10. Pastor Baiters
9. Pamela 36:D
8. NFRU (Not for Recreational Use)
7. Mounds of Shame
6. Hooteronomies
5. Heavenly Canteens
4. First and Second Mammalonians
3. Democrat Catchers
2. Communion Woofers
and the Number 1 Christian Coalition-Approved Nickname for Breasts…
1. Beelzeboobs
Wonder how that would fly with all the black and Latino voters who backed Prop. 8.
Nor is disliking that bias a legal argument.
Very good point, Holly. I really feel/hope that in thirty years or so, people will look back on the whole gay marriage fight and wonder how people could have ever fought so hard against its legality.
Because… it just is.
California has a system in place for changing laws like this. If they can convince enough people, one day they can change the law. But this stuff is not the way to convince people.
I wonder. What if she’d said this and wasn’t a Christian? What if she were a Muslim? Would the reaction have been the same? I hear Islam is really tolerant toward gay people.
“The problem is that if she’s stripped of her title, everyone’s going to assume it had mostly to do with her stance on gay marriage, so it’s a sticky situation.”
Exactly, Holly! And I’m afraid that the gay community will face backlash because of that.
So it’s Prejean’s fault that they’re doing this. Hey, she was askin’ for it. You shoulda seen what she was wearin’!
From the looks of it, Nati, “they” already are.
They are? In what way?
Simon, why shouldn’t it be legal? If there is an argument out there that doesn’t involve religion, homophobia, hate or some other prejudice against homosexuality, I’d like to know what it is. Why is it illegal? Why should it stay that way? Because it is?
It’s full on, blatant discrimination.
Hopefully, people will be convinced. I’m not saying radical action and obnoxious behavior are the way to do it. But people do need convincing. If I were the type of person to be an activist, I would be one of those people out there trying to convince others, and not on here debating it for fun.
Pasta, if she’d been Muslim, atheist, or anything other than “Christian” and saying this in America, one of two things would have happened – she would either have to go into hiding, or the ACLU would be stepping in and demanding she win the crown. Either way, she probably wouldn’t have a fan club. Mario would have still been a douche, though.
It’s time for me to make the man some rice pudding (that’s not a euphemism), though, so I will pop back in later.
Because it got voted down. That was the will of the voters. If you want to change the law, change their minds. Calling them bigots is one approach, I guess.
I actually didn’t know there were more photos of her…when I first saw this pic, I really thought it was some sort of a lingerie ad. Geez, I’m naive
But let’s not forget that these pictures did not just surface, Mario went looking for them…digging for dirt, as usual. Which he wouldn’t have done if she had given a different answer. So he is a hypocrite in this situation, too.
I’ve been pondering this for a while, actually. Whereas I don’t find this picture too revealing, images like that one do clash with the Christian view of morality and of what’s appropriate and that’s what matters here. I still have a much bigger problem with Carrie’s statements. The “biblically correct” remark seemed (and still seems) hypocritical to me. We live in a country where religion is separate from the state, and we (well, most of us) abide by our country’s civil law, not by religious law. And I don’t think we should have a different set of rules and laws for a certain group of people. I think ALL americans should have equal rights and ALL Americans should be able to marry whomever they wish, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Also, we are not a nation of just Christians. So when someone brings up the Bible in their argument against gay marriage, I am sorry, but I have to disagree.
But after reading and watching other Carrie Prejean’s interviews, I am not sure whether she is a hypocrite or just a not very well informed person – she couldn’t answer the questions about civil unions and gay adoption and she also thinks that homosexuality is a choice. I think she should really try to learn more about this subject before forming an opinion about it.
Insofar as Prejean and her supporters are clinging to conspiracy theories that a shadowy “they” released the photos and are plotting to bring her down because they don’t like her Christianity. Ignoring that if the Miss California committee had really wanted to oust her for her opinions, they would have done it last week when this story was still fresh.
In any event, she broke more than just that one clause of her contract, I learned this afternoon:
http://www.usmagazine.com/news/miss-california-officials-might-strip-carrie-prejean-of-title-200955
Holly, if you are refering to what I had posted: “I think this photo will be used as a pretext to strip her of her title (the real reason being her stance on gay marriage)” I was thinking about Shanna Moakler and Keith Lewis when I wrote this…they are the pageant officials and I thought they went after Prejean (talked about the breast augmentation and issued the statement regarding the her cooperation with NOM) because of what she had said about gay marriage. I think whether or not she loses her title as Miss California is up to them, no? And they just don’t seem okay with her stance on gay marriage.
Chronic (and others) – I think the problem a lot of people have embracing your view is that it seems to be YOU injecting religion into the argument. Is it really that unfathomable that someone has a non-religious reason for disliking gay marriage, or indeed, homosexuality in general? I tend to view it as a biological aberration – a genetic dead end.
What is the biological function of life, ALL life, on Earth? To reproduce, to evolve, to advance the species? Now, before you start in on that ’so infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry?’ crap, realize it’s totally irrelevant. Like most gay activists, I actually acknowledge that homosexuality is most likely a genetic trait you’re born with.
But does that mean the government should condone/support it? You keep bringing up a supposed lack of legitimate reasons to withhold marriage from gays, but what exactly is your reasoning for allowing it? That it will make them happy? Is that the bar we’re going to set for making law in this country? If it makes you happy, we’ll make it legal!
I’m sorry, but to a lot of people out there, that would be like openly supporting alcoholism. Think there’s a difference? They’re both behaviors with genetic precursors that are out of the control of those who are afflicted with them, as well as behaviors the majority of society believe are deviant. Are we denying inalienable rights to alcoholics by not wholeheartedly supporting them? Indeed, they are ‘born that way’. It’s beyond their control, and it DOES make them happy. Should the government start handing out free bottles of Jack?
The comparison to interracial marriage is dubious at best, and is just a barely-concealed attempt to compare those who are against gay marriage with visions of evil white guys sicking dogs on peaceful black protesters. Blacks were being denied a right others were enjoying – the right for any man and woman to be married. Are two straight men allowed to get married, but two gay men are denied? No. So straight people have no more rights in that respect than gays.
The point is that the law has always been this way, so fairly or not, the burden of proving that it needs to be changed falls on those who believe it should be. Assuming those who oppose you are black and white caricatures of human beings with only a single simplistic argument doesn’t help, because by definition you’ll never address the rest of the reasons most people disagree with you.
regarding her cooperation with NOM *fixed*
Moakler didn’t strike me as very genuine either. I don’t believe her and Lewis when they say that they are simply concerned that she is not cooperating with them. They seemed very unhappy with what she had said about gay marriage. Of course, I could be wrong.
Scott F., I think a lot of gay people would take issue with the idea that they’ve been genetically “afflicted” with homosexuality. And as poor an analogy as I think it is, alcoholics are permitted to drink and buy alcohol like everyone else. Your comparison is like saying that the government should tell alcoholics, “You’re free to drink water.”
Holly – in case you haven’t noticed, I lack what could be considered a ‘tact’ portion of my brain. Why should they be offended? Offense should be taken when it’s intended, and I intended no offense. It’s not my fault that my clinical detachment on the subject rubs your own sensibilities the wrong way.
Lets run through the facts, shall we?
1. Homosexuality is most likely a genetic trait, correct?
2. This trait prevents them from reproducing in the same fashion as the rest of humanity, correct?
So, we have a genetic trait that removes the genes of those who possess it from the collective human gene pool – would you call that a POSITIVE trait? Is it really wrong to simply see it for what it is? It’s a genetic dead end.
Again, there is no moral reasoning behind my argument. I don’t believe their behavior or nature will condemn them to an eternity in hell. I don’t believe heterosexuals are morally superior in any way, shape, or form. It’s most likely nature’s own form of population control, and nature is morally ambivalent. But what is with your need to see this in a positive light?
I think Moakler and Co would like nothing better than strip her of her title for whatever reason…I wasn’t sure when I first saw this photo that it was a sufficient reason for her to lose her title – I’m not that familiar with the pageant rules and regulations. I simply didn’t know that picture was really against the pageant rules when I first saw it, I thought it was a lingerie ad. That’s why I thought that may be the pageant officials could be using that picture as an excuse. And that’s why I wrote what I wrote when I first commented here. The thing is right now it doesn’t matter if images like these are indeed a sufficient reason for her to lose the crown – everyone’s going to assume that she lost her title because of what she had said about gay marriage. And it’s kinda hard not to assume that after watching Shanna Moakler’s interview – she comes across as someone who would use any excuse to go after Prejean. That’s why I’m saying that everyone is going to assume that Prejean lost her title because of what she had said about gay marriage and they are also are going to assume that all gay-marriage supporters are intolerant and that some people might be angry with the gay community and gay-marriage supporters because of that.
Not offended, Scott F., merely argumentative as I am wont to be. Your idea that there are reasons beyond Judeo-Christian ideas of morality to oppose gay marriage intrigues me, so I’m interested in opening the dialogue there.
There is an evolutionary biology argument against homosexual behavior, you’re absolutely right. But as you noted in your earlier post, there are thousands of marriages that are sanctioned by the state even though they don’t have child bearing as their premise (whether because the woman is postmenopausal, the couple is infertile, or they merely desire to remain childless). Such people marry because it makes them happy and gives them rights and benefits they would not otherwise enjoy. I would put gay marriage in this category.
On a quick run upstairs and then I am really outta here for a while.
Simon, and this will tie in with my response to Scott F. Just because it’s always been this way is something that people were saying in defense of segregated society or no interracial marriage. It still doesn’t change that it wasn’t a bigoted opinion when people were fighting the civil rights movement. It doesn’t even matter whether that bigotry came from a hateful place or not. It’s still bigotry, and the gay issue is really not all that different. You may not want to call it that, or you may not like to see it that way, but I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that isn’t based in some form of bigotry, however subtle.
Scott F. the reason religion gets brought into this is because it’s the majority of those taking issue with homosexuals getting married do so based on religious reasons. And it’s more than just “because it makes them happy”. That’s a very simplistic way of putting things, and if you are against their being married because it’s not going to produce offspring, then yes, you have to bring in the straight, childless couple question. My husband and I are healthy, married, and secure but we have chosen not to have children though we are perfectly capable. Should we not be married? What makes a homosexual couple so different that they should be barred from getting married based on the argument that they will not have children, when my husband and I are married and are using our bits for fun and not procreation? Ick, that sounded skeevy but it stays.What people do behind closed doors is no one else’s concern, really.
Homosexuality is something people are born with, but to compare it to alcoholism tells me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have a rather low opinion of homosexuals? It’s been a long time since they stopped classifying it as a disorder in the scientific world, and it hasn’t always been considered a deviant act. We get back to religion here, because it was the big mainstream religions that are dominant today that have demonized what is essentially a subjective attraction that someone is born with, can’t help, and isn’t hurting the parties involved so long as they are consenting adults that know this is how they feel and what they want.
But yeah, why not compare it to some other genetic trait that is positive? I did not know that being true to oneself and pursuing what one wants in a partner was akin to alcoholism. Just a thought.
So it’s more than changing a law to make people happy. It’s really the right thing to do in a country that claims all men were created equal. Marriage is valued and important to many people, so this is no small thing. I am sure that anyone here that is happily married will agree that it’s more than a trip to the church/courthouse/wherever. It means something. Aside from meaning something within the heart, it is also meaningful in the legal sense, and to deny any pair of consenting adults that recognition or that special moment is a bit draconian. There really is no good reason for it.
OK, I wasn’t so quick but I’m really going now.
And just adding in… a gay person is not likely to have children whether they marry or not (not bringing adoption into this), so how is preventing their getting married helping anything in this argument against it, Scott F.? Just wondering how you factor that in.
Also, just saw your response to Holly, but would like to throw out there that homosexuality can be seen as a positive trait in terms of built in, albeit minor, population control. Not claiming that as fact, but it is a possibility to be considered before dismissing it as a negative genetic trait.
Okay, this question is a little off-topic, but: if topless pictures of a seventeen-year-old are classified as child pornography, why is “The Godfather” legal, seeing as the actress who played Apollonia was sixteen at the time and we see her breasts?
My logic fails again – I read my last posts and they don’t make much sense. Let me rephrase (some of) what I had posted. The pageant officials (namely, Shanna Mokaler) already made themselves looked bad by issuing the statements they have issued and saying the things they have said. Most people don’t know whether or not those photographs are indeed a valid reason for Prejean to lose her crown, so, judging by pageant oficcilas’ previous attitude and behaviour, they are probably going to assume that she was stripped of her title for her stance on gay marriage. I, for one, was quite willing to make that kind of assumption in the beginning, simply because I wouldn’t put it past someone like Moakler to actually do such a thing. That’s why I’m saying that even though those photos of her are indeed a valid reason for her to lose the title (according to the pageant rules), a lot of people are going to assume that she is being punished for saying what she had said. And I’m also afraid that some of those who are against gay marriage might take their discontent out on the gay community and gay marriage supporters. That’s what I was trying (but failed) to express. Made sense now, I hope.
*look bad* dammit!
I know in the past I’ve mentioned that there are more options when it comes to “what makes a person homosexual?” than just choosing to be and genetic determination, though I hadn’t yet found any good studies to really show which is more likely. However, more recently, I have indeed found a couple interesting twin studies. One in particular was nifty in that it divided across three different aspects how the final conclusion comes about and showed something like 35% is genetic, about 65% is unique circumstances (basically, subconscious ‘choice’ or rather, conditioning), and very near 0% conscious choice for males. Females were more like 20%, 65%, and 15% respectively. Unfortunately, for that one I’ve only been able to find the abstract and not the full article, so I can’t see exactly how they got their numbers. Another, more basic study though found that about identical twins were both homosexual 6.7% of the time while fraternal twins were 7.2%. Non-twins were about 5.5%. The numbers for that one seem kind of odd to me though due the fraternal rate being higher than identical and that all the numbers are so close almost suggests a lack of genetic components. However, the first one I mentioned was a couple years more recent (2008 compared to 2002) so perhaps has better data. And if it’s accurate in it’s conclusion that genetics isn’t the predominant factor, that could explain why the older study has results that seem a little odd and they’d be more clear had genetics been found to play a larger role.
In summation: current information suggests that homosexuality may not be entirely or even predominantly genetic, but it is almost certainly not a conscious choice. Mostly it seems to stem from developmental situations occurring before puberty including events that took place in the womb with genetics playing a secondary, though statistically significant, role.
If you really think that’s the way to convince them they’re wrong, best of luck.
“I don’t mess with people in their churches or expect them to let homosexuals marry in them.”
Chronic, you stated the crux of the matter – although in a way you may not have intended. This is exactly what worries many Christians. Most would say, civil unions? Fine. Holy matrimony under God. NO! It goes against the Old and New Testaments.
If they give in to this, they’ve gone against God. Once Holy matrimony for gays becomes a “civil right” then what is to keep it from being forced on the churches? Are you able to withhold Holy matrimony from a heterosexual couple, in good standing, of any race or culture or disability? Of course not. But what if you’re a gay couple? What if you want two wives? It’s a slippery slope once you open that door. Many Christians actually see this as heading to the very extreme point you were making, Chronic – only its opposite. If this becomes standard, no church will be allowed to prevent it.
And most Christians I know have dearly beloved gay friends. It’s not hatred or bigotry – it’s holding to the tenants of their faith.
There are a lot of people out there who don’t view tolerance as the most important value in the world.
There are also a lot of people out there who do view tolerance as the most important value in the world, but are only tolerant of people who have the same values and beliefs they do.
Ugh, this topic makes my brain explode. Time to go watch some mindless TV with my kindergartner.
[Dave N, your Christian boobs list at comment #83 had me laughing out loud. Thanks.]
Geesh! Step out for a day and 110 responses pop up in one thread.
First, Christians aren’t perfect. They just get persecuted for their mistakes unlike people with no moral basis whatsoever. Do I believe she shouldn’t have done this? Absolutely. I’m one of those prudes… but when I go to run for office, I don’t have to worry about nudie pics coming out of the woodwork. Funny how that works. Common sense is nicely complimented by faith.
Second, given that I’m sure at least a dozen contestants have similar things in their past and those haven’t been dug up, it seems pretty personal against Prejean to me.
Third, love how the “tolerant” people are the ones doing the digging. *grumble*
Fourth, speaking of tolerance, I have no problem with gays as people. Honestly. I also don’t think they’re going to hell because of their sexual preference — I think they’re going to hell if they don’t have a savior, just like I think straight people are (yeah, yeah, I know I just hate everyone). Most of the Christians I know think this too, but non-Christians have done a pretty darn good job of making our stance against gay marriage into some kind of hate for them (this is a perfect exactly). Like Pasta, I’m still confused about why only Christians get this attached to them. No one ever says Muslims hate gays, even though they are much, much, much more strict. Yeah, it gets kind of old being the only group attacted so vehemently when I’m none of the things I get accused of being.
Fifth, I agree Scott and Simon. Most of what they said was what I was thinking through most of what I read. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, there’s a huge issue with survival of the fittest here.
Ranucula, I see the point you are making here, and understand that, but that’s another line that doesn’t need to be crossed because if your religion says that homosexuality is an abomination, then you don’t marry homosexuals in your church, period. If there is infighting over it /within/ the church, that’s the church’s problem, but outsiders don’t have the right to tell people how to worship in their own house. I’m fine with that, and if gays are allowed to marry, then that has to be something that is understood by both sides of the debate. It’s only fair. I realize that there are homosexual Christians that would totally disagree, but allowing that would be no better than not allowing gays to marry in my opinion. I doubt seriously that homosexual marriage is going to lead to people wanting to marry both their cousins or have civil unions with their Great Dane. For the most part, homosexuals just want the right to marriage that other adults enjoy.
I’m an atheist, and my marriage has nothing to do with a god. Our vows were made in front of family, friends, to each other, and for us, hold more weight than any promise we could’ve made to something we don’t believe is there. Those vows are backed up by the state of Texas and recognized by the USA as well as the UK, where I currently reside. Not only that, I’m not procreating. Why isn’t the church calling me out and saying I have no right to be married because I am not doing it before God and procreating like a good woman should? They don’t care because I am not gay, but I’m just as much of an abomination, especially because I willfully turned my back on the Catholic church. Maybe they shouldn’t care so much about homosexuals and just leave them to their own lives.
And Simon, I never did say that I was an activist. I’m just an opinionated individual.
“Homosexuality is something people are born with, but to compare it to alcoholism tells me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have a rather low opinion of homosexuals?”
No, in fact, considering that it was the main theme of my entire response to Holly, I’m pretty surprised you missed it – MORALES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OUTLOOK. Do we try to superimpose our own morale outlook on a wolf devouring a live caribou? Why would we? Our outlook doesn’t cause nature to work the way it does, if anything, the opposite principal is true.
Unlike most people, I can remove my personal opinion and view this strictly as an evolutionary oddity. Certain genetic makeups can make a person far more likely to develop breast cancer, do we try to interject morals into that? Does anyone claim you’re insulting the woman who develops cancer if you point out the genetic cause? It’s YOU that is turning this into a good vs. evil concept. I view homosexuality as a force of nature, beyond our control. Perhaps I should have originally used the breast cancer comparison, as most people seem to think I was being insulting by bringing up alcoholism. I was simply trying to point out that just because someone is genetically predisposed to something, doesn’t mean we should automatically support the behavior it causes.
Just because you believe that anyone disagreeing with you on this topic is a bigot, doesn’t make it so. I generally don’t feel the need to defend myself, but two of my lifelong friends have been openly gay for more than a decade, and it has never interfered with our relationship. In my buddy Matt’s own words, ‘you didn’t try to change our minds about being gay, we’re not gonna try to change your mind about us getting married’. THAT is tolerance.
Now who is really unwilling to tolerate the others’ point of view here? Are you really going to argue that homosexuality is genetically positive? A population control? We already have one of those in nature – it’s called starvation and sickness. Too many people, too little food, the problem kinda solves itself.
Scientists stopped referring to homosexuality as a ‘disorder’ because it became POLITICALLY damaging, not because it wasn’t good science. If it’s not a defect, what is it? How does it better the species? How does it create stronger, more adaptable organisms? It simply doesn’t – and trying to imply that it does it putting YOUR moral spin on the argument. Again, this isn’t a moral condemnation, it’s simply scientific fact.
Actually, Scott F. after you responded to Holly, I did re-read your original post and am noting that morals aren’t the issue. Fine. You should also note that I was not claiming that it was a genetic benefit to be homosexual, but rather, throwing the possibility out there. I began that sentence with “I’m not claiming this as fact…” I also noted that if there was anything to it, it could only serve as a minor control. I’m not scrolling up again to see exactly what I said. So, no, I’m not claiming any of this as fact.
I did ask for an argument against gay marriage that didn’t involve bigotry or religion, but you are making as many assumptions in claiming there is no genetic purpose for homosexuality and that it is a defect as I was in suggesting it might be a positive. How does it make the species worse, really? It’s not like we don’t have people procreating like rabbits so if 10% of the population doesn’t because they are homosexual, it can’t be a bad thing, and it’s probably more pleasant than sickness and starvation. Just sayin’…
Thing is, most people aren’t tolerant, Scott F. It’s not about science to them. It’s not about accepting people as they are. It’s about their morality, their religion, their sense of outrage that someone is doing something behind closed doors that they don’t approve of. The most vocal opponents of gay marriage are ranting from the pulpit or terrified of anything that doesn’t conform to what their idea of normal is. And it’s not their right or their place to control another person’s personal life. I’m not gay and I do resent that sort of attitude, which is what you see. Yes, I do think that justifying reasons for gays not to marry comes from a bigoted place, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise. It doesn’t make sense that people are so passionately against it otherwise. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think people should refrain from expressing that opinion, nor does it mean that I think all religions should change their way of thinking. I would be intolerant if I did think that. I may speak my mind, but I could really care less if I change yours. I’m not out to change the world, I’m just living in it.
However, I don’t think that opinion has a place in laws that don’t affect the people who hold those views. A gay couple getting married has nothing to do with the person who doesn’t think they should be married. They aren’t hurting anyone and no one is obligated to socialize with one another if they disapprove of the way they live. So what is the problem, really? I mean, really, I have zero maternal instincts. Does that make me a defect too? Should I have to divorce my husband and be a second class citizen because something within me makes me cringe at the very idea of even being pregnant? I’m tokophobic, my husband just prefers dogs. We aren’t exactly Darwin’s models for continuation of the species, but it’s all good because I have a bajingo? If I am a defect, why am I not being singled out like homosexuals are?
OK, really, I have to go to bed.
Great. Just GREAT. Now I’ve got to go Google “tokophobic” and “bajingo”. I hope you’re satisfied.
Only Chronic would throw in TOKOPHOBIC and BAJINGO. Looks like someone has Webster’s in their lap.
The last thing (please let it be the last thing so I can get on with my evening) I want to add is that the evolutionary argument only says that homosexual behavior does not lead to procreation. Marriage is a social and legal construct, not an evolutionary one. Banning gay marriage doesn’t dissuade homosexual behavior, and allowing it won’t encourage the practice. So I don’t see how the human species is affected by the legality of gay marriage.
The gay community didn’t need any help from PH to seem, look or be hateful and intolerant. The behavior over Prop 8 was the most recent example of gays’ love and tolerance; PH (who desperately wishes he WAS a c***) is only the latest.
You gays have some major external fence mending and internal azz kicking to do. The PHs of the world are no way to assauge fears of gays.
The hypocrites here are the Miss USA Pageant. They have women parading around in nothing to see who has the best bod, and then threaten their crown when there’s an outside photo of them parading around in nothing. hypocrites. perez is just jealous…he needs to get over it.
omg. i’m so sick of the persecution complex.
this isn’t about her feelings on homosexuality. this isn’t about politics.
it’s about another pseudo-religious pick-and-choose cafeteria christian looking down on others and then acting like a ho. she LIED, guys. she lied.
i wish i was religious and pretty so that i could get away with any damn thing i wanted.
disgusting.
Holydust, what exactly is she getting away with? She’s getting raked over the coals for her opinions and will probably lose her Miss California crown, either because of her opinions or because she posed nude. Please tell me how that’s getting away with anything.
Kristine, I know what you mean about no one calling Muslims on their anti-gay beliefs. It’s the same about evolution vs. intelligent design – some of the most vociferous creationism is coming out of Turkey and groups in the Middle East, but all western atheists can do is pick on creationist Christians in the U.S. I posit that it’s because of political correctness.
There is an excellent book that addresses this issue (among others) by Damian Thomson, called “Counterknowledge.” Well-informed, well-written and (hooray!) only 150 pages. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Counterknowledge/Damian-Thompson/e/9780393067699/?itm=1
Which you wouldn’t know or care about if she hadn’t been asked a question about gay marriage and answered in a way some people didn’t like.
w00t 123 comments!
“…this topic makes my brain explode.”
seconded, MC Mom. This is a highly unpleasant situation for everyone involved. Everyone will come out of this one looking like an asshole, no matter what they do. The pageant officails are in quite a predicament right now – their credibility is already tarnished by their previous statements and actions. If she loses her title, there’s going to be an assumption that it’s because of her stance on the gay marriage. The gay community will be perceived (by some people)as an intolerant hateful mob, ready to publicly crucify anyone who dares to disagree with them. And Prejean’s career will be over. I do think that someone who has taken and distributed some revealing photos of themselves is probably not quite in a position to pass a moral judgement on someone or to proudly proclaim themselves “biblically correct”, however, I’m not at all happy about what’s happening right now. Her downfall won’t benefit me or the gay community in any way. On the contrary, it might have some really unpleasant consequences for the gay community.
“You gays”
lol
There is nothing stopping gay folks from going to their gay church and being joined in “matrimony”; and then calling themselves “married”. I don’t think the people who are driving the issue of same-sex marriage care about that. I think they want to be able to come into my church with a court order and force my pastor to perform the ceremony. And if my pastor doesn’t perform for them, they’ll be trying to shutdown and shakedown, through the courts, my church.
Thanks, Patrick of Atlantis. You’ve said what I was trying to say in fewer words:
“Once Holy matrimony for gays becomes a “civil right” then what is to keep it from being forced on the churches?”
“…what is to keep it from being forced on the churches?”
nothing. and that’s what they get for their refusal to evolve.
@Patrick of Atlantis:
“I think they want to be able to come into my church with a court order and force my pastor to perform the ceremony. And if my pastor doesn’t perform for them, they’ll be trying to shutdown and shakedown, through the courts, my church.”
I can only speak for the gay folks that I know who want to get married. When Oregon had gay marriage, they were more than happy to have their 12 year relationship legalized by a judge for practical and romantic reasons. It wasn’t recognized by their home state but they were happy to have the certificate that could be granted to any straight couple, regardless of how long they’ve known each other. Right now, their main complaint is that, as domestic partners, they pay a lot more than married couples for insurance. Never have they mentioned to me that they want to force a church to marry them. In fact, there are many, many gay friendly churches that would be happy to marry gay folks – regardless of the fact that it would only be ceremonial.
Nati, I KNOW you didn’t post that. For one thing, the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment protect–or WOULD protect, under an administration less determined to wipe its butt on the Constitution–the churches from having this or any other issue forced upon them by the government.
Secondly, that attitude, assuming you were serious, is EXACTLY what will preserve the wedge between the two sides of this issue. How is that better in any way than homophobia? “You won’t play the way I want you to, so serves you right if I call in the big guns and MAKE YOU.” Yeah, good luck changing anyone’s mind–or vote–that way.
Beige, I was joking
I actually regretted it the second I posted it, I know it was a stupid joke, it’s just that I type much faster than I think 
Queen Bee.
I am of the opinion that there is a faction in the world that extols every deviant and dirty thing as though they were good and wholesome and natural and normal. Same-sex marriage is just the latest thing out of the bag, but it isn’t an end. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, there will be another ridiculous cause for the faction to champion. The faction, I believe, is of the Devil; and it’s goal is to lead us to perdition.
Queen Bee,
P.S. If the difference in the cost of insurance between single and married people were such a great issue, then why aren’t single people in general raising hell about it. And if one considers the kind of behavior gay men indulge in it’s a wonder they can get any insurance at all.
@Nati: Good to know. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people who say that in all seriousness.
Pasta- Muslims (practicing ones) are too classy to participate in beaty pageants
Yes Patrick, it’s all butt plugs and orgies for the gays. One that I am particularly friendly with spent the weekend in the hospital comforting a dying friend. I can only assume he did something truly horrible to the dying man like holding his hand and reassuring him. Another friend planted some herbs in his garden. I can’t think of anything more deviant. Another went for a training run – gearing up for his first half marathon – then went into work in order to get caught up for the new week.
Or at least that’s what they told me. I know, as a breeder, I am not privy to the great gay conspiracy to take over America. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for five years now and that state has yet to fall into the sea.
My husband has money taken out of his paycheck every month to cover my and our daughter’s insurance costs. My friend has more taken out to cover his domestic partner’s and kid’s insurance. (Oh, yeah, the deviant gay couple are raising a kid that was in the foster system due to his straight parents being drug dealers/users who were homeless and allowed their druggie friends to molest their kids. Yet another example how straights are the best for raising children)
Queen Bee, you rock. Had to be said.
Apologies to Duane, whose comment I meant to reply to but inadvertently edited to the point of incoherence because Wordpress is apparently too complicated for me to understand. I believe his point was that Carrie Prejean’s opinion matters more than Obama’s because he’s a politician, or something.
Sweet ! What ever she got I want it
Queen Bee,
Nice paean. And you left out ‘rendezvous with strangers at truck stops’ and ‘tete a tetes in toilet stalls in public restrooms’ for what reason? Because it would have dulled your sarcasm, which you use very effectively.
God Bless you Carrie you really are a Miss Universe.
At last someone has the courage to say what is the most simple of the truths: The best of the unions is betwen a man an a woman. Not only you are gorgeous but also you practice your faith and your humanity. I have never seen in my life such courage among “top models” with their “cliche moral” politically correct. You´ve lost your crown because of your courage.
Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” CARRIE YOUR MIS UNIVERSE CROWN IS WAITING FOR YOU IN PARADISE.
And remember:”Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” Mathew 10:28
Simon Scowl, for someone so concerned about whether or not people are putting words in Miss Prejean’s mouth, you’re doing an awful lot of it yourself.
Patrick of Atlantis, she also left out all the straight men who rape women. And the countless scores of straight couples who have affairs (yes, sometimes even in public places!)
No, you are. (Hey, this is easy!)