Miss CA in hot water

[__Kratos__]

Well that’s her prerogative. The last time I checked it wasn’t a hate crime to say what she's saying. I’m sure it will be one day, but for now the only thing she is guilty of is being intolerant of that life style.

I personally think she is wrong, but she has the right to her own opinion, and over half of California agrees with her.

I don't see it as a hate crime either. You can say whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. NOM however is a group that distorts facts and makes silly claims to further their propaganda against gay marriage.

[80's Baby]

Apples and oranges. Nice try though. Can your hate.

You don't mean "decent" human being, you mean a media drone that has no opinion other than that fed to her by politically correct tools. Her opinion reflects that of the state to boot. She was asked a specific question, that had nothing to do with the contest. It was an attempt by Hilton to promote his agenda, nothing more. He didn't get the answer he wanted, so now he feigns shock. "Oh my GOD! She dares feel the same as the MAJORITY of the state? How DARE she not promote my agenda!" It's crap.

I agree. It's amazing how this country preaches freedom of speech but only if it's what other people want to hear. Most of California evidently felt the same way. If they don't like it, they should move to open-minded Iowa!

[Thomas Dialante]

Some of the people in this thread quite literally sicken me. Something as simple as two people in love being able to get married should be far beyond the impact of people's opinions. It isn't about your beliefs, it's about human beings having the most basic of rights. There is literally no difference between not wanting gays to be married, and not wanting interracial couples to be married. It is pure bigotry. You do not choose who you love, and you should be able to be with the person you love. It truly disgusts me to be part of a society that can't accept this.

[Sho_Sho]

I agree. It's amazing how this country preaches freedom of speech but only if it's what other people want to hear. Most of California evidently felt the same way. If they don't like it, they should move to open-minded Iowa!

I know! Who would have thought that good ole mid west Iowa would be more "progressive" than California?

Maybe the gay population in Iowa is a little friendlier?

[Rastaman]

Lets see, for centuries in this country it was shoved down people's throats that being gay was immoral and wrong.

Now in the past, say, 10-15 years public opinion is changing so now those that discriminate are crying and whining that the gay agenda is being shoved down their throat.

You people are pathetic and make me sick to my stomach. And I am entitled to my opinion.

[Beckys_Mom]

Lets see, for centuries in this country it was shoved down people's throats that being gay was immoral and wrong.

Now in the past, say, 10-15 years public opinion is changing so now those that discriminate are crying and whining that the gay agenda is being shoved down their throat.

You people are pathetic and make me sick to my stomach. And I am entitled to my opinion.

Chocolate normally brings out my happy hormones when I am going through PMS LOL............ok ok I am kidding LOL.but please calm down...we get your point

[Drego]

Some of the people in this thread quite literally sicken me. Something as simple as two people in love being able to get married should be far beyond the impact of people's opinions. It isn't about your beliefs, it's about human beings having the most basic of rights. There is literally no difference between not wanting gays to be married, and not wanting interracial couples to be married. It is pure bigotry. You do not choose who you love, and you should be able to be with the person you love. It truly disgusts me to be part of a society that can't accept this.

Very well put.

[+DieChecker]

Ok to sum up sweetheart you have yourself a straight up - cut and dry case...I would sue them for everything they had and make an example of them

YOu would sue a non-profit agency that does countless amounts of good for countless people, because you don't like one of their rules? Dang, that is horrible. Ranks up with tossing out old sick people on the street because they can't pay their rent.

Shouldn't you rather make a stink and go to the newspapers and congressmen?

[Siara]

Some of the people in this thread quite literally sicken me. Something as simple as two people in love being able to get married should be far beyond the impact of people's opinions. It isn't about your beliefs, it's about human beings having the most basic of rights. There is literally no difference between not wanting gays to be married, and not wanting interracial couples to be married. It is pure bigotry. You do not choose who you love, and you should be able to be with the person you love. It truly disgusts me to be part of a society that can't accept this.

I never saw this stated better. Every word is perfect. Thank you for posting it.

[*Quinn*]

I’m sure most of you have heard about the Miss USA scandal when Miss California was asked by Perez Hilton what she thought about gay marriage. You can read a lot of what I’m talking about on his site. He is slamming the girl. She said that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The fact Perez Hilton was asking questions at the Miss USA pagent is pretty awful to begin with. What a joke that thing is.

[Beckys_Mom]

YOu would sue a non-profit agency that does countless amounts of good for countless people, because you don't like one of their rules? Dang, that is horrible. Ranks up with tossing out old sick people on the street because they can't pay their rent.

Shouldn't you rather make a stink and go to the newspapers and congressmen?

I wasnt talking about myself, if you had of been reading I was talking to another memer who was discriminated against due to being gay...and whats another law suit in america?? I mean the usa is filled with law suits..LMAO..famous for it...so I think he should do it...I know I would....make an example of those that think its OK to show hurtful discrimination....

Edited May 4, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[Lord Umbarger]

It's wrong to be intolerant to anyone except those with old fashioned Judeo/X-tian values.... you can still be intolerant of those beliefs......and people.

histotically speaking, nearly every culture inhistory that loses its core values collapses soon after. The Romans converted to X-tianity, gone, the Mongols stopped beliving that they had a mandate form het creator to rule the world, fell in on itself, the Soviet empire attempted to move away from Socilism a little and nearly had a full on civil war in 1991.

There are a lot of causes that have ended nations and empires throughout history so, I'm not proposing that leaving the core values is THE cause, maybe just a symptom but, still, it is a glowing red sign in nearly ever case.

[__Kratos__]

It's wrong to be intolerant to anyone except those with old fashioned Judeo/X-tian values.... you can still be intolerant of those beliefs......and people.

histotically speaking, nearly every culture inhistory that loses its core values collapses soon after. The Romans converted to X-tianity, gone, the Mongols stopped beliving that they had a mandate form het creator to rule the world, fell in on itself, the Soviet empire attempted to move away from Socilism a little and nearly had a full on civil war in 1991.

There are a lot of causes that have ended nations and empires throughout history so, I'm not proposing that leaving the core values is THE cause, maybe just a symptom but, still, it is a glowing red sign in nearly ever case.

Well have gays ever done something bad that they all believe in.

The romans and the mongols are just examples that you try to fit your point. There are many countries that have changed their religion or belief sets and have moved on.Look how many European countries used to be tribal, pagans, norse and other beliefs that have turned to christianity or more modern belief systems that are still going strong.

As for core values, I don't believe that christianity or judaism have good ones in the first place. Those beliefs are intolerance at the core of their beliefs against all others and then lists in them the bad believers that are going to be punished to unless they sink to their knees. Believers wanting tolerance for their intolerance is hypocritical either way you cut the cake.

Also this country was never founded as a religious nation in the first place and progress forward isn't always smooth.

Edited May 4, 2009 by __Kratos__

[Lord Umbarger]

Well have gays ever done something bad that they all believe in.

Certainly not. I was just pointing out that when ANY major change to the basic values of virtually every group in history, the group either disappears or completely changes so as to no longer be recognisable to the inhabitants of the earlier culture. One could say the same in refernce to the advent of modern factories and cars as well. Someone from the Roman times would be able to function in Italy of the 1700's but, would be totally out of place after the industrial revolution. A Roman would be just as capable of plowing behind a mule in the year 0001 as he would in the year 1899, a mere 1,898 years removed. He'd have a lot of adjusting to do when it comes to putting him on a modern factory type farm like in the U.S. circa now though, even though there is only a ceturies difference there.

Look how many European countries used to be tribal, pagans, norse and other beliefs that have turned to christianity or more modern belief systems that are still going strong.

Very good point but, I don't beleive that one could really say that the culture of the European nations is the same as it was back then. The "culture" of the pagan ancestors is no longer the dominant culture of modern European nations. There are few, if any, totally isolated and self sufficiant villages.

As for core values, I don't believe that christianity or judaism have good ones in the first place.

I can see why one would say that. I mean, it does seem a little out dated to "buy a wife" or to forbid the consumption of certain foods but, there are other aspects that are pretty solid in the older times as well as todays. For instance, the injuction against killing, raping, child sacrifice, eating the meat of an animal that you found dead by the side of the road, extra-marrital affairs... all of these have negative consequences even in our day. Also, most all of the commandments are even more rational when you consider the common knowledge and level of education and science of the times.

Believers wanting tolerance for their intolerance is hypocritical either way you cut the cake.

That is sort of the point that I was originally making in refernce to the intollerance to Ms. California and her opinion on gay/lezbian marriages. Why should I accept someone slamming a X-tian for their beliefs if the slammer won't accept a X-tian slamming their non-X-tian beliefs? Or, to put it another way, why should one group have the right to slam my values and then get all hurt and upset when I slam thiers? Even if science seems to be on their side, there is 2,000 years of history on mine that indicate that my set of beliefs, although unpopular today, have worked for generations.

Also this country was never founded as a religious nation in the first place and progress forward isn't always smooth.

That is true... sort of. Most all of the founding fathers, (actualy, I think that it is all of them), held some sort of western Judeo/X-tian faith that they lived by in their day to day lives. At the time, it was the only world anyone knew. But, it WAS their intention that no one faith should have any more sway than any other or power over those of other faiths. We currently incorperate Atheism into that as well and although that probably wasn't on the minds of the founders back then, I doubt they'd have a problem with that concept were they brought back today.

Sometimes I think that I really should write a book about the "Kosher Laws". Not that I think that I am totally right about all of it but, I dpo think that i could maybe explain some of them in a better way than just saying "Thou Shalt Not...".

[Leonardo]

I believe it goes way beyond acceptance and tolerance it is intellectual blackmail, believe as we do or be branded as a hateful dogmatic bigot. Personally I think the solution is to completely remove the word marriage as a secular term and call it what it is a “civic union’ with all the rights of marriage under the current laws of the land. This would hopefully satisfy the same sex issues as well as those that wish to practice polygamy. It would mean a slight inconvenience to those of faith as they would have a court approved civic union and can have a church approved marriage afterward. A win win for all involved.

Do you think religious dogma is not intellectual (or emotional) blackmail then, Irish?

Do you think that tolerance means letting people be bigotted if that denies others equal opportunity or even harms them?

Marriage has never been a religious convention - it is simply that religion has co-opted marriage for its own purpose that has caused us to associate the two states. However, a sacred union does not necessarily mean 'divine'. A person can respect marriage as a sacred vow between two people without having faith in any divinity giving its 'blessing' to such a vow.

A vow is still a vow if it is made to a person, rather than a deity.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Leonardo

[Lord Umbarger]

A vow is still a vow if it is made to a person, rather than a deity.

I was married in a court house for fifty bucks. Far cheaper than renting a church or a temple and hiring a Rabbi or a preacher. Still I was just as married, (for good and for bad), as was any Rabbi or preacher was.

I have no evidence to back this up but, I sort of think that the whole "In G-ds Eyes" aspect to marriage and it being a church approved of thing wasn't just to give the religious authorities a little more power but, probably was more of a bottom up thing in which the people wanted the blessing of G-d to insure a happy marriage with lots of kids.... especially when you notice the infant mortality rates from the pre-industrial revolution world.

I think that it was probably more of a "G-d, please bless us" than a "G-d, please give the guy in the funny robes power over us" issue.

As for the modern times, Sure! I believe that gays and lesbians have just as much right to ruin a good relationship by getting married as anyone else does! I just don't think that they have the right to tell any one else what their religron should or should not accept.

I don't feel that a gay man has any more right to tell me that my faith is wrong than I have to tell him that he and his partner are going to some kind of hell like place. On the same token, I don't think that he should be able to force my temple or Rabbi to marry him and his partner into the Jewish faith if they are not practicing it any more than a Priest should be forced to perform a Jewish wedding for me and the partner of my choice. If a gay man or a lesbian doesn't agree with a faith, then why should they care rather that faith accepts them or not?

By the way, there are some Rabbis that do perform same sex marriages. They are of the faction of the Reconstructionist movement and I believe that they are only in California as of now.

[Leonardo]

I was married in a court house for fifty bucks. Far cheaper than renting a church or a temple and hiring a Rabbi or a preacher. Still I was just as married, (for good and for bad), as was any Rabbi or preacher was.

I, also, was married at a civil ceremony and also considered I was 'just as married'. If a person means what they vow, then it doesn't matter who they address that vow to.

I have no evidence to back this up but, I sort of think that the whole "In G-ds Eyes" aspect to marriage and it being a church approved of thing wasn't just to give the religious authorities a little more power but, probably was more of a bottom up thing in which the people wanted the blessing of G-d to insure a happy marriage with lots of kids.... especially when you notice the infant mortality rates from the pre-industrial revolution world.

I think that it was probably more of a "G-d, please bless us" than a "G-d, please give the guy in the funny robes power over us" issue.

From the perspective of those getting married you are probably right. From the perspective of the religious authority concerned it is about power and control over the population. It might have started out as a belief in divine intervention assisting the couple to live happy, healthy lives - but that reason is no longer relevant with the intervention of modern science and medicine.

As for the modern times, Sure! I believe that gays and lesbians have just as much right to ruin a good relationship by getting married as anyone else does! I just don't think that they have the right to tell any one else what their religron should or should not accept.

I don't feel that a gay man has any more right to tell me that my faith is wrong than I have to tell him that he and his partner are going to some kind of hell like place. On the same token, I don't think that he should be able to force my temple or Rabbi to marry him and his partner into the Jewish faith if they are not practicing it any more than a Priest should be forced to perform a Jewish wedding for me and the partner of my choice. If a gay man or a lesbian doesn't agree with a faith, then why should they care rather that faith accepts them or not?

By the way, there are some Rabbis that do perform same sex marriages. They are of the faction of the Reconstructionist movement and I believe that they are only in California as of now.

From what I understand of the issue of the right of gays and lesbians to marry, religion is not core to it. Yes, I've no doubt that there are gay and lesbian couple who wish a church wedding, but religious organisations are not going to drop their doctrine overnight when they have been able hold sway for hundred or thousands of years. However, it seems that the main issue with homosexual marriages is that the partners were not being given the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage partners.

I would also ask those who oppose same-sex marriage, how would it change your right to marry whom you wish? If it wouldn't, then why are you opposing it?

To make this relevant to the thread, Miss CA is a bigot. She may have made her excuse as to why she is a bigot (her upbringing), but that does not allay the fact of her bigotry. Being a bigot, her suitability to represent "The Land of The Free" must be questionable.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Leonardo

[Siara]

I, also, was married at a civil ceremony and also considered I was 'just as married'. If a person means what they vow, then it doesn't matter who they address that vow to.

I was married at the City Hall in Tokyo, Japan. (Our marriage license is a scroll with beautiful Japanese calligraphy). Two kids, two stepkids, three grandkids, and 29 satisfied years later..... duh.... yeah, I think I'm really married. The thing that makes a marriage is love and commitment between two people who want to create a happy household (with or without kids). The priest doesn't matter much if people don't have emotional maturity.

Maybe part of the emphasis on a religious figure conducting a ceremony is the hope that he/she will be a substitute for some of the self discipline that a good marriage involves.

[Leonardo]

I was married at the City Hall in Tokyo, Japan. (Our marriage license is a scroll with beautiful Japanese calligraphy).Two kids, two stepkids, three grandkids, and 29 satisfied years later..... duh.... yeah, I think I'm really married. The thing that makes a marriage is love and commitment between two people who want to create a happy household (with or without kids). The priest doesn't matter much if people don't have emotional maturity.

Maybe part of the emphasis on a religious figure conducting a ceremony is the hope that he/she will be a substitute for some of the self discipline that a good marriage involves.

Awesome!

Hope it's framed and in pride of place somewhere in the home.

You may be right about what the priest/religious part of the ceremony represents.

[Sho_Sho]

I just read on Perez Hilton's web site that they are now thinking about taking her Miss California title and crown away from her. Below is the snippit off his site.

"Could Miss California be stripped of her crown???

Keith Lewis, one of the state directors for the Miss California USA Organization has revealed the hard decision the folks over at the Miss Cali Organization have been plagued with!

Should they or shouldn't they remove Carrie Prejean's crown?

"We are really faced with a dilemma [over whether] to exercise the contract and remove her crown, because it would in fact only escalate her standing within the very issue that we are trying to minimize and only escalate her standing with those individuals who have stolen her title.

We want to make sure that our legacy is one that we are proud of. I do admire her courage for standing up for her beliefs and yet at the same time, I'm very much aware of the role of Miss California and what we are trying to do with the woman who is crowned and represents the state of California."

If Prejean doesn't cool it with her verbal diarrhea to the media, her crown is toast!

She should stick to her platform, campaigning for the Special Olympics".

[Siara]

I just read on Perez Hilton's web site that they are now thinking about taking her Miss California title and crown away from her. Below is the snippit off his site.

I think it would be very wrong to strip her of her crown. The pageant wasn't about her personal politics and she has a right to state her opinion (also I must say that I personally think her opinion in unconstitutional)

[Sho_Sho]

I think it would be very wrong to strip her of her crown. The pageant wasn't about her personal politics and she has a right to state her opinion (also I must say that I personally think her opinion in unconstitutional)

I agree.

I think they are saying that she seems to have switched her supported charity from the Special Olympics to this, so that’s why they feel they can legally give her the ax. I think they are going to find any loophole they can find, because her agenda is hurting their cause.

I think this entire thing has snow balled, and they are taking this thing as far as they can now, both sides are very strong in their feelings, and I think it’s starting to get ugly and petty on the pageant official’s part, so she is upping the ante and speaking out about it even more just to prove a point.

Her point may be wrong but she has a right to it.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Sho_Sho

[Fluffybunny]

I think it would be very wrong to strip her of her crown. The pageant wasn't about her personal politics and she has a right to state her opinion (also I must say that I personally think her opinion in unconstitutional)

But on the same vein, this is a private contest, with private funding and sponsors who have a right to say where they feel comfortable investing their funds. If Miss Whateverstate decided to say, "I hate them Ni_____ ... or something totally off the wall" then no one would hesitate to fire her, or dethrone her, or whatever they do, because it is obvious that she would have offended viewers right?

So there is a line that these woman cannot cross, and they have been fired before. It is up to those with the money to decide what they feel is appropriate. If they feel that miss offensive is going to offend their potential customers, then it would be silly for them to not go to the pageant board and say "hey, we funded you for a boatload of money, but you need to reel in your girl or you wont see another dime..." The market she just offended is 20 percent of our total sales, and 15 percent of tonights viewership..."

So while I may not believe in being PC about everything; this is someones money we are talking about, this isnt a free speech debate. You can have free speech with your own money. A beauty pageant isnt the time to bring up your trouble with other groups. She may have been cornered by the question, but she should have been smart enough to figure out that a good chunk of the guys helping out at the pageant were gay(have you ever been to a pageant? think about it...), and it was a loaded question...but still...

[__Kratos__]

Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED

Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.

In an interview on "The Early Show," Keith Lewis, the co-Director of the Miss California Pageant, admitted to helping Prejean get the boob job.

"We assisted when Carrie came to us and voiced the interest in having the procedure done," Lewis told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez.

"We want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage."

More of the article here: Link

---------------------------------

Bahahaha, she's the whore of babylon! What a hypocrite!

[Sho_Sho]

Miss California's Breast Implants Funded By Pageant: CONFIRMED

Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.

In an interview on "The Early Show," Keith Lewis, the co-Director of the Miss California Pageant, admitted to helping Prejean get the boob job.

"We assisted when Carrie came to us and voiced the interest in having the procedure done," Lewis told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez.

"We want to put her in the best possible confidence in order to present herself in the best possible light on a national stage."

More of the article here: Link

---------------------------------

Bahahaha, she's the whore of babylon! What a hypocrite!

What are they going to do now? Take her new D cups away from her?