Miss California

[Telefrog]

I don't think we have a thread about Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and her antics (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/04/22/miss-california-carrie-prejean-finally-a-public-figure-for-conservative-christians-to-love.html) yet. Normally, a beauty pageant contestant's shenanigans wouldn't merit much notice from me, but her anti-gay marriage stance has made her a figure of some importance now as a spokesperson (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/miss.california.ad/) for the National Organization for Marriage.

As a proponent of free speech, I heartily approve of her right to be spectacularly dumb! :D

Seriously though, even though I disagree with her opinion, I do have to give her my respect for not backing down on the issue.

[Ox]

Apparently, gay marriage is now like world peace.

I remember when it originally happened; the way she phrased her answer, it sounded plausible that she approved of legal gay marriage but didn't recognize it as religiously valid. But if she's the spokeswoman for NOM, I guess I was wrong.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Well, she's been claiming that she didn't win because of her stance on gay marriage. Which, true or not, is completely unprovable.

[National Kato]

She's entitled to her opinion. Anybody making fun of her is entitled to theirs. Over all, a non-issue.

I'm sure there are still many young girls in this country who look up to Miss America as a role model. I don't really agree with it, but I suppose the pageant is still beloved by many.

[Ink Asylum]

Her answer was also factually incorrect.

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

You can't choose same-sex marriage in the country, it is not recognized at a federal level. You can choose it in certain states, but in most you cannot.

I don't know how they judge these pageants, but factual inaccuracies probably don't help.

[Ox]

Well, she's been claiming that she didn't win because of her stance on gay marriage. Which, true or not, is completely unprovable.
There's some pretty good evidence. A contest judge said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Prejean), "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that."

[Johan]

I think the response to her has been extremely instructive as regards the definition of "tolerance" and the complete lack of any for her beliefs from some quarters. Very, very instructive and interesting, and completely unsurprising, from my own limited personal experience.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You can't choose same-sex marriage in the country, it is not recognized at a federal level. You can choose it in certain states, but in most you cannot.

Well, that greatly depends on your definition of marriage. If she's talking about the federally recognized contract, sure. If she's talking about culturally, that depends on where you are, and you can always call what you've got a marriage, even if it's you and a folding chair.

[Ink Asylum]

What are the standards used to judge those answers? Does anyone know? Here's what Wikipedia says:

5) Onstage Question During the Evening Wear competition the contestants are asked a random question from a pre-determined list that they must then answer onstage with no preparation. Questions are topical and usually involve current events. The questions require the contestant to have knowledge of the event and provide an opinion. The Onstage Question counts for 5% of the contestant's total score

How do they score the answer? Judging "knowledge" seems simple enough. They have to prove they know what they're talking about and not get an obvious fact wrong.

Then they have to provide an opinion. How is the opinion judged? If it's up to the judges' personal feelings on the issue, then that's how the contest works. If the judges feel that her opinion on gay marriage does not fit what they feel are the ideals of Miss America then why shouldn't her score reflect that?

[Telefrog]

The biggest tidbit I learned from this? Apparently, pageant organizations (not just the individuals) will pay for the contestants' cosmetic surgery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495983/). Weird.

[Ox]

Ink, who are you arguing against? Nobody is saying she should have won or that her position should not have been held against her.

[TheFlyingOrc]

If the judges feel that her opinion on gay marriage does not fit what they feel are the ideals of Miss America then why shouldn't her score reflect that?

Well, if the judges felt that she shouldn't represent America due her views on an issue that are in line with the opinions of a very percentage of Americans, that's probably not falling under the spirit of the competition.

Not that everything about these things isn't subjective as can be, anyway. I'm pretty much opposed to any competition with a subjective scoring system.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm arguing against the objections to her losing the crown because of that question amongst various commentators in the media and elsewhere, similar to how Johan is making a point against people that aren't posting here.

[Johan]

...similar to how Johan is making a point against people that aren't posting here.

That's incorrect. Thanks.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's incorrect. Thanks.

Really? Your post seems to be clearly arguing against people in the media and such, unless I'm misreading you.

[Ink Asylum]

Well, if the judges felt that she shouldn't represent America due her views on an issue that are in line with the opinions of a very percentage of Americans, that's probably not falling under the spirit of the competition.

Well, Ox, now it seems I'm arguing against Orc. :)

Is she being chosen to represent America? Or whatever organization puts on the show?

Is the organization obligated to match the opinions of Americans? Or are they trying to influence America's youth towards what they feel America should be like?

[Ink Asylum]

That's incorrect. Thanks.

How so? Ox asked who I'm arguing against, I said no one here. Were you addressing your comments towards someone on this board? Or nameless people out there in "some quarters"?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Well, Ox, now it seems I'm arguing against Orc. :)

Let me first say that I'm not strongly enough opposed to your opinion to really be an opponent, per se.


Is she being chosen to represent America? Or whatever organization puts on the show?

Is the organization obligated to match the opinions of Americans? Or are they trying to influence America's youth towards what they feel America should be like?
My understanding was that, as the pageant uses the word "America" and has become a large cultural phenomenon, those in charge of it feel a level of obligation to attempt to chose a person who is representative of American ideals, and that she should be involved in reflecting the feelings of her people.

I cannot find a mission statement yet, and, of course, it's just a stupid pageant. However, I would have assumed that doing so ran counter to the organization's own ideals, but not that they would be violating a universal moral obligation by their actions.

If someone can dig up a mission statement, that would be pretty sweet, though.

[headhunter228]

Okay, two things. First, why the hell was a gay man a judge in a beauty pagent? That's not right. Second, he shouldn't have been allowed to ask that question. That's simply not fair. She did an excellent job answering the question (and I fully agree with it, too), but she got a zero from that judge. Coincidence? I don't think so. Possible, but unlikely.

[Telefrog]

It's a privately funded company, yes? Doesn't that mean she's representing whatever the heck they decide she should?

[Ink Asylum]

My understanding was that, as the pageant uses the word "America" and has become a large cultural phenomenon, those in charge of it feel a level of obligation to attempt to chose a person who is representative of American ideals, and that she should be involved in reflecting the feelings of her people.

Then we're getting into what American ideals are. A raw polling of Americans? The principles laid out in our founding documents? The current status of our laws/amendments/government actions?

[National Kato]

Doesn't that mean she's representing whatever the heck they decide she should?

Ultimately, yes. I know of a rule that doesn't allow winners to be, or ever have been, pregnant.

[Ink Asylum]

Okay, two things. First, why the hell was a gay man a judge in a beauty pagent? That's not right.

Gay men can't appreciate female beauty? Should straight women be barred from being judges?

Second, he shouldn't have been allowed to ask that question. That's simply not fair. She did an excellent job answering the question (and I fully agree with it, too), but she got a zero from that judge. Coincidence? I don't think so. Possible, but unlikely.

How is it not fair? The questions are drawn from current affairs and apparently randomly selected. Gay marriage is certainly a current affair.

[Telefrog]

How is it not fair? The questions are drawn from current affairs and apparently randomly selected. Gay marriage is certainly a current affair.

Well, to be fair, who got which question was randomly selected. I doubt very much that Perez Hilton randomly came up with the zinger of a question. :p

[National Kato]

Well, to be fair, who got which question was randomly selected.

I read somewhere that each contestant picks which judge to answer at that time. I'm trying to find more than one source for this. But if true, that means Prejean picked Perez?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Then we're getting into what American ideals are. A raw polling of Americans? The principles laid out in our founding documents? The current status of our laws/amendments/government actions?

Ideals are not the only thing I mentioned, of course. And, as I said, I do so hate subjective competitions.

Being judged negatively for something that a very large percentage of Americans feel very strongly about doesn't seem to be, where I'm sitting, in the spirit of the competition. (more delightful subjectivity, of course)

Certainly the judges wouldn't feel that she was completely ineligible for the crown where she to answer a question on abortion with a moral view that ran contrary to their own, would they?

I will assume, at least, that the point of the pageant is to find someone who is representative of the conclusion the general populace would come to over the pageant. If your politics running counter to 3 judges is enough to end your chances, that hardly seems fair.

And I'm hating this more and more, because there's no argument to be had here that isn't inherently subjective.

[Ink Asylum]

Well, to be fair, who got which question was randomly selected. I doubt very much that Perez Hilton randomly came up with the zinger of a question. :p

I have no idea how the questions are formulated. Do the judges get to ask whatever they want? Is there a group meeting of the judges or members of the Miss America organization beforehand that put together a list of questions?

[Cyndair]

I think Perez's reaction to the whole thing is very telling of HIS character. Calling Prejean a "dumb bitch" and then later saying that he called her the "b-word" but was thinking the "c-word" shows exactly the kind of person that he is. Why a pageant organization that is supposed to represent "America" would choose this type of person as a judge is beyond my comprehension. Judges of character and beauty should have some experience of demonstrating it themselves.

You don't see Prejean on TV calling Perez Hilton a fag or some other juvenile name calling even though he potentially cost her the title of Miss America. Interviews that I've seen have shown her demonstrating love and forgiveness. Values that more Christians in this country should take note of.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think Perez's reaction to the whole thing is very telling of HIS character. Calling Prejean a "dumb bitch" and then later saying that he called her the "b-word" but was thinking the "c-word" shows exactly the kind of person that he is. Why a pageant organization that is supposed to represent "America" would choose this type of person as a judge is beyond my comprehension. Judges of character and beauty should have some experience of demonstrating it themselves.

You don't see Prejean on TV calling Perez Hilton a fag or some other juvenile name calling even though he potentially cost her the title of Miss America.

Well, I think anyone whose job title is literally "celebrity blogger" is probably a douchebag by default.

[Ink Asylum]

Being judged negatively for something that a very large percentage of Americans feel very strongly about doesn't seem to be, where I'm sitting, in the spirit of the competition. (more delightful subjectivity, of course)

They're not just handing out plastic crowns. The Miss America organization gives out scholarships, and the winner must get some additional or larger reward. Should the people putting up that money and resources feel obligated to choose someone who represents the beliefs of America over their own personal beliefs just because they use the word America in their name? I don't think so. It's their money.

Certainly the judges wouldn't feel that she was completely ineligible for the crown where she to answer a question on abortion with a moral view that ran contrary to their own, would they?

Completely ineligible? End her chances? It's 5% of her final score. The swimsuit competition has more of a bearing on her chances than her opinion on gay marriage. If she did give an abortion answer that ran counter to the judges' opinions I can easily see her losing those points.

[Cyndair]

Well, I think anyone whose job title is literally "celebrity blogger" is probably a douchebag by default.

Exactly, so why pick him as a judge? I just don't get it.

[Kelegacy]

Okay, two things. First, why the hell was a gay man a judge in a beauty pagent? That's not right. Second, he shouldn't have been allowed to ask that question. That's simply not fair. She did an excellent job answering the question (and I fully agree with it, too), but she got a zero from that judge. Coincidence? I don't think so. Possible, but unlikely.

Gay men make more objective judges? Well, except when asking questions revolving around gay issues. It's a question trap, but oh what a good trap. :)

In other news, Maine Senate passed a same-sex marriage bill today. The house will pass this easily but the real question is if the governor will sign it. I hope he does.

C'mon New England! It's going to happen either way someday, just like interracial marriage and other civil rights issues. I would really like it if New England would go down in the history books as being the fulcrum for the future of this equal rights movement. They aren't the first states to pass the measure, but it would still be exciting. Just waiting on Rhode Island, which should weigh in on it sometime later this year.

Proud to be a Yankee. :)

[TheFlyingOrc]

They're not just handing out plastic crowns. The Miss America organization gives out scholarships, and the winner must get some additional or larger reward. Should the people putting up that money and resources feel obligated to choose someone who represents the beliefs of America over their own personal beliefs just because they use the word America in their name? I don't think so. It's their money.

I don't see how the presence of cash changes anything.

And again - yes, they have every right to do what they want legally, but I don't think you'd say that the morally right thing to do only reaches to the obligation and then stops cold.



Completely ineligible? End her chances? It's 5% of her final score. The swimsuit competition has more of a bearing on her chances than her opinion on gay marriage. If she did give an abortion answer that ran counter to the judges' opinions I can easily see her losing those points.

Well, that just seems wrong to me. I am, of course, a big believer in understanding that no matter how sure you are of your opinion, you should recognize that the other guy feels pretty sure, too.

Also, it appears that this is enough to knock you out of the competition, because they're apparently quoted as saying she was winning before that.

[Ox]

My understanding was that, as the pageant uses the word "America" and has become a large cultural phenomenon, those in charge of it feel a level of obligation to attempt to chose a person who is representative of American ideals, and that she should be involved in reflecting the feelings of her people.
They obviously don't choose people who accurately represent American physiques. Why would Miss America represent American ideals?

Completely ineligible? End her chances? It's 5% of her final score. The swimsuit competition has more of a bearing on her chances than her opinion on gay marriage.
Do you really want to argue that the Miss America pageant rigorously follows its written judging procedures? If she was, as Hilton said, "the clear front-runner" but "without a doubt" her answer "cost her the crown," I hardly think it's implausible they decided to weigh the answer section a little more heavily this year.

Is there a group meeting of the judges or members of the Miss America organization beforehand that put together a list of questions?
Supposedly, yes. Some have claimed this question was far more controversial than the questions asked of other contestants and suspect that Hilton singled out Ms. Prejean because he knew of her views.

Should the people putting up that money and resources feel obligated to choose someone who represents the beliefs of America over their own personal beliefs just because they use the word America in their name? I don't think so. It's their money.
This comes down to the question of when and whether it is appropriate to discriminate. Some discrimination is clearly permissible: Obama should be allowed to refuse to hire Dick Cheney because he's a Republican. Some discrimination is clearly not: I should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone because he's black.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't see how the presence of cash changes anything.

And again - yes, they have every right to do what they want legally, but I don't think you'd say that the morally right thing to do only reaches to the obligation and then stops cold.

Are you asking me what I feel is morally right? Whose morals?

Also, it's starting to look like America's moral view on this topic is switching. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7459488)

Take gay marriage, legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa, with Vermont coming aboard in September. At its low, in 2004, just 32 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, with 62 percent opposed. Now 49 percent support it versus 46 percent opposed -- the first time in ABC/Post polls that supporters have outnumbered opponents.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Are you asking me what I feel is morally right? Whose morals?

No, and I don't believe that I have, at any time, pretended like this wasn't subjective. I've got to great lengths to cover myself on this regard, and you still decided to try to attack my point using subjectivity. Dude, that's just disingenuous debate.

I'm not speaking at all to the rightness/wrongness of her views - and that's my whole point. By saying that this answer morally eliminates her from the competition, he's claiming access to objective morality, despite the lack of unity on the issue on the national stage.

[Ink Asylum]

No, and I don't believe that I have, at any time, pretended like this wasn't subjective. I've got to great lengths to cover myself on this regard, and you still decided to try to attack my point using subjectivity. Dude, that's just disingenuous debate.

How have I attacked you using subjectivity? By posting that recent poll? That wasn't an attack, just something I read today that I feel fits into this topic.

I'm not speaking at all to the rightness/wrongness of her views - and that's my whole point. By saying that this answer morally eliminates her from the competition, he's claiming access to objective morality, despite the lack of unity on the issue on the national stage.

He was chosen to be a judge so he is representing the morality of the Miss America organization, which is where we remain in conflict on the issue. You think the Miss America organization should be giving out scores based on the morality of the American populace, I feel they should use their personal morality.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You think the Miss America organization should be giving out scores based on the morality of the American populace, I feel they should use their personal morality.
Interesting. Would you feel the same way if the judges had all believed that a person should agree with them that slavery should be mandatory, or that molesting children was not a crime?

Were I in the judges chair, I feel very strongly that I would have a responsibility to doubt what I understand to be moral, at least for the purposes of something like this. Are you asking the judges to not soberly consider the possibility that they might not have the full grasp on what is morally correct?

[Ox]

You think the Miss America organization should be giving out scores based on the morality of the American populace, I feel they should use their personal morality.
Really? You think they should use their personal morality? So if a Miss America contestant said she didn't like to gossip about other people's sexual orientation, you would be cool with her getting rejected on that basis (Perez Hilton is a big fan of involuntarily outing people and speculating about the sexual preferences of celebrities)?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Really? You think they should use their personal morality? So if a Miss America contestant said she didn't like to gossip about other people's sexual orientation, you would be cool with her getting rejected on that basis (Perez Hilton is a big fan of involuntarily outing people and speculating about the sexual preferences of celebrities)?

And justifies it as a moral obligation, to boot.

[Ink Asylum]

Interesting. Would you feel the same way if the judges had all believed that a person should agree with them that slavery should be mandatory, or that molesting children was not a crime?

I believe an organization that held views that extreme wouldn't have the status that it does, and therefore would have much less exposure/respect/money/etc.

It's entirely possible that the Miss America organization will suffer some negative consequences for this, and it's possible that they would have suffered different negative consequences if this girl had won after giving that same answer. Just like any organization that takes moral stands that large segments of the population feel passionately about.

Were I in the judges chair, I feel very strongly that I would have a responsibility to doubt what I understand to be moral, at least for the purposes of something like this. Are you asking the judges to not soberly consider the possibility that they might not have the full grasp on what is morally correct?

To what degree? Since you took things to the extreme, what if she said that she felt that sodomy should still be illegal? Should Perez Hilton have considered if she might be morally correct and given her the points?

[Ox]

I believe an organization that held views that extreme wouldn't have the status that it does, and therefore would have much less exposure/respect/money/etc.
And I believe in the Virgin Birth. Which, if you think about it, is also a pretty extreme view.

It's entirely possible that the Miss America organization will suffer some negative consequences for this, and it's possible that they would have suffered different negative consequences if this girl had won after giving that same answer. Just like any organization that takes moral stands that large segments of the population feel passionately about.
Which might be a strong argument for the organization not to take moral stands on controversial issues.

I mean, seriously. Is anyone looking to the Miss American organization for moral leadership? They hand out scholarships and throw a pretty-girl party once a year. They don't issue white papers on embryonic stem cell research.

[Ink Asylum]

Really? You think they should use their personal morality? So if a Miss America contestant said she didn't like to gossip about other people's sexual orientation, you would be cool with her getting rejected on that basis (Perez Hilton is a big fan of involuntarily outing people and speculating about the sexual preferences of celebrities)?

The Miss America organization chose him as a judge, so they feel Perez Hilton represents their views and they respect his judgment. If his judgment is counter to what the Miss America organization supports, I'm sure the people holding the purse strings could overrule Perez and grant the girl full points for her answer.

How is this different than any one else that is hired by a private organization into a position where their personal opinions and judgments will be a factor?

[Telefrog]

I mean, seriously. Is anyone looking to the Miss American organization for moral leadership? They hand out scholarships and throw a pretty-girl party once a year. They don't issue white papers on embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently, people are indeed looking to the contestants for their moral leadership.

[Ink Asylum]

Which might be a strong argument for the organization not to take moral stands on controversial issues.

Then we'll see what the organization does. Clearly they value their public perception, since they often take steps when a winner acts in ways that don't fit their ideals. If the blowback from this is severe enough and persuasive enough, then we might see less controversial judges/questions in the future.

I mean, seriously. Is anyone looking to the Miss American organization for moral leadership? They hand out scholarships and throw a pretty-girl party once a year. They don't issue white papers on embryonic stem cell research.

The pageant industry in America is quite large and many, many parents and children look to Miss America as a role model.

[National Kato]

Would you feel the same way if the judges had all believed that a person should agree with them that slavery should be mandatory, or that molesting children was not a crime?


I think if the panel of judges believed those two extreme examples, you wouldn't have a pageant on national television.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I believe an organization that held views that extreme wouldn't have the status that it does, and therefore would have much less exposure/respect/money/etc.

It's entirely possible that the Miss America organization will suffer some negative consequences for this, and it's possible that they would have suffered different negative consequences if this girl had won after giving that same answer. Just like any organization that takes moral stands that large segments of the population feel passionately about.



I'm not really questioning the organization as a whole, but those who had authority in the judging. What right does Perez Hilton have to say that his understanding of morality is superior to the woman standing in front of him, answering his questions - especially one with, as your poll showed, has a 3% difference in public opinion.


To what degree? Since you took things to the extreme, what if she said that she felt that sodomy should still be illegal? Should Perez Hilton have considered if she might be morally correct and given her the points?
I wasn't aware that there was consensus(or even near consensus) that the sodomy laws were completely incorrect, so I'm confused by your example.

[Ox]

The Miss America organization chose him as a judge, so they feel Perez Hilton represents their views and they respect his judgment.
See, that's what we call in law a "legal fiction." It's probably a good idea for us to pretend that's true. But I have a tough time picturing some board meeting at the Miss American organization:
Stuffed Shirt #1: "We need a judge for this year's pageant."

Stuffed Shirt #2: "Yes. Whomever we pick shoul represent our views and have judgment we respect."

Stuffed Shirt #1: "But who?"

Stuffed Shirt #3: "Say, I've been ignoring this really boring meeting and surfing the web instead. But have you considered Perez Hilton?"

Stuffed Shirt #2: "Perez Hilton? Never heard of her."

Stuffed Shirt #3: "Perez Hilton is a man, actually. He hangs out with Paris Hilton, claims people planted drugs on Lindsey Lohan, and gossips about celebrities for a living. A couple of years ago he reported on his web site that Fidel Castro had died. Here's (http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-30-feed-the-whales) a pretty typical example of his incisive commentary."

Stuffed Shirt #1: "Perfect! How can we resist this modern-day Diogenes?"

How is this different than any one else that is hired by a private organization into a position where their personal opinions and judgments will be a factor?
It's not. Generally, private organizations take positions, they come under criticism, and the organization decides whether it wants to take the heat. Pointing out that the organization is legally entitled to have a view hardly negates the criticism: that there's really no reason to take such a view, and that the organization should shut the fuck up.

[Ox]

Actually, I don't really give a crap what the Miss America organization, or the contemptible scum that goes by the name of Perez Hilton, does. I was offended by what the head of the Miss California pageant supposedly said, however: that "religious beliefs have no place in politics". I was outraged until I remembered how incredibly stupid it was to pay attention to such trivial people.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Actually, I don't really give a crap what the Miss America organization, or the contemptible scum that goes by the name of Perez Hilton, does. I was offended by what the head of the Miss California pageant supposedly said, however: that "religious beliefs have no place in politics". I was outraged until I remembered how incredibly stupid it was to pay attention to such trivial people.
Well, you have to understand Oxonian. The belief that homosexuals have equal rights is a scientific fact gained through repeated lab testing.

Oh, it's a moral position that only makes sense if you believe some things are universally "right" or "wrong"? Guess it might be a religious belief, then.

[Johan]

This is the only "beauty pageant" (or whatever we call them) that I've ever enjoyed. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212346/)

I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I did actually like it. So did my wife.

[Superman's Dead]

This is the only "beauty pageant" (or whatever we call them) that I've ever enjoyed. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212346/)

I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I did actually like it. So did my wife.

The daughter of the director goes to my school...and that is why our school library also has a copy of "Mystic Pizza".

This whole incident is one big tie-pull, Dangerfield style.

[KamaItachi]

This is the only "beauty pageant" (or whatever we call them) that I've ever enjoyed. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212346/)

I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I did actually like it. So did my wife.

If you haven't, you should see this one. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157503/)

[Kelegacy]

Don't forget Little Miss Sunshine.

[OUX]

*Sigh* I can't wait until 50 years from now this issue is like segregated water fountains.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm not really questioning the organization as a whole, but those who had authority in the judging. What right does Perez Hilton have to say that his understanding of morality is superior to the woman standing in front of him, answering his questions - especially one with, as your poll showed, has a 3% difference in public opinion.

He has every right to judge her answer personally, just like any of us has a right to make personal judgments, and his personal judgment matters in that situation because he's one of the people picked by the Miss America organization to decide who wins their privately funded scholarship.

You might as well ask what right Simon Cowell has tearing down aspiring singers. Where does his authority come from? Whoever hired him to work on American Idol.

[Kelegacy]

*Sigh* I can't wait until 50 years from now this issue is like segregated water fountains.

More like 10 years. In 50 years there will be something else foolish that people hate or discriminate against, like red heads marrying blondes, or short people associating with tall people. It's part of our nature.

[OUX]

I think in 10 it will be legal, in 50 the new generation will be baffled that it ever wasn't.

[Ink Asylum]

See, that's what we call in law a "legal fiction." It's probably a good idea for us to pretend that's true. But I have a tough time picturing some board meeting at the Miss American organization:

The choice of Perez Hilton, as you've pointed out, reflects poorly upon the Miss America competition and organization. Is this surprising to any of us? Do any of us actually believe the Miss America organization is run by the respectable thinkers and philosophers?

As I mentioned to Orc, why are we holding the Miss America pageant to a higher standard than American Idol (another show with "America" in the title)? Simon Cowell is British! What right does he have judging America's best singers? (And yes, I know people vote for American Idol, but only out of the top 20 or whatever. Cowell and the other hosts decide who gets on the show.)

[Kelegacy]

I think in 10 it will be legal, in 50 the new generation will be baffled that it ever wasn't.

It could be legal in all of New England before 2010, we just need to convince the rest of the country, including the South, to join us. In time it will happen, but in some areas of the country it won't be easy for states to pass it. Hell, if it wasn't for the courts stepping in they'd probably still have segregation down there. :)

But yeah, I get what you're saying. I can't imagine living in a world where blacks and whites had to drink from different fountains, different lunch counters, etc. Seems odd, but our grandparents remember this time, and maybe even our parents.

[OUX]

It could be legal in all of New England before 2010, we just need to convince the rest of the country, including the South, to join us. In time it will happen, but in some areas of the country it won't be easy for states to pass it. Hell, if it wasn't for the courts stepping in they'd probably still have segregation down there. :)

But yeah, I get what you're saying. I can't imagine living in a world where blacks and whites had to drink from different fountains, different lunch counters, etc. Seems odd, but our grandparents remember this time, and maybe even our parents.

Well, after Eli Whitney not much innovation has come from the South. But even he was originally from Massachusetts.

[Vulture]

More like 10 years. In 50 years there will be something else foolish that people hate or discriminate against, like red heads marrying blondes, or short people associating with tall people. It's part of our nature.
we have forms of this (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/testing/discrimination) to look forward to. perhaps it could take on a social discriminatory form within the next 30 years. gotta make sure those Tay-Sachs genetic disease carriers don't breed together, for the good of their children.

[headhunter228]

How is it not fair? The questions are drawn from current affairs and apparently randomly selected. Gay marriage is certainly a current affair.

The person asking the question was gay, and therefore, biased. Had it come from anyone else, it wouldn't have been so bad.

[Kelegacy]

The person asking the question was gay, and therefore, biased. Had it come from anyone else, it wouldn't have been so bad.

Well, had a black judge said, "Do you believe in racial equality?" and the woman said no, I wouldn't fault the contest for the woman not being selected. I'd be fine with her not winning. These questions are meant to put you on the spot, and I like that.

Not everyone agrees with gay marriage, and not everyong likes people of color. I like the hard questions. We all like honesty, but not everyone likes what the honest answer turns out to be.

[headhunter228]

I would've at least given her credit with how she answered it. Being Christian, I believe gay marriage is completely and utterly wrong, and were I put in her place, I would've said so. She didn't come out and say it was wrong, like I would have, so that's good. But, I'm sure the gay judge is getting a lot of flak for being gay, since most people in America are Christian, and being gay and being Christian are mutally exclusive. (if you don't believe me, read your Bible more) Even though gay marriage in California is legal now, I'm sure that there are a large number of people who discriminate against him.

[Ox]

being gay and being Christian are mutally exclusive. (if you don't believe me, read your Bible more)
Yeah... I'm not with him.

[Ancalagon]

since most people in America are Christian, and being gay and being Christian are mutally exclusive. (if you don't believe me, read your Bible more)

There do exist Christians who are either gay themselves or arent opposed to gay marriage. You are talking about your interpretation of the Bible.

Anyway.... thats not the point of this thread I guess. She was asked a question, she answered truthfully, and lost the competitiion for it (if you believe Perez's words). And now shes being lauded by Christians.

Its a bit of a circus really. I admire her for sticking to her viewpoint even if I dont agree with it. I would also say that Perez kinda baited her - it was kind of a damned if she does, damned if she doesnt. If she said shes fine with it, she would be criticized as either lying or not being true to her beliefs.

[Ink Asylum]

Even though gay marriage in California is legal now, I'm sure that there are a large number of people who discriminate against him.

Gay marriage is legal in California? Did Prop 8 get overturned already?

[headhunter228]

There do exist Christians who are either gay themselves or arent opposed to gay marriage. You are talking about your interpretation of the Bible.

That's right. I belong to a nondenominational church. Our doctrine centers around holding our church meetings according to the directions in the New Testament. For example, we don't have a pastor. Any male members of the baptized fellowship can speak during our afternoon meeting if they want to. But, then again, we interpret the Bible by obeying it to the letter. Take the Bible and show it to someone else, and you get a different interpretation. I'm not deluded enough to think otherwise, or to think that every other interpretation is wrong. I'm just stating what I believe is right, according to my interpretation of the Bible.

[headhunter228]

Gay marriage is legal in California? Did Prop 8 get overturned already?

I do remember seeing an article in a newspaper about a gay marriage bill getting passed. I think it was California, but I could be wrong. Apologies if I am.

[DoctorFinger]

She answered the question the same as Obama would (were he ever asked about it), and she gets killed for it. She answered the question the same as the voters of the state she represents, and she gets killed for it.

I happen to be pro-gay marriage, but she was treated as if her opinion is so far outside of the norm as to be punishable. She shares the opinion (IMO the wrong one) of the vast majority of the nation.

[headhunter228]

I do remember seeing an article in a newspaper about a gay marriage bill getting passed. I think it was California, but I could be wrong. Apologies if I am.

Yeah, I was wrong. People are working on getting it overturned, but is currently still in effect. The article I was talking about was a while back, and my memory of it is a bit sketchy. My apologies.

[Telefrog]

She answered the question the same as Obama would (were he ever asked about it), and she gets killed for it. She answered the question the same as the voters of the state she represents, and she gets killed for it.

I don't think Obama would've said "same-sex marriage or opposite marriage". :D

[Ink Asylum]

I don't think Obama would've said "same-sex marriage or opposite marriage". :D

Obama also would not have incorrectly stated that "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite."

Unless by "choose" she meant "Hope you live in or move to a state where gay marriage is legal, and even then not have it recognized at a federal level."

[Ox]

So the criticism of Ms. Prejean is that she's not sufficiently familiar with the way federalism works in the United States?

I wish we routinely mocked and berated people for being ignorant about the American constitutional structure, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

[Ink Asylum]

So the criticism of Ms. Prejean is that she's not sufficiently familiar with the way federalism works in the United States?

I wish we routinely mocked and berated people for being ignorant about the American constitutional structure, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

Not knowing that most of the country either doesn't recognize or outright bans gay marriage is showing a lot of ignorance on a very hot button current affairs issue.

[Johan]

Not knowing that most of the country either doesn't recognize or outright bans gay marriage is showing a lot of ignorance on a very hot button current affairs issue.

That's not why certain sectors have been throwing horrible insults her way, and you know that; that's disingenuous of you to even argue it.

[Ox]

I'm not saying she shouldn't be mocked for that. I'm saying that's not what people are mocking her for.

That said, I think you're using a specific definition of "you" in the sense of "you can choose." "You" might just as easily apply to the entire democratic polity of the country. "You can choose the President" is a common locution, even though I personally cannot swing an election.

[Ink Asylum]

That's not why certain sectors have been throwing horrible insults her way, and you know that; that's disingenuous of you to even argue it.

I could care less what certain sectors are arguing. For the basis of the competition she failed to show an accurate understanding of the facts of the issue, which is part of what was being judged. Even if it hadn't been Perez Hilton asking the question she shouldn't have received full credit.

[Johan]

I could care less what certain sectors are arguing.

Thank goodness. You actually do care, to some degree. :D

[ShivaX]

Heres my view on it:

She was ignorant of the issue to an extent and should have lost some points because of it. Because she said something politically unpopular and one of the judges was gay she lost more points than she should have.

In the end I think it doesn't matter because Miss America (the pageant) is pretty stupid.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Thank goodness. You actually do care, to some degree. :D

This is some pretty awesome grammar ownage.

[Deadend]

So the criticism of Ms. Prejean is that she's not sufficiently familiar with the way federalism works in the United States?

I wish we routinely mocked and berated people for being ignorant about the American constitutional structure, but I don't think that's what's happening here.
Well, she can be freely mocked, she got up on stage, she wanted attention. She called the shit down upon herself.

I also think she is wrong on both her statements.

Perez Hilton is lame, but slightly funny, he is kind of the poster child for how most of the world view gays. Really, that guy is a walking stereotype, it's kind of grating.

[Ox]

Well, she can be freely mocked, she got up on stage, she wanted attention. She called the shit down upon herself.
I'm not sure I understand this. You got onto this forum, you wanted attention. Does that mean it's appropriate for me to mock you? I guess it's highly dependent on (a) how much of a jerk I am, (b) what I'm mocking you for, and (c) whether my mockery is well-aimed.

I'm saying the problem is mainly (b). The mockery isn't for being wrong about federalism, it's for having the wrong view on gay marriage and therefore (supposedly) being stupid. It's sort of akin to me saying, "Deadend, that's a stupid handle. You must be retarded." The mere fact that you have other, more appriopriate avenues of mockery does not automatically validate this avenue.

[cp#]

Miss South Carolina still blows this one out of the water.

[alienmastermind]

Actually, I don't really give a crap what the Miss America organization, or the contemptible scum that goes by the name of Perez Hilton, does. I was offended by what the head of the Miss California pageant supposedly said, however: that "religious beliefs have no place in politics". I was outraged until I remembered how incredibly stupid it was to pay attention to such trivial people.

We agree. Perez Hilton is contemptible. I don't know about scum...But laughing about paparazzi pics of folks caught with their knickers down seems a little bit juvenile at the very least.

I will say that if you sat me down and said 'Okay, here we have one of the judges, who is gay, asking about gay marriage to one of the contestants. The contestant, is a little shaken by the comment, and answers to the best of her ability, and truthfully about how she feels. Sadly, this disagrees with the judge's view of the topic, and likely causes her to lose his vote. Which is one of a handful of judges, and can likely cause her to lose the competition. Is this right or wrong?'

I'd immediately say, why was that question asked by Perez Hilton and not one of the other judges? Because if Jesse Jackson asks a random guy off the street about race relations, you're going to get a bullshit answer. It's why polling people try to remain as anonymous as they can on the phones.

Her response was truthful, if inarticulately put. Even if you disagree with her opinion, you have to admire her guts for telling the truth as she saw it.

Being Opposite Married, I'm not one of the people who feels threatened when homosexuals get hitched, but I'm sensitive to the religious folks who believe the term 'marriage' should be sancrosanct.

[Rock Bandit]

Still, tight little body on her.

http://xs139.xs.to/xs139/09192/nakedcarrieprejean504.jpg


Alicia Jacobs, Entertainment Reporter at KVBC in Las Vegas, has seen all six of the photos and says some are much more revealing. Alicia believes the flicks may have been taken after Carrie’s pageant-financed breast augmentation about six weeks ago.

Raawr.

http://www.popcrunch.com/miss-california-nude-picture-carrie-prejean-naked-photo-scandal/

But seriously, Perez Hilton? Really? From drawing cocks on pics of Britney Spears in MS Paint to judging Miss America?

[ClannerDelta]

This is specifically why the question portion of any beauty pageant is stupid. It takes away from from the main point of nit-picking the slight imperfections of very attractive women for... no real reason at all.

Woman needs to dye her roots and tone that body down to get rid of that micro-muffin top. If there's one thing I hate more than muffins, it's bite-sized muffins.

[Telefrog]

Interesting. She may lose her title because of those pictures. That's convenient for the California pageant association.

[Esquilax1138]

Any beauty pageant fails completely without having all of the contestants, or at the very least the last 8 finalists, oil wrestling for the title.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[Deadend]

I'm not sure I understand this. You got onto this forum, you wanted attention. Does that mean it's appropriate for me to mock you? I guess it's highly dependent on (a) how much of a jerk I am, (b) what I'm mocking you for, and (c) whether my mockery is well-aimed.

I'm saying the problem is mainly (b). The mockery isn't for being wrong about federalism, it's for having the wrong view on gay marriage and therefore (supposedly) being stupid. It's sort of akin to me saying, "Deadend, that's a stupid handle. You must be retarded." The mere fact that you have other, more appriopriate avenues of mockery does not automatically validate this avenue.

You understand what I said, you decide to be ignore it for the sake of twisting it around because that is your game.

The chick is stupid, small-minded and thinks that picking random lines from the bible to go by is a great idea.

[Johan]

You understand what I said, you decide to be ignore it for the sake of twisting it around because that is your game.

Wait...did Oxonian copyright this method of rhetorical communication/debate? I'm thinking that you're referencing the Internet as a whole, right? :)

[Ox]

You understand what I said, you decide to be ignore it for the sake of twisting it around because that is your game.
Not really. I mean, I understand what you were saying. I just don't understand how you could hold such a view.

I didn't twist your words, I merely explained why you are wrong. The fault does not lie with me.

[Telefrog]

Good news, everyone! Carrie Prejean gets to keep her crown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/12/ent.miss.california.usa/index.html) thanks to Trump's decision.

Thankfully, taking multiple semi-nude photos, lying about them, recording a phone message for NOM, and refusing to meet with pageant officials - all in violation of her contract - won't get her canned.

[pomeroy]

But, then again, we interpret the Bible by obeying it to the letter.

I realize I'm very late on this, but I'd been avoiding this thread because I think the whole issue is stupid (and I think it's funny that the only time anyone pays attention to Miss America at this point is when they fuck up), but I can't let you get away with this.

Because I think you're lying.

[Bingley Joe]

Just came across this and thought it was pretty classic:

2FLloVykCF8

[ShivaX]

I'm with Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227325&title=the-pageant-of-the-christ

[National Kato]

I liked Olbermann better when he didn't sound like he was trying to match Glenn Beck's typical histrionics. Stewart's was, as usual, more effective.

[Johan]

The lesson is clear. If you dare have an opinion that differs from the loud, bullying hacks of society, you will be attacked in any and every way possible.

America.

:sigh:

Screw the whole damn thing.

Edit: Top pageant official resigns. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/13/ent.miss.california.usa/index.html)

She says she "no longer believes" in the pageant/organization. Believes in what, exactly? Parading women around in bikinis? Judging them based, at least in part, upon sex appeal? Posing in Playboy (which the official did)? Allowing people to have an opinion, freely stated?

What a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.

[ClannerDelta]

The lesson is clear. If you dare have an opinion that differs from the loud, bullying hacks of society, you will be attacked in any and every way possible.

America.

Yeah, that's kind of what happens. You can say whatever you want, but don't be surprised when people call you an idiot for it. It's why I keep my opinions on the internet. I look good simply because of the trash a few URLs over.

Still, I agree it was an obviously loaded question, but much of the backlash from this has been because the woman is a media whore.

When you couple stupid and tits, you get America's favorite television combination. Slightly more loved than crack-addicts with giant clocks.

[Narradisall]

I flicked through this thread and there are lots of good view points and opinions.

However, I think it all comes down to the fact that you let women have opinions. If you'd just parade them around and look at them but make sure they don't talk or have 'opinions' then you could have avoided this whole mess.

[Voodoo]

Good news, everyone! Carrie Prejean gets to keep her crown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/12/ent.miss.california.usa/index.html) thanks to Trump's decision.

Thankfully, taking multiple semi-nude photos, lying about them, recording a phone message for NOM, and refusing to meet with pageant officials - all in violation of her contract - won't get her canned.

Nawt anymooooo...
K2 Productions, the independent producers of the Miss California USA pageant, under license from Miss Universe, cites continued breach of contract issues as the reason for Prejean's firing.

"After our press conference in New York we had hoped we would be able to forge a better working relationship. However, since that time it has become abundantly clear that Carrie has no desire to fulfill her obligations under our contract and work together."

News will be coming out the usual channels eventually.

[National Kato]

What a circus...

[Telefrog]

Of course, this means she is a martyr for the cause of marriage.

[National Kato]

Of course, this means she is a martyr for the cause of marriage.

You mean Opposite Marriage?

[Voodoo]

Of course, this means she is a martyr for the cause of marriage.
One mostly forgotten in the annals of history... My sister, whom is gay, often says that instead of having it called Marriage they should call the act Merry and the commitment Merried.

"Oh no dear, we aren't Married... We are Merried..."

I'm well aware of the politics & religion ideologies surrounding all of this but in the end these couples want the very same protection given to Married couples, damned it be called Married or otherwise as the name of the binding is the least of their occupations.

Though, I have to say I do like Merried versus Civil Union.

[Ox]

One mostly forgotten in the annals of history... My sister, whom is gay, often says that instead of having it called Marriage they should call the act Merry and the commitment Merried.

"Oh no dear, we aren't Married... We are Merried..."
This is terribly clever, and I commend your sister for it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work in the Northeast. We retain the Mary/marry/merry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_vowel_changes_before_historic_r#Mary-marry-merry_merger) distinction.

[Ultima Thulian]

Oh man..."opposite marriage"? Oh gawd, the crazy bullshit euphemistic language our country embroils itself in. It's fucking pathetic. George Carlin called it, as usual.

And as for headhunter...

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

Sorry, but the Judeo-Christian gawd just ain't down with gay sex. But I do love this verse for another reason. Notice how Paul makes the distinction with "male" prostitutes. Hrrmm...oh Paul. What were you getting at? ;)

And my views on the direct topic have been said by others over and over on this thread, so I'll refrain from explaining them, but man, this whole story is funny as hell. Kinda sad if you're the type to believe that this country isn't completely full of shit, but if you're already informed, then this freakshow provides the funny. Pass the popcorn.

[J Arcane]

It's Paul. Paul was kind of a douche. Also, depending on translation, that statement taken in context can just as easily be seen as a specific condemnation of the hedonistic Greek culture in the region at the time. It's not like even Paul rambled on constantly about the ebuls of them gays, it's one of the only verses in the entire book where homosexuality is mentioned at all.

And the Old Testaments condemnation of it is given using a word that is also used for such mundane crimes as leaving out fish over night or eating it on the wrong day of the week.

The truth of the matter is the Bible isn't particularly strong-willed on the subject, there's only a handful of mentions through out, and while taken out of context and with the right translation, they seem terribly negative, they really aren't so much.

It's a matter of interpretation, and if you want to look to an excuse, or an explanation, then you best start with the people spouting gay hate, rather than the Bible.

[Shieldmaiden]

But, then again, we interpret the Bible by obeying it to the letter.

Now THAT is how you make Jesus cry.

[Ultima Thulian]

Just because Paul was a douche doesn't mean you can just dismiss his writings. If we dismissed the writings in the bible because the writers in question were douches, then you might as well dismiss the entire bible all together.

Which, for me, is pretty much what I did.

[J Arcane]

Just because Paul was a douche doesn't mean you can just dismiss his writings. If we dismissed the writings in the bible because the writers in question were douches, then you might as well dismiss the entire bible all together.

Which, for me, is pretty much what I did.
Frankly, I don't necessarily agree withe acceptance of PAul as a canon author. The tone of his works clashes heavily with that of the accounts of Christ himself.

In my more conspiracy theory moods, I even find myself wondering if he really converted at all, or whether he just found a different tactic . . .

[Ultima Thulian]

Frankly, I don't necessarily agree withe acceptance of PAul as a canon author. The tone of his works clashes heavily with that of the accounts of Christ himself.

In my more conspiracy theory moods, I even find myself wondering if he really converted at all, or whether he just found a different tactic . . .

I can understand that to an extent, as which books belong in the bible, how they came to be, and so forth is hotly debated and a very polarizing topic among many Christians. Well, for the ones that actually read the damn book that is.

I read the whole book back when I was a Christian. Ironically enough, it is probably the catalyst that made me become agnostic instead, but I did read it! :D

But in any case, I understand your point and where you're coming from.

[National Kato]

And the Old Testaments condemnation of it is given using a word that is also used for such mundane crimes as leaving out fish over night or eating it on the wrong day of the week.

Not to mention the word used to describe 'homosexuals' in the original Greek could also mean adult men who molest young boys or other predilections, which was a problem at that time. There's really not any clarification in the translations that points specifically to consenting same-sex adults.

EDIT: See my post here. (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=257056&postcount=1315)

[Ultima Thulian]

Well, God did kill a dood for masturbating. So I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that God hates sex of any kind that isn't heterosexual in the missionary position after marriage.

He killed a dood for masturbating! Damn, that's cold!

[Matthias]

Well, God did kill a dood for masturbating. So I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that God hates sex of any kind that isn't heterosexual in the missionary position after marriage.

He killed a dood for masturbating! Damn, that's cold!

That's actually false. You're talking about the Onan story right? He wasn't masturbating, he was having sex with his brother's widow (when a man died, it was his brother's responsibility to take the man's wife as his own) but was pulling out before he ejaculated "letting his seed spill upon the ground." What he did was considered evil because the whole point of the tradition was so that a family's bloodline could carry on as intact as possible when a man died. In this case, the family in question was part of Judah's bloodline, which God was especially preserving because it was prophesied that the Messiah would be of Judah's bloodline, and Satan had been taking special care to kill off the men of that family. Onan was pulling out of his brother's sister because any kids his brother's wife had would dilute Onan's own inheritance from his father, something he did not want.

EDIT: Here's an article on masturbation (http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=149). Granted, I haven't vigorously checked their translation of things, but it seems on the wrong track. Summary: the passages used to condemn masturbation either don't actually touch on it or are actually condemning other things, like remaining in camp after ejaculating, when you're supposed to leave for the day to cleanse yourself. None of the passages take an especially strong stance on the issue. At the same time, it isn't holy to allow yourself to lust after another person (there's a difference between noticing an attractive person as a reflex and drooling after her, or imagining her while you masturbate), and it's very difficult and uncommon to masturbate without falling into other traps.

Double EDIT: I should probably attach the link.. it's now in the above paragraph

[Ultima Thulian]

I see I see. I stand corrected.