miss usa gay marriage

[B_Marius567]

the last miss usa lost her crown becouse she was not for gay marriage so are the pro gay marriage going after the new miss usa if she is not for gay marriage and take her crown away?

 

[valstateguy]

well put bender it wasnt because she was antigay she just didnt know how to conduct herself in public!

 

[B_Marius567]

If she's the same as the last bitch,i hope they torch her.

what happen to freedom of speech

 

[B_VinylBoy]

what happen to freedom of speech

Nothing. Some people just can't come to grips that the freedom to say what you want does come with consequences.

 

[FuzzyKen]

I think that if the young lady had kept her mouth shut about her personal belief system she would never have had a problem. Though I strongly disagree with her viewpoint as long as she does not vomit hate and venom she has the right to her opinion. Her problem as I remember it was that she would not back down and tried to not only have the publicity, but, to use her title and celebrity much as Anita Bryant did back in the 1970's to become a podium for that viewpoint. I felt that Trump had a hard job when that title was taken. As the holder of the crown she is supposed to be an example of the good of people. After all the Gold Medal wins in the Olympics many years ago Swimmer Greg Louganis was to be placed on the cover of and have product endorsements and commercials with General Mills who makes Wheaties Breakfast Cereal. Finding out he was gay gave that company a giant headache. If they kept him and did not terminate that contract they would have faced the "Born Agains" and in a business move they did the same thing in reverse. Louganis was quietly stripped of many of the product endorsements based on his orientation which was some financial rewards for all of his hard years of training. There are many others in the Olympics who have come out openly, but it was not done back in Louganis time. It was a bad scene, but she seemed determined to do the talk shows and to speak on TBN and other places about her "opinions".

 

[nudeyorker]

I moved the thread because I don't think it is at heart a political issue. Carrie Prejean did not loose the crown (Miss USA) because she had anti-gay beliefs. She never had the crown to begin with; she tried to assert that she did not win because of her beliefs.( She was first runner up) She was later stripped of her Miss California title because she breached the contract with the pageant.

 

[classyron]

The topic is valid though, regardless of the particulars regarding Carrie Prejean. We fight against right-wing oppression of freedoms and beliefs and openly accept left-wing oppression of the very same things. There is always some smug justification that follows when a "liberal" person insults you for not supporting their views or causes.

I support gay marriage, but even more I support anyone's right to not support it. I always support any detractor's right to openly express their views as loudly as any supporter, in any social matter. That is democracy, you cannot have it one way without the other.

If you travel far enough to the left, you will end up on the right.

 

[crescendo69]

Though I don't agree with the straight life-style, I support straight marriage, as long as they don't try to impose it on me.

 

[TomCat84]

Nothing. Some people just can't come to grips that the freedom to say what you want does come with consequences.

This.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

We fight against right-wing oppression of freedoms and beliefs and openly accept left-wing oppression of the very same things. There is always some smug justification that follows when a "liberal" person insults you for not supporting their views or causes.

There's nothing smug about being on the correct side of a moral argument, especially if the end result allows people to live their lives without impeding on anyone else's. In this case, someone needs to explain what is so "oppressing" about allowing two people of the same sex get married?

I support gay marriage, but even more I support anyone's right to not support it. I always support any detractor's right to openly express their views as loudly as any supporter, in any social matter. That is democracy, you cannot have it one way without the other.

That's fine. People can say that they don't support gay rights, hate gay people or cannot come to grips that two men or two women can get married. But what a person says and what they do are two entirely different things. We sometimes tend to think oppositions to one's beliefs are an attempt to censor, when in reality two parties are using their right to speak to say exactly what they feel. As we move forward this becomes less of an issue. The world has not come to an end since countries have allowed same sex couples to marry and the Earth will continue to spin once it's finally approved here in the United States.

 

[classyron]

There's nothing smug about being on the correct side of a moral argument

There is no correct side. There are two sides who are entitled to their opinions. Believing that liberals are always on the correct side is where it is smug. And, for the record, morals are based on accepted tradition and societal norms. I do not think that you want to bring those into a debate about gay marriage, because they really do not reflect your opinion. Whether we feel it is right or not has zero to do with morals, it has to do with opinion. If it comes to a popular vote, and the majority vote in favor of it only then will being against it be immoral.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There is no correct side. There are two sides who are entitled to their opinions.

That always varies on the angle you want to view an argument. We can look at same sex marriage from a financial angle, a religious angle or from a civil rights angle (just to name a few). Each angle produces a variety of arguments, and despite people's entitlement to speak their mind one argument will always be more factual or more accepted by those reading the content. I tend to believe that a more factually based argument should trump one that is popular, alas, we're not gonna change the world on a big dick site anytime soon. :tongue:

If we want to leave it on the idea that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" and nothing more, then nothing gets resolved. Two people give their opinions with hopes to influence others, and then leave the discussion. However, there's still an issue about whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized. Eventually an action needs to be taken to resolve the conflict, and that doesn't get done when people do nothing but give their opinions.

Believing that liberals are always on the correct side is where it is smug.

This thread was initially taken out of the Politics section since this really has nothing to do with it. Let's not put politics back into the equation, since the ability to feel "smug" isn't reserved to one specific party or set ideology.

And, for the record, morals are based on accepted tradition and societal norms. I do not think that you want to bring those into a debate about gay marriage, because they really do not reflect your opinion.

Depends on where you want to look. I wouldn't expect highly religious people in the "bible belt" to be accepting of gay marriage. In major cities such as New York or San Francisco however, the consensus is much different. On top of this, whether or not people personally accept it or push for legislation to prevent it from happening are two entirely different things. We shouldn't be conflating the two since there are many things people in our country don't accept but do allow to happen on a daily basis. In other words, "live and let live". A simple premise that would solve a lot of societal problems if you ask me.

Lastly, I never once told you my opinion about same sex marriage, so beyond seeing "90% Gay / 10% Straight" in my profile and jumping to conclusions you really don't have any idea if my thoughts reflect the general consensus at all. But let me share that with you now... I'm a gay man whose about to move to a city where same sex marriage is legal with my partner of 7+ years, and I still don't think we're going to get married for any real reason unless it's necessary to protect any and all investments we have generated together from being seized if either one of us dies. We don't need a ring on our fingers or go through any ceremony that won't be recognized by others just to reflect the loving relationship we have. At the same time, we both understand from a societal and financial level why same sex marriage should be legal.

Whether we feel it is right or not has zero to do with morals, it has to do with opinion.

In societal matters, one is in direct relation to the other. There's no sense for anyone trying to explain why they don't support same sex marriage, when most people invoke a stance that touches on the ideology of religion, and claim that personal morals have nothing to do with the argument. From fearing that God is against it to not feeling sexually attracted to people of the same sex, it's all moral based.

If it comes to a popular vote, and the majority vote in favor of it only then will being against it be immoral.

Although any legislation needs a majority vote in Congress to pass, civil rights actions should not be decided by majority vote of civilians. Case in point, women didn't get the right to vote due to a popular vote by our nation's citizens.

 

[Rikter8]

I never liked that show anyway. Bimbo broads that have no brain.

Grant the 65 yr old woman thats a greeter at Wal-Mart the crown - because she's deserving of it.
She's most likely worked a good 60 of her years somewhere, retired but since they took her pension and healthcare away - she has to work again.

Points:
1. Strong work ethic - 1000 points
2. Determination to succeed - 1000 points
3. Been there Done that - 5000 points
4. Been a grandmother with spit equivalent to 409 - 1000 points
5. Willingness to nail your ass at the door for stealing - 10,000 points.

Go granny Go!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I nominate Rikter8 to be a judge on the next pageant. :wink:

 

[nudeyorker]

I once was a judge for Miss America and I had a good friend who was Miss America in the 70's... it's mostly woman trying to get money for an education. The following is the mission statement of The Miss America Pageant... Unfortunately the public only gets a look at the ugly side of the pageant and contestants that are news worthy instead of what it stands for 99.99% of the time.

To provide unique opportunities for young American women to win financial assistance in the nature of scholarship awards as a means of achieving their educational goals, and to create an maintain a system and produce role models representing positive wholesome American values.

To extend the benefits of the Miss America Scholarship Program beyond those young women who choose to compete for the crown of Miss America by providing scholarships to colleges and universities.

To utilize the Miss America name to promote generally those issues of concern to the American women, and to encourage and promote the role of all aspects of our society.

To recognize women who have made outstanding contributions in all fields of endeavor and specifically to women's issues.

To encourage the spirit of volunteerism throughout the Miss America Pageant's network of local and state pageants and to promote good will and civic and economic benefits in the towns and cities which host the competitions leading to the Miss America crown.

 

[Bbucko]

I moved the thread because I don't think it is at heart a political issue. Carrie Prejean did not loose the crown (Miss USA) because she had anti-gay beliefs. She never had the crown to begin with; she tried to assert that she did not win because of her beliefs.( She was first runner up) She was later stripped of her Miss California title because she breached the contract with the pageant.

Thank you for posting this. It counters the flatulent, lazy and inaccurate OP.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I am opposed to shooting stupid people, but if someone went out and shot a bunch of stupid people, I'd applaud the exercise of their freedom of expression.