Miss California?

[Tanasi]

Her answer may have been unpopular, but the fact that she has violated her contract should've been the sole reason why she shouldn't be able to keep the crown. I don't share her view on marriage being only between a man and woman, but I think it's just the way she gave out her answer as MISS CALIFORNIA. She was supposed to represent the state and keep her opinion/beliefs to herself and she could've given a better response to a loaded question without completely selling herself out during the competition. As for the titty shots...whatever,there's more provocative ones out there than I care to look at (I'm straight btw). Model Christian Girl my ass.

You say she's supposed to answer the question as being someone that represented the whole of California, did not the majority of voters in November agree with her? If she had answered she was all for gay marriage she might have offened even more people. So basically it comes down to who's ox is getting gored.
It was a shitty question and the only reason it and others are asked it they are measuring the contestents abilty to spout off the current politically correct opinion with all the correct buzz words. That's the problem with all this PC shit only a few people are doing any thinking and very little of that. They asked her opinion and she gave it, now the so-called powers that be are trying to come up with anything and everything to get her crown yanked for no other reason than to be spiteful. That's the truth and you know it.
As for Shanna Moakler the translation for her resignation is The Donald told her if she didn't like his decision she could suck lemons. Moakler tried to use some power she thought she had and found out she didn't have it. Now she's looking for work.

[smileyeagle1021]

You say she's supposed to answer the question as being someone that represented the whole of California, did not the majority of voters in November agree with her?

a very slim majority... one of the few votes that couldn't be called until every single ballot had been counted. Also one in which many of the people who voted for it now claim to regret... a good number of people are now saying they weren't voting against gay marriage, they were voting against the slippery slope fear mongering of the so called 'christian' right.

Oh, and just because 50%+1 of a population is bigoted doesn't mean that their spokesperson should be too.

eta- and yes, if you think two gay people should not be granted the same protections as two straight people you are a bigot. Just like if you think all mormons are horrible people because of the church's official stance on gay marriage, you are also a bigot. And, I'll admit that I too, am a bigot, for thinking all republicans are corrupt, uncaring bastards who want to turn the United States of America into the Christian Theocratic Republic of America. I doubt there is a single member of this forum who can legitimately claim to be completely free of bigotry... the question is whether or not you can recognize your bigotry and keep it in check and whether or not your bigotry hurts others. My distrust of republicans isn't going to hurt anyone other than politicians... and honestly, if they lose by my one vote, they probably had bigger problems than just my bigotry against them... when someone else though says that gays shouldn't be granted equal rights, you have ended up discriminating against up to 10% of the population... big difference.

[Nyoibo]

I'm just curious, what was the actual question asked?

Was it "what's your states view on gay marriage?" If so, then perhaps her answer was bad.

If it was "What is your view on gay marriage?" then it has exactly fuck all to do with the views of any one else in California, she was asked her view on it, not someone elses.

[Greenday]

I'm just curious, what was the actual question asked?

Was it "what's your states view on gay marriage?" If so, then perhaps her answer was bad.

If it was "What is your view on gay marriage?" then it has exactly fuck all to do with the views of any one else in California, she was asked her view on it, not someone elses.

She was asked her own view on gay marriage, not the state's. So she gave her own opinion.

[AdminAssistant]

She was asked her own view on gay marriage, not the state's. So she gave her own opinion.

If she has the right to give her own bigoted and morally wrong opinion, then everyone else in the world has the right to speak out against her and point out that her opinion was bigoted and morally wrong. Especially when she's used the attention to become the new lapdog of Fox News and anti-gay marriage organizations.

I'm very glad that Miss USA stepped down in protest; I find that admirable.

[AFPheonix]

She certainly has the right to her opinion, just as everyone else gets the right to call her a bigot.
We also get the right to call Perez an ass, because, well, if I were the gay agenda, I sure wouldn't want his fat ass acting on my behalf.

[Nyoibo]

If she has the right to give her own bigoted and morally wrong opinion, then everyone else in the world has the right to speak out against her and point out that her opinion was bigoted and morally wrong.

I have only one issue with that, don't bring the concept of morality into it, morality is subjective and not quantifiable.

But that's the subject of another post, which I may write tomorrow when my brain isn't foggy.

[Tanasi]

a very slim majority... one of the few votes that couldn't be called until every single ballot had been counted. Also one in which many of the people who voted for it now claim to regret... a good number of people are now saying they weren't voting against gay marriage, they were voting against the slippery slope fear mongering of the so called 'christian' right.

Oh, and just because 50%+1 of a population is bigoted doesn't mean that their spokesperson should be too.

eta- and yes, if you think two gay people should not be granted the same protections as two straight people you are a bigot. Just like if you think all mormons are horrible people because of the church's official stance on gay marriage, you are also a bigot. And, I'll admit that I too, am a bigot, for thinking all republicans are corrupt, uncaring bastards who want to turn the United States of America into the Christian Theocratic Republic of America. I doubt there is a single member of this forum who can legitimately claim to be completely free of bigotry... the question is whether or not you can recognize your bigotry and keep it in check and whether or not your bigotry hurts others. My distrust of republicans isn't going to hurt anyone other than politicians... and honestly, if they lose by my one vote, they probably had bigger problems than just my bigotry against them... when someone else though says that gays shouldn't be granted equal rights, you have ended up discriminating against up to 10% of the population... big difference.

But a majority nonetheless. As you pointed out some that voted against gay marriage expressed some regrets, I wonder why those that regreted their vote for gay marriage wasn't reported???
I agree her opinion didn't need to just represent the majority because it necesarily didn't, her opinion is just that her opinion. She wasn't asked what she thought the opinion of her state about gay marriage was she was asked what her opinion was.
Bigotry or predijuice whatever you want to call it, I agree everyone has it, the difference is if you act upon them. I inparticular distrust yankees, liberals and the majority of democrats. I also distrust anyone that has the idea they know better how to spend my money than I. I'm not a greedy person I donate thousands of pounds of produce to the local food banks, I also donate my time to teach firearm safety to anyone that will listen. That being typed I'm called greedy because I also don't want my pocket picked by the thieves in DC and Nashville even though I donate far more to the hungry than most, my volunteer time is discounted because my cause isn't PC. I see and hear a lot of preaching from the left about be tolerant too bad they're not listening to their own lectures.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't need to be tolerant of people who don't want equal rights for all American citizens. I'm not tolerant of the KKK, for example. Sorry, but I'm just at the end of my rope with the anti-gay marriage crowd. I don't understand it. It pisses me off. It should not be a state-by-state decision any more than slavery should have been. And this little twatwaffle stood up there and supported bigotry and discrimination and she got blasted. If I were to get on a public platform and say something like, "I believe that intermarriage between races is wrong" I would massacred in the press and rightly so.

BTW, I distrust Republicans who claim to believe in "small" government but want to legislate their religious ideals.

[Boozy]

I agree that there's no reason why Miss California shouldn't be judged on her opinion, at least by the general public. However they'd like to run the pageant and it's judging criteria is up to them, but as far as I'm concerned, if Joe Q. Public wants to call Miss California an idiot for believing what she does, that's his right.

People who don't want their opinions to be judged by the public shouldn't choose to engage in pursuits that involve the sharing of opinions in the public sphere. What the hell does she want from us? She stood up and said what she believed. Now we'll stand up and say what we believe. That's how it works.

[smileyeagle1021]

BTW, I distrust Republicans who claim to believe in "small" government but want to legislate their religious ideals.

There is a saying in Utah (and it's probably elsewhere too)... Republicans truly wish to have the smallest government possible... they want it to be able to fit in your bedroom.
Seriously, the republicans mormons in the legislature (votes tend to follow religious lines more than political lines in Utah) spend more time passing laws about what drinks I can drink and where, what movies I can watch, what games I can buy, and who I can sleep with than they do passing laws to curb emissions in the capital city, which by the way has the 6th worst air quality in the country or passing education funding (unless of course a school wants to create a gay straight alliance, then they will spend huge amounts of time finding ways to threaten to cut funding to that school), or even ethics reform. I wish I was joking, but the legislature last year spent more time insuring that it was still legal for employers to discriminate based on orientation than lobbying reform.
Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again, after living in this state I can never again vote Republican unless it is Jon Huntsman... he is the only republican in the state who has proven he's not a bigot... and I'll be honest, I have my own bigotry and I'm not willing to let any other individual who identifies with that party have a chance to prove that they aren't bigots too.

[Slytovhand]

I don't need to be tolerant of people who don't want equal rights for all American citizens.

We're in Fratching, so I thought I'd throw this in... what about equal rights for non-American citizens? Do you need to be an American to have equality in this universe?

[Flyndaran]

We're in Fratching, so I thought I'd throw this in... what about equal rights for non-American citizens? Do you need to be an American to have equality in this universe?

I think that all people should be granted what we consider human rights, but not all national rights. I wish all people could be considered citizens or get rid of that lying Statue of Liberty, but in this screwed up world no one group can fix it all.

[Slytovhand]

Well, I'll slightly rephrase my question then, cos I can see a difference... equal rights vs national priviliges?

<sigh> Ah, for a time when we don't have 'nations'....

[Boozy]

That's a very broad topic, Slyt, and only vaguely related to the Miss California incident. I'd start another thread if you want to pursue that line of debate.