'Opposition to gay marriage' cost contestant Miss USA title

gurramok

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009359.stm

bbc wrote:

The runner-up at the Miss USA beauty pageant says her outspoken opposition to gay marriage cost her first place in the competition.

During the televised event, Carrie Prejean - Miss California - said she believed that "a marriage should be between a man and a woman".

She had been asked for her views on the subject by one of the judges, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

"It did cost me my crown," said Ms Prejean, after the competition
The eventual winner of the pageant was Kristen Dalton, Miss North Carolina.

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," said Ms Prejean, in a section of the show that has become a popular clip on YouTube.

"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she continued.

"No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

The remarks drew a mixture of booing and applause from the audience.

Speaking after the show, which was broadcast on Sunday evening in the US, Ms Prejean said: "I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do."

Hilton said he had been "floored" by Ms Prejean's answer, which, he said, "alienated millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters".

He told ABC News: "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that."

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, released a statement condemning Ms Prejean's comments.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman."

Maybe she is just a blonde bimbo?

More snaps here http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/members/profile/220

Insect Overlord

Sounds like they rigged the contest with that choice of question.

Sharpshooter

Live and let live I say, that's the way I was raised.

ScumLord

What a tool, saying you don't like gays at such a gay event. :rolleyes:

netwhizkid

What I can't figure out is why anyone would be gay when there are women are hot as her in the world. Plus she is a conservative +1 for me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

She is entitled to her opinion, she doesn't come accross as someone who is completely opposed to same sex marriage. Pfft, another contraversial thread that will suck me in no doubt...

J.S. Pill

An File wrote: »

Sounds like they rigged the contest with that choice of question.

That would seem to be the case alright. Does the global liberal ascendency know any bounds!?

Tom65

Deny people that are different to me their rights, I say.


No offence, but that's the way I was raised.

AnonoBoy

Who would have thunk that stating you're not in favour of gay marriage would draw a negative reaction at a beauty pageant of all things? :eek:

Have those gays not robbed us of enough of our traditional male bastions of heterosexuality already? Now they've only gone and taken beauty pageants as well....

Greedy bastards.

dsmythy

So expressing a view that is shared by millions of other Americans is not allowed. Well it is allowed but it will be used against you in the future.

rainbow kirby

No place for bigoted views tbh. Glad she lost.

gurramok

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

This is post no. 8.

Are you going to post at post no.16 as well?

Should there be a rematch of the contest without that question?

randylonghorn

An File wrote: »

Sounds like they rigged the contest with that choice of question.

In fairness, while I don't have any sympathy with her views, I am curious as to whether anyone else got asked that question, or any similarly loaded / barbed ones, and if not, why was it directed specifically at her?

gurramok

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, while I don't have any sympathy with her views, I am curious as to whether anyone else got asked that question, or any similarly loaded / barbed ones, and if not, why was it directed specifically at her?

Maybe it was because California(where she's from) was in the news recently about gay marriage? (they introduced it but were forced by some court to drop it)

dsmythy

gurramok wrote: »

Maybe it was because California(where she's from) was in the news recently about gay marriage? (they introduced it but were forced by some court to drop it)

Gay marriage was stopped after a referendum on it during the presidential elections wasn't it?

rainbow kirby

It had been legal for about 4 months, but the Mormons basically bought Proposition 8 and are now trying to get 18,000 legal marriages invalidated.

gurramok

True. So the court introduced it and the electorate banned it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_California

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in In re Marriage Cases.[3] The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008.[4] The Court declined to stay its decision until after the November elections.[5] Some reports suggested that out-of-state same-sex couples would marry in California prior to the 2008 elections because California does not require the marriage to be valid in the couple's home state.

Proposition 8 is a proposed constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act,[6] whose proponents intend to override the Court's decision. The measure appeared on the 2008 California general election ballot in November 2008, and passed with a 52% majority.[7][8] The California Supreme Court has agreed to listen to several challenges to Proposition 8 as early as March 2009.[9]

laurashambles

Nice of the BBC to tidy up her answer like that. =] She went on about how it was great that she lives in a country where people have the right to choose between same-sex marriage or "opposite marriage" but in her country, in her family marriage should be between a man and a woman...

btw, what the heck is "opposite marriage"? - and in the vast majority of states you can't "choose". The fact that she said "choose" makes me think she's one of those "homosexuality is a CHOICE" people which makes me even more inclined to think she's a moron.

dlofnep

Well, she's honest. I'll give her that. She's just expressing her opinion. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

AND FTR, I support gay-marriage and find it somewhat mind-boggling that anyone would object to two people committing to each other, when it has nothing to do with them at all.

randylonghorn

gurramok wrote: »

Maybe it was because California(where she's from) was in the news recently about gay marriage? (they introduced it but were forced by some court to drop it)

You could be right, actually.

It's still a very loaded question at an event of that type, where the usual standard of question is "do you believe in world peace?" ... and they still get it wrong!!

book smarts

dlofnep wrote: »

AND FTR, I support gay-marriage and find it somewhat mind-boggling that anyone would object to two people committing to each other, when it has nothing to do with them at all.

What about incestous adult marriage? A father and adult daughter for example. They're consenting adults aren't they? Or what about straight same-sex platonic friends who wish to "commit"? Or is that beyond the boundaries of whatever modern moral fashion that academia and the media have convinced you to believe?

The_Minister

netwhizkid wrote: »

What I can't figure out is why anyone would be gay when there are women are hot as her in the world. Plus she is a conservative +1 for me.

When did you get back?
Missed you.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It had been legal for about 4 months, but the Mormons basically bought Proposition 8 and are now trying to get 18,000 legal marriages invalidated.

Actually, more money came from outside the state AGAINST prop 8 then in favour of it.:rolleyes:



I think it's rediculous to punish a contestant for representing the views of her state, as voted by the electorate.

jimmycrackcorm

I thought that Americans treasured free speech - or is that just for people on street corners and not for anything on tv.

netwhizkid

The_Minister wrote: »

When did you get back?
Missed you.

Big hug;) missed you too, back since the start of the month, it was a long two years on that desert Island, I swear I am never flying Ryanair again, the places they crash land these days.

laurashambles

book smarts wrote: »

What about incestous adult marriage? A father and adult daughter for example. They're consenting adults aren't they? Or what about straight same-sex platonic friends who wish to "commit"? Or is that beyond the boundaries of whatever modern moral fashion that academia and the media have convinced you to believe?

Incest between a father and daughter can never be properly consensual. Sure, consenting adults they may be but there are going to be power dynamics at play. Even then, Incestuous relationships between consensual adults is extremely rare. It almost always starts out as child abuse. It's two in the morning and I'm tired so I'm not going to go into this but I'm going to copy and paste this from another forum:

- father/consenting adult child: The structure of power and authority here is completely twisted. Not only did the father presumably discipline his child from a young age, but he supported and instructed the child to a great extent probably up to 16/17 years of age. 16/17 years of an unequal and one-side dominant relationship cannot be erased as soon as the 50-yo father and 25-yo daughter or son decide to engage in a "consensual" relationship. It doesn't work like that. I put consensual in quotes because I feel that it is impossible for the child in that situation to make a clear and fully autonomous decision when faced with the question of an incestuous relationship. The history of father/daughter absolutely clouds everything. It doesn't work. This applies to mother/consenting adult child as well.

- sibling/sibling: The power dynamics aren't as clear, but depending on age they are still in play for certain. With one sibling being older, there's the 'need to protect' factor, the 'babysitter' factor, and then general sibling rivalry. Here, I think cultural taboo plays an bigger role. The pressure and stress of the relationship being taboo would, I feel, make it impossible to have a normal, healthy relationship since most people cannot escape the expectations of society. And while someone might retort with "homosexuality was considered socially taboo," incest and homosexuality absolutely are not the same experience. What I mean is that homosexuality's level of "taboo-ness" is MUCH more varied; in some cultures, it's not taboo at all (i.e. Ancient Greece) and throughout history its experience has been different where ever you went. Today, homosexuality is more-or-less tolerated, if not totally accepted by everyone. With very few exceptions, however, incest is across-the-board taboo. There are historical examples of incest acceptance (Greek gods, anyone?) but again, to a much less degree than homosexuality. In short, homosexuality and incest have had very different experiences.

There are hetero marriages of convenience all the time. Would you have a problem with a gay male marrying a straight female or vice versa?

laurashambles

And that's before you even take inbreeding into account.

daveharnett

She has a lovely bottom.

nevershutsup

she got asked the question when she chose judge number 8 out of a bowl for her random question that corresponded to perez hiltons panel number. perez himself is gay and it was topical because vermont became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marraige. she answered the question badly.

randylonghorn

nevershutsup wrote: »

she got asked the question when she chose judge number 8 out of a bowl for her random question ...

Ah! ... in fairness, that would seem to negate the possibility that she was deliberately targetted all right ...

DonkeyStyle \o/

She should have given that waffling, non-commital "I believe it's all about integrity" answer the other woman gave when asked about universal healthcare.

netwhizkid

daveharnett wrote: »

She has a lovely bottom.

Now all the girls have lovely bottoms, isn't that right Ted?

corkkaz

nevershutsup wrote: »

she got asked the question when she chose judge number 8 out of a bowl for her random question that corresponded to perez hiltons panel number. perez himself is gay and it was topical because vermont became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marraige. she answered the question badly.

think she got booed too!!!

I dont agree with her but I think her honesty and her opinions should not have been thrown at her in such a negative way.

Sabre0001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

ibarelycare

Although I disagree with the girl's views, I think the backlash is completely unfair. Who's to say whether her answer is wrong or right? It's an opinion. If she had said she was all FOR gay marriage then there would be people from the opposite side complaining :rolleyes:

I think fair play to her for speaking about what she believes in and not conforming to the beliefs of the judges and the audience.

cotwold

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Live and let live I say, that's the way I was raised.

A comment like that simply defends her attitude. If you hadn't been raised that way you're implying you might just as easily deny gay marriage on the same basis. The most insulting aspect of Miss California's comments in my opinion was that her opinion was hers because 'that was the way she was raised'. Why cant people make up their own mind, they're not expressing their opinions, theyre expressing their parents.

0ubliette

Shes just as entitled to say she doesnt support gay marriage as anyone else is entitled to say they do support it. And if she lost because she doesnt support it thats discrimination in itself, essentially saying 'you need to be in line with this specific point of view or you wont win'.

prinz

Equal rights, is equal rights for all. She just got clearly discriminated against because of her views. I respect her more for speaking her mind, too many people are afraid to do so these days for fear of upsetting someone or being politically-incorrect.

philologos

I'm glad that she stood up for her opinions, and didn't succumb to public pressure. It's not bigoted to disagree with a particular structure of marriage, many people have objections to this. It's another sign basically of discrimination for your views. I'm sure there would be outrage if someone said "I'm gay and I'm all for it" and they lost. It would be clear homophobia, but still what's the difference between discriminating this woman for her views, and discriminating another for their sexuality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html

^^ In many situations peoples rights to freedom of speech are being curbed over this issue, and I think people in the US need to speak out against it.

Irishcrx

I'm not against people being themselfs, so I have no problem with people being gay if they cannot help it but I don't believe it is natural if it was we would all be extinct. I do believe the bible (If people believe in that) outlawed homosexuality therefore making it a sin, so why would gay people get married if it is totally against the church and who is a government to decide that.

If they want the tax relief fine, give it to them but don't call it marriage change it to something else and keep everybody happy.

Sharpshooter

cotwold wrote: »

A comment like that simply defends her attitude. If you hadn't been raised that way you're implying you might just as easily deny gay marriage on the same basis. The most insulting aspect of Miss California's comments in my opinion was that her opinion was hers because 'that was the way she was raised'. Why cant people make up their own mind, they're not expressing their opinions, theyre expressing their parents.

I said I was raised to live and let live.

Which meant I was raised to live my life in the way I choose and let others do the same.

So in case you need it put another way, I was raised not to judge people for their choice of lifestyle.

How does that defend her attitude?

Sleipnir

0ubliette wrote: »

Shes just as entitled to say she doesnt support gay marriage as anyone else is entitled to say they do support it. And if she lost because she doesnt support it thats discrimination in itself, essentially saying 'you need to be in line with this specific point of view or you wont win'.

+1 to that. "What, you say the jews are human? You can't have an opinion like that! Change your views immediately.

ibarelycare

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'm not against people being themselfs, so I have no problem with people being gay if they cannot help it but I don't believe it is natural if it was we would all be extinct. I do believe the bible (If people believe in that) outlawed homosexuality therefore making it a sin, so why would gay people get married if it is totally against the church and who is a government to decide that.

If they want the tax relief fine, give it to them but don't call it marriage change it to something else and keep everybody happy.

The bible also states that sex before marriage is a sin....so should people who do this be getting married if it goes against the church?

Marriage isn't necessarily a relgious union.

Sleipnir

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I said I was raised to live and let live.

Which meant I was raised to live my life in the way I choose and let others do the same.
So in case you need it put another way, I was raised not to judge people for their choice of lifestyle.

How does that defend her attitude?

Because you're forcing the views of your own upbringing on her.

"I was brought up to believe in live and let live. Therefore, you should also believe in live and let live.

cotwold

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I said I was raised to live and let live.

Which meant I was raised to live my life in the way I choose and let others do the same.

So in case you need it put another way, I was raised not to judge people for their choice of lifestyle.

How does that defend her attitude?

I'm not trying to attack you so sorry if it came across like that. however im saying that using your upbringing to justify your current attitudes isn't necessarily positive, yeah it's great in your case where you've a positive out look but in the case on Miss California she's hiding behind the same justification. "the way i was raised". I just don't think its a positive way of thinking.

Sharpshooter

Sleipnir wrote: »

Because you're forcing the views of your own upbringing on her.

"I was brought up to believe in live and let live. Therefore, you should also believe in live and let live.

I was speaking of my upbringing, I live and let live.

Which also means I don't judge her for her opinions.
What are you not getting in that answer?

prinz

cotwold wrote: »

I'm not trying to attack you so sorry if it came across like that. however im saying that using your upbringing to justify your current attitudes isn't necessarily positive, yeah it's great in your case where you've a positive out look but in the case on Miss California she's hiding behind the same justification. "the way i was raised". I just don't think its a positive way of thinking.

Everyone's formative years and upbringing have an effect on their own personality and viewpoints. Like it or not. You might not always agree with your parents or guardians, but that does not mean that how they raised you does not shape your own, even if differing, opinions.

Nobody's opinions are formed in a vacuum. The world around us shapes who we are and what we think. So it's just as legitimate to say your upbringing resulted in your opinion, than TV and the media shaped your opinions, or friends, or posts on Boards. Frankly it's better to have the people who raised you from the time you were born have the greatest influence on you.

cotwold

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I was speaking of my upbringing, I live and let live.

Which also means I don't judge her for her opinions.
What are you not getting in that answer?

Well basically defending your opinions or attitudes behind your upbringing is a cop out.

Sharpshooter

cotwold wrote: »

Well basically defending your opinions or attitudes behind your upbringing is a cop out.

What opinions?

philologos

We could argue all day about her point of view, however by and large the main point of this is the suppression of peoples rights to speak out on what they believe in when asked. No matter what side you take on this issue it should be clear that at least the right to freedom of speech should be paramount.

Irishcrx

ibarelycare wrote: »

The bible also states that sex before marriage is a sin....so should people who do this be getting married if it goes against the church?

Marriage isn't necessarily a relgious union.

I don't know to be honest i'm atheist myself I think the church has so many flaws and hypocracy's in it I wouldn't know where to begin but it is my opinion that gay marriage is not right simply because I feel it is not natural i think it is a step to far. By all means they should get couples rights and tax breaks but marriage itself I feel is a union between a man and a woman.

Mr. Frost

Sabre0001 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

Good on her. At least she was honest and didn't go for the text book answer. I'm indifferent to the whole thing tbh.

Priceless seeing that fcuking gimp "Perez Hiltons' mug at the end of that clip! :pac: