# Contestant loses Miss USA for not being liberal enough. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798 "2009-04-21T01:14:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/101 "2009-04-21T21:08:10Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > But why don’t we do this–once we get to the point that there’s as much scientific evidence in support of those two positions as there is currently about homosexuality being innate, then we can have that discussion. OK? So you would repeat the same historical cultural processes that were used against and resulted in the current gay rights situation, against these minority groups\* you\* disagree with? :dubious: Wasn’t that one of the key arguments against gay marriage for a long time? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/102 "2009-04-21T21:10:34Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Do you have _proof_ that there’s no such thing as a “polygamous” sexual orientation? You want him to prove something doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/103 "2009-04-21T21:15:32Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Do you have _proof_ that there’s no such thing as a “polygamous” sexual orientation? My proof is that the concept is logically incoherent. Sexual orientation refers to the sex to whom one is attracted. Polygamy and incest are not about sexual orientation. One isn’t “attracted to being in a polygamous marriage” in the sense that one is attracted to men or women. You’re simply conflating two concepts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/104 "2009-04-21T21:15:37Z")
I want to create something as a legal document, similar to a Do Not Resucitate order people sometimes sign in hospitals. Something that formally declares that if I ever, however briefly, however remotely, give a rats patoot about the selection of Miss USA, for any reason whatsoever, I want to be instantly injected with a lethal overdose of morphine. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/105 "2009-04-21T21:18:45Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Well, for starters, how can one innately be attracted to someone who’s already married? That’s not a biological function but a social construct. That’s like saying I’m innately attracted to Lawyers. It’s nonsense. > > Similiarly, to assert that one has exclusive innate attraction to your immediate blood relations means that in a world of 6.5 billion people, you’ve only got a pool of (generously) a dozen people as viable partners (though they are conveniently accessible). That’s a statistical absurdity that plays as biological cruelty. Oops, I meant to address these too in my last post. For the first: it doesn’t have to be innate attraction to someone who is “married”, but it could be an innate part of someone’s nature to desire being in something other than a single-partner relationship. So, why should such people be utterly prohibited from having their relationships legally recognized? Second part: so what? Why should two adults who happen to be siblings/immediate family/etc. be forbidden from entering into a legally recognized relationship? A “statistical absurdity”, you call it - people with incestuous natures might call your opinion “intolerate” or “bigoted”. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/106 "2009-04-21T21:21:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > My proof is that the concept is logically incoherent. Sexual orientation refers to the sex to whom one is attracted. Polygamy and incest are not about sexual orientation. > > One isn’t “attracted to being in a polygamous marriage” in the sense that one is attracted to men or women. You’re simply conflating two concepts. Why not? We use neurological bases to judge these things as it is. Isn’t thought a function of brain structure? Maybe some people are not wired for monogamy, simple as that. FWIW, this is why IMO genetics particularly as it relates to neurophysiological difference, is a terrible argument and has no real place in ethical discussions. I don’t know my neurology well enough, but I am certain there are studies that say there are neurological similarities between people prone to murderous rages, or between rapists. Just as it’s likely that we can find a pedophile gene. How do you know that there is not an ‘ethnocentrism’ gene or neural pathway? People think the way they do because of how their brain is wired, so using brain wiring as an indicator of whether or not some behavior is acceptable is silly. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/107 "2009-04-21T21:21:41Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Come on now! Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is bad, just as many of those who opposed racial integration or suffrage were not bad people. Just because most of us have recognized this doesn’t mean we can’t give others some time and guidance to help them get to the same point themselves. We are only 35 years from the time where the DSM categorized homosexuality as a category of disorder; a time when many educated professionals thought being gay meant there was something wrong with you. You have to give people some time to adjust their cultural values. It’s frustrating to have to wait for basic rights and respect from others, but it far more productive to do that than to demonize other people. I agree that not everyone who has bigoted opinions is bad in all respects (though some may be) and that it is worthless to look backwards and blame people for views commonly accepted during the time they lived, but I seriously question why a member of a minority group has to pander to, smile at and placate a bigoted individual into accepting the existence of his or her inherent rights. I feel this way about universal suffrage, the abolishment of slavery, the fall of colonization and the recognition of gay marriage and I’m not particularly sorry that we didn’t/don’t wait around to hold people’s hands and plead with them to do the right thing. For one thing, I think it’s surrendermonkeyish and the burden of proof to demonstrate why a right should be withheld falls on the withholder, not the withholdee. Finally, I think it’s plumb unamerican. All that said, I think it’s counterproductive to excessively contemplate upon and go on at length about how awful people who are racist/bigoted/want to abridge someone’s rights are. History doesn’t treat these folk kindly anyway, and spewing expletives about them and going on about their moral failings merely serves to push them further into their corners. They should be dealt with politely, but not from a “negotiating” standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/108 "2009-04-21T21:21:49Z")
How is it “unfair” that she was asked a question about something that happened in _the state she was representing_ which happens to be a topic important to a large portion of the pagent industry’s audience? Good grief, how could she _not_ see something like that coming? And then, she gives an answer that alienates that same large portion of the pagent industry’s audience. This is like auditioning as a tobacco industry spokesperson by giving a speech on how smoking causes cancer. She didn’t lose for not being liberal enough, she lost for not being _smart_ enough. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/109 "2009-04-21T21:22:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I want to create something as a legal document, similar to a Do Not Resucitate order people sometimes sign in hospitals. Something that formally declares that if I ever, however briefly, however remotely, give a rats patoot about the selection of Miss USA, for any reason whatsoever, I want to be instantly injected with a lethal overdose of morphine. Will Fentanyl do in a pinch? ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/110 "2009-04-21T21:25:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > My proof is that the concept is logically incoherent. Sexual orientation refers to the sex to whom one is attracted. Polygamy and incest are not about sexual orientation. > > One isn’t “attracted to being in a polygamous marriage” in the sense that one is attracted to men or women. You’re simply conflating two concepts. I’m talking about differences between innate sexual natures of individuals. Being gay is one innate sexual nature, being attracted to incestuous relationships is another. I _never_ limited my argument to conventional standards of “sexual orientation”, I was specifically questioning the validity of those standards. I was doing so because arguing for legal gay marriage is questioning the validity of the conventional standard argument used by anti-gay marriage folk. I’m just going a step further. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/111 "2009-04-21T21:32:35Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Oops, I meant to address these too in my last post. > > For the first: it doesn’t have to be innate attraction to someone who is “married”, but it could be an innate part of someone’s nature to desire being in something other than a single-partner relationship. So, why should such people be utterly prohibited from having their relationships legally recognized? > > Second part: so what? Why should two adults who happen to be siblings/immediate family/etc. be forbidden from entering into a legally recognized relationship? A “statistical absurdity”, you call it - people with incestuous natures might call your opinion “intolerate” or “bigoted”. Well, incest is illegal, so I’m perfectly fine with that characterization (and, yes, if our cultural values eventually change such that incest becomes more widely accepted socially, then that’s an issue open to discussion, too). And polygamy doesn’t address who you can or can’t marry. It addresses how many you want to at one time. That’s a separate issue that has both social and financial implications on our society (which is why it has also been made illegal). Like I said–why don’t we get to the point where everyone can marry the single person they want to before we begin the date on double and triple-dipping, ok? And in both cases, until we get some scientific evidence actually demonstrating a biological disposition toward the former, trying to equate it to gay marriage simply doesn’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/112 "2009-04-21T21:42:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why not? We use neurological bases to judge these things as it is. Isn’t thought a function of brain structure? Maybe some people are not wired for monogamy, simple as that. Because the argument isn’t that if someone naturally likes doing something related to sex, it must therefore be legal. That’s a vast oversimplification. Instead, the argument is that if you want to prevent a certain class of people from experiencing sex and romantic love with the person to whom they are attracted, you need a damn good reason. In the category of what kind of marriage should be recognized, if you deny gay marriage you deny marriage to an entire group of people altogether unless they get married to someone whom they do not romantically love. If you deny polygamy, you still allow people who prefer polygamous marriage to marry someone whom the romantically love. And, as I pointed out before, since everyone is attracted to multiple sexual partners, restrictions on polygamy don’t run along fault lines of sexual attraction. They run along lines of preferences to structuring legal relationships. A much less protected preference. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/113 "2009-04-21T21:45:29Z")
She said choose twice. That implies that she does not think gays are born that way. Does that mean when she marries, she will have to make a decision whether she will marry a man or a woman? Perhaps picking it out of a hat will do. Sorry ,it was a dumb answer. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/114 "2009-04-21T21:46:48Z")
I think you are the one that is oversimplifying it. What about someone who cannot be satisfied by a single person? Do you deny that someone as such cannot exist? After all I know plenty of people who sleep around all over the place, and others who are serial monogamists. Even when they could be with many people because they are single, they date one person at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/115 "2009-04-21T21:48:55Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Instead, the argument is that if you want to prevent a certain class of people from experiencing sex and romantic love with the person to whom they are attracted, you need a damn good reason. And my argument is that incestuous people are a “certain class of people” who are prevented from legally “experiencing sex and romantic love with the person to whom they are attracted”. Similar arguments apply to other kinds of sexual relationships that go outside the bounds of conventional standards. Yet, you gave arguments against it that are almost exactly the same as arguments used against gay marriage. I don’t get that kind of inconsistency. > [@](#): > > And, as I pointed out before, since everyone is attracted to multiple sexual partners, restrictions on polygamy don’t run along fault lines of sexual attraction. They run along lines of preferences to structuring legal relationships. A much less protected preference. Not everyone is interested in being married to multiple people, not everyone is attracted to multiple sexual partners at the same time, and it’s for damn sure that not everyone is inclined towards “experiencing sex and romantic love” with multiple people. Who are you to make such generalized claims? What about bisexuals, why can they not enter into 3-way marriages to marry someone they love from both sexes? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/116 "2009-04-21T21:53:44Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Another question, what about bisexuals? Surely being bisexual is a legitimate sexual orientation - why can’t a bisexual be married to a man and a woman at the same time? Hi, bisexual checking in. Being bisexual has absolutely nothing to do with being polyamorous. Please don’t conflate the two. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/117 "2009-04-21T21:56:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Hi, bisexual checking in. Being bisexual has absolutely nothing to do with being polyamorous. Please don’t conflate the two. I’m not conflating the two. I’m just arguing that you should have the choice to be in a legally recognized polyamorous relationship, like say if you were in love with a man and a woman at the same time (even more especially if all 3 loved each other the same way)- just because it’s different and goes against current conventional standards isn’t justification for prohibiting it. It’s the same argument made for gay marriage, and I don’t see the principles I’m talking about as being any different from allowing gays to get married. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/118 "2009-04-21T22:10:44Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > I’m not conflating the two. I’m just arguing that you should have the choice to be in a legally recognized polyamorous relationship, like say if you were in love with a man and a woman at the same time (even more especially if all 3 loved each other the same way)- just because it’s different and goes against current conventional standards isn’t justification for prohibiting it. > > It’s the same argument made for gay marriage, and I don’t see the principles I’m talking about as being any different from allowing gays to get married. Yes, you’re conflating the two. You can choose to be in a polyamorous relationship whether you are straight, gay, or bisexual. Bringing up bisexuality at the same time as bringing up polyamorous relationships suggests the two are somehow related, conflating the two ideas. ---
**Author:** ![auburntiger11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bbe5ce/32.png) [@auburntiger11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/auburntiger11)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/119 "2009-04-21T22:11:00Z")
Politics and religion should be left out of the workplace, I consider this a workplace, career, or whatever you call it for the contestants. I believe this question qualifies as both political and having to do with religious view points. There is no doubt this question has a larger impact than other questions. I mean this is one of the most contraversial questions of our society. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798/120 "2009-04-21T22:12:20Z")
Much simpler than all that. If she said something offensive to Jews, she would not win. If she said someting offensive to black people, she would not win. She said something offensive to gay people, and she did not win. Whats the prob, Bob? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contestant-loses-miss-usa-for-not-being-liberal-enough/493798.md?page=7)