Contestant loses Miss USA for not being liberal enough.

[brazil84]

@brazil84

I don’t understand your argument and I’m not sure what you mean by “comparable.” Can you give me an example of something you consider comparable to being gay (or straight) and explain why it’s comparable? Thank you.

Just to follow up on my question, it appears to me that you have chosen an ad hoc definition of bigotry which conveniently lets you label as a “bigot” just those whom you want.

In other words, it would appear your argument basically boils down to “That’s different. I won’t explain why, it’s just different.”

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@brazil84

Just to follow up on my question, it appears to me that you have chosen an ad hoc definition of bigotry which conveniently lets you label as a “bigot” just those whom you want.

In other words, it would appear your argument basically boils down to “That’s different. I won’t explain why, it’s just different.”

For one thing, gay marriages are no more harmful to anyone than opposite marriages. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages involve young girls, are motivated by fundamentalist religious beliefs that devalue women, and are generally harmful to the women involved.

I have no problem with people who genuinely choose to be in open relationships and if they wanted to marry a few of each other I don’t really care. The problem is that in reality, legalizing polygamy would legitimize abusive men on compounds who want to marry 14 year olds. That’s why it’s stupid and disingenuous to compare it to gay marriage.

A better comparison would be to interracial marriage.

Here’s a good litmus test. Is there any reasonable opposition to gay marriage that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of gays? No.

Is there any reasonable opposition to interracial marriage that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of people of different races? No.

Is there any reasonable opposition to polygamy that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of polygamists? Yes, absolutely.

[Paleface]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

Instead of looking for crickets, you should read all the posts where we responded to it and said it was very bad of Mr Obama and that history will not judge him well in regard to his position which is undeniably bigoted and wrong.

I did read the few responses, but none had the same vicious tone directed at President Obama as what was directed at Miss Prejean. Such as:

@YogSosoth

I for one am happy she lost for that answer.

People must fight against that type of bigotry wherever it exists, until gays are as accepted as straights in society.

Somehow, I don’t get the feeling that this responder would be as happy if President Obama lost the election for holding the same sentiments as Miss Prejean. From this I can only assume that the responder views the personal beliefs of a beauty pagent contestant to be more important than the personal beliefs of the President of the United States.

And this responder:

@Der_Trihs

Yes, they all are, and yes, they all were. They are all bigots, and bigots are “bad people”.

… does not seem to hold the same animosity towards President Obama.

@Miller

You need to get your ears checked.

No, I can hear just fine. Those who were so quick to condemn Miss Prejean for “bigotry”, have had to swallow hard and render token condemnation towards President Obama. But there certainly is a difference in the tone of the condemnation. Right?

[tim-n-va]

Since the original question had to do with the fairness of the question and not the fairness of gay marriage, consider this quote:

Hilton, who also appeared on the “Today” show Tuesday, said his question was relevant and that Prejean should have “left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans.”

It seems to me that if you leave religion and politics out of it, there is no valid question at all.

If support for gay marriage or any other social policy issue is the criteria for being Miss USA, that should be part of the entry process (a check list of things to believe to enter). It should be a reason to screen at the last step of the process.

[gonzomax]

@Miller

Of course I did. Who the fuck else was I going to vote for?

I’m sorry, but this whole “Gotcha!” line of argument is so incredibly stupid. There is not, and had never been, a viable presidential candidate who supported full equality for gays and lesbians. For anyone who has an interest in gay rights, the choice has always been between someone who thinks we should only have some rights, and someone who think we should have even less rights. Obama’s come as close to supporting full equality as any major candidate ever has, but he’s still fallen a bit short. Maybe in four years, he’ll make up the difference, or maybe we’ll have to wait on whoever the Dems run in 2016. If that candidate is still not quite there, we’ll probably vote for him anyway, because the Republican candidate is almost certainly going to be even more retrograde on the subject.

And, of course, there’s the fact that, as passionately as some of us feel about the subject, virtually no one votes solely on a candidate’s position on gay rights. Frankly, I’d have voted for Obama even if his position on gay rights was just this side of “God hates fags,” because there’s a bunch of other fucked up stuff going on with this country right now that’s a hell of a lot more important than gay rights, and he seemed far more capable of handling them intelligently than the opposition. Some of you seem to be deliberately missing, being president of the United States is actually more important than being Miss America. Kicking this bimbo out of the top slot of a meat showdoesn’t actually matter. Making sure John “Which ones are the Sunnis again?” McCain isn’t responsible for resolving the mess in Iraq, on the other hand, is pretty fucking important. So, yeah, we compromise on the gay rights issue, because that issue doesn’t involve nearly as many people being shot to death in a fucking desert on the other side of the planet.

So, yes, we voted for a bigot for president last year. Just like we did in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, and every other presidential election year ever since the concept of gay rights was first articulated. This isn’t new, this is the sort of choice we’ve always had to make, and it’s the sort of choice we’ll no doubt have to make again in the future. Congratulations to those of you who have just figured this out today. Welcome to the real world, I hope you all enjoy your stay.

Obama’s stance was tempered by political realities. What he said was a positive for getting elected. It is not a front line issue ,except mostly for gays. It does not necessarily give you an insight into his convictions. It gives you an insight into the political stance of the Dem Party who was searching for a candidate. I am not prepared to say that is what his real belief is. On a personal level ,he may not have any objection to gay marriage. But as a representative of his party ,he felt it necessary to follow what the party was espousing. I would be surprised if he actually believes gays should be treated as lesser people.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@Paleface

I did read the few responses, but none had the same vicious tone directed at President Obama as what was directed at Miss Prejean.

Oh I see. So when you said “Nope, nobody wants to touch this. All I hear is crickets chirping,” you meant that you read all the responses and… didn’t appreciate them?

@Paleface

Such as:Somehow, I don’t get the feeling that this responder would be as happy if President Obama lost the election for holding the same sentiments as Miss Prejean. From this I can only assume that the responder views the personal beliefs of a beauty pagent contestant to be more important than the personal beliefs of the President of the United States.

Apparently you can’t hear well at all because several people have written very clear posts explaining that no candidate has ever supported equal rights for gays and that the only option is to pick the one who supports some rights over the one who supports none. Or you could make some idiotic assumption about beauty pagents being more important than the presidency. Up to you.

[brazil84]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

For one thing, gay marriages are no more harmful to anyone than opposite marriages. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages involve young girls, are motivated by fundamentalist religious beliefs that devalue women, and are generally harmful to the women involved.

I have no problem with people who genuinely choose to be in open relationships and if they wanted to marry a few of each other I don’t really care. The problem is that in reality, legalizing polygamy would legitimize abusive men on compounds who want to marry 14 year olds. That’s why it’s stupid and disingenuous to compare it to gay marriage.

Let’s suppose there is a proposal to legalize polygamous marriage if (and only if) it is among consenting adults. Is anyone who opposes that proposal a bigot?

Is there any reasonable opposition to polygamy that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of polygamists? Yes, absolutely.

Can you give me an example? For example, what is a reason to oppose legalized polygamous marriage among consenting adults that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of such folks?

[MovieMogul]

@brazil84

Can you give me an example? For example, what is a reason to oppose legalized polygamous marriage among consenting adults that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of such folks?

Here you go:

The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but that’s pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women…

But legalized polygamy could lead to the structures of family and society being radically realigned. And anyone who thinks that realignment wouldn’t favor men (even in our happy, open society) is forgetting basic biology. A man can father many children and so would have use for many wives. A woman can only have one child at a time and thus needs only one husband. Thus in a polygamous culture, it is the men who have the power.

I am sure there are a few hippy-dippy polygamous relationships out there where everyone involved is loved and treated as an equal. But that is simply not the natural state of polygamy and those rare examples are no reason for us to even consider legalizing the act.

Also:

My view is that polygamy would impose substantial social costs in a modern Western-type society that probably would not be offset by the benefits to the parties to polygamous marriages. (For elaboration, see my book Sex and Reason (1992), particularly Chapter 9.) Especially given the large disparities in wealth in the United States, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. Moreover, intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and therefore reduce women’s market output.

Of course, forbidding the wealthy to buy a particular commodity is usually inferior to taxation as a method of reducing inequality. Yet we do forbid the buying of votes, which could be thought a parallel device to forbidding the “buying” of wives: one vote, one wife. We think that vote buying would have undesirable political consequences. So might polygamy. In societies in which polygamy is permitted without any limitation on the number of wives, wealthy households become clans, since all the children of a polygamous household are related through having the same father, no matter how many different mothers they have. These clans can become so powerful as to threaten the state’s monopoly of political power; this is one of the historical reasons for the abolition of polygamy, though it would be unlikely to pose a serious danger to the stability of American government.

In polygamous households, the father invests less time in the upbringing of his children, because there are more of them. There is also less reciprocal affection between husband and wife, because they spend less time together. Household goverance under polygamy is bound to be more hierarchical than in monogamous marriage, because the household is larger and the ties of affection weaker; as a result, “agency costs” are higher and so the principal (the husband, as head of the household) has to devise and implement means of supervision that would be unnecessary in a monogamous household. (An additional factor is that women in a polygamous household have a greater incentive to commit adultery since they have less frequent sex with, and affection for, their husband, so the husband has to watch them more carefully to prevent their straying.) This managerial responsibility deflects the husband from more socially productive activities.

And:

There is good reason to outlaw polygamy. Marriage is the most romantic institution because it establishes the inviolate uniqueness of its participants. A woman is made to feel that she is the one and only to her husband. A husband’s devotion confers upon his wife the blessings of primacy and exclusivity. But polygamy subverts that pledge, establishing not a woman’s uniqueness, but her ordinariness. Her husband marries her with the express understanding that she alone will not satisfy him. He requires others. She is inadequate.

Likewise, she is forced now to compete for his affections for the rest of her life, thereby immersing in her an unnatural competition for the man who ahs already pledged himself to her. This competition also erodes the natural fraternity and universal sisterhood of women, engaged as they are, even after marriage, for the affections of the same man.

In this sense, polygamy fosters unending rivalry and leads not to peace and harmony but to altercation and strife. How can any polygamous marriage be happy when, by its very nature, it does not bring people together but drives them apart.

Marriage is the very foundation of every civilized society precisely because of its civilizing influences. Marriage takes a man and a woman who are strangers to each other, orchestrates them together into inseparable flesh, and lends children a stable and secure environment within which to be raised.

Polygamy, however, offers children a model not of security but of rivalry, not of confidence but of permanent insecurity, as the members of a single household compete to be favorites. It is a toxic environment in which men are kings and women are courtiers.

[magellan01]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

For one thing, gay marriages are no more harmful to anyone than opposite marriages. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages involve young girls, are motivated by fundamentalist religious beliefs that devalue women, and are generally harmful to the women involved.

I have no problem with people who genuinely choose to be in open relationships and if they wanted to marry a few of each other I don’t really care. The problem is that in reality, legalizing polygamy would legitimize abusive men on compounds who want to marry 14 year olds. That’s why it’s stupid and disingenuous to compare it to gay marriage.

A better comparison would be to interracial marriage.

Here’s a good litmus test. Is there any reasonable opposition to gay marriage that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of gays? No.

Is there any reasonable opposition to interracial marriage that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of people of different races? No.

Is there any reasonable opposition to polygamy that isn’t ultimately based on hatred or intolerance of polygamists? Yes, absolutely.

Uh, your bias is showing. Let’s look at what marriage has generally believed to have been for eons. The union of one man and woman in a long-term committed relationship. It has also been the institution that has been the foundation for raising a family. Skin color has no conflict with that notion whatsoever. The proof of that is the blacks were allowed to marry blacks. So, no, that is not a good analogy. Not that it will stop it from forever being dragged out by SSM proponents.

But the same is not true for gay couples or polygamists. Both of those types of relationships run afoul of the definition. Now, we can choose to broaden the definition of marriage. We can choose to include in that definition relationship types that either do not allow for procreation, or change the one-to-one relationship of the participants. But both those changes are up for legitimate debate. I’d go as far as to say that there is a better argument for expanding the definition to include polygamy. At least there you have man and woman and the ability to procreate. (Not that I advocate polygamy in the least.)

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@magellan01

Uh, your bias is showing. Let’s look at what marriage has generally believed to have been for eons. The union of one man and woman in a long-term committed relationship. It has also been the institution that has been the foundation for raising a family. Skin color has no conflict with that notion whatsoever. The proof of that is the blacks were allowed to marry blacks. So, no, that is not a good analogy. Not that it will stop it from forever being dragged out by SSM proponents.

But the same is not true for gay couples or polygamists. Both of those types of relationships run afoul of the definition. Now, we can choose to broaden the definition of marriage. We can choose to include in that definition relationship types that either do not allow for procreation, or change the one-to-one relationship of the participants. But both those changes are up for legitimate debate. I’d go as far as to say that there is a better argument for expanding the definition to include polygamy. At least there you have man and woman and the ability to procreate. (Not that I advocate polygamy in the least.)

Why on earth would you think I’m trying to appear unbiased?

[brazil84]

@ArchiveGuy

Here you go

Thank you. It seems to me that the explanations you offer are in fact largely based on intolerance. For example, many people prefer to enter unequal relationships.

Putting aside the large BDSM community, and folks who have dominant or submissive tendencies, there are also a lot of people (men and women both), many of whom with religious upbringings, who feel that the man should be the dominant partner in a marriage.

[Paleface]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

Oh I see. So when you said “Nope, nobody wants to touch this. All I hear is crickets chirping,” you meant that you read all the responses and… didn’t appreciate them?

No, I meant that those who were ridiculing Carrie Prejean for being a bigot, suddenly became silent with regards to Obama being a bigot.

Or you could make some idiotic assumption about beauty pagents being more important than the presidency. Up to you.

What’s really idiotic is someone who considers this…

I can only assume that the responder views the personal beliefs of a beauty pagent contestant to be more important than the personal beliefs of the President of the United States.

… as saying that beauty pagents are more important than the presidency.

The topic at hand is not about either pagents or the presidency, it’s about the personal beliefs one holds. For example, if the personal beliefs held by an applicant for employment disqualified him or her from being employed, would it be acceptable for the CEO to hold those same beliefs? Or would it be a little hippocritical?

[magellan01]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

Why on earth would you think I’m trying to appear unbiased?

Because when one’s thinking is biased, it is not good, it colors conclusions. Even if one has a strong bias toward a position, it’s generally considered to not be an asset to allow that bias to affect the thinking/logic/rationale process. I’ve never experienced someone thinking the opposite until you.

So, some people on a debate board think it’s fine to shun objectivity. Who knew?

[magellan01]

@tim-n-va

Since the original question had to do with the fairness of the question and not the fairness of gay marriage, consider this quote:

It seems to me that if you leave religion and politics out of it, there is no valid question at all.

If support for gay marriage or any other social policy issue is the criteria for being Miss USA, that should be part of the entry process (a check list of things to believe to enter). It should be a reason to screen at the last step of the process.

This dawned on me last night watching some discussion of this. It’s a very good point and shows that flaming asshole Hilton to be full of shit. As if we needed further proof.:rolleyes:

[gonzomax]

@magellan01

Uh, your bias is showing. Let’s look at what marriage has generally believed to have been for eons. The union of one man and woman in a long-term committed relationship. It has also been the institution that has been the foundation for raising a family. Skin color has no conflict with that notion whatsoever. The proof of that is the blacks were allowed to marry blacks. So, no, that is not a good analogy. Not that it will stop it from forever being dragged out by SSM proponents.

But the same is not true for gay couples or polygamists. Both of those types of relationships run afoul of the definition. Now, we can choose to broaden the definition of marriage. We can choose to include in that definition relationship types that either do not allow for procreation, or change the one-to-one relationship of the participants. But both those changes are up for legitimate debate. I’d go as far as to say that there is a better argument for expanding the definition to include polygamy. At least there you have man and woman and the ability to procreate. (Not that I advocate polygamy in the least.)

Gays actually do adopt children nowadays. That would suggest there should be some legal way to unsure that the child is taken care of in the event one or both partners die. If you leave gays in a legal limbo, the kid may suffer.
Then when a gay gets sick, their partner often does not have the legal authority to make care decisions. Many times the family is estranged. But they still are the ultimate power in the persons life. Who gets the home when a partner dies? The person who loved them and lived with them? Sadly many times they are left with no rights. The family gets the home and there is no recourse in court without a legal standing. Marriage is a legal and binding act. It is as much about protecting the rights of the mate and children as it is about procreation.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@Paleface

No, I meant that those who were ridiculing Carrie Prejean for being a bigot, suddenly became silent with regards to Obama being a bigot.

Except that we didn’t become silent, we all responded to the question. You acknowledged we did earlier today.

@Paleface

What’s really idiotic is someone who considers this… as saying that beauty pagents are more important than the presidency.

No it isn’t. It’s a reasonable inference.

[Locrian]

Good thread, everyone.

This is a tough one in general. It seems that Perez framed the question well, but how can you expect a beauty queen to pick up on that? The contestants seem to be over-coached (as many have said on this board) in the study of generic responses to questions asked.

Plus (and you knew I would bring this up) saying in retrospect that “God has my back” pretty much sums it up. Most christians I’ve met out here in CA hint that being straight but supporting gay marriage is a sin, not all, but most.

All in all, she put a personal spin on the answer, making it a poor answer. Why don’t these coaches train them to generalize ALL possible questions? Even something like, “I think it’s up to Americans and how we all feel! USA! USA!” Shit, even something like that might’ve been better.

And I’ll agree with other posters that she wins this in a way. How much time appearing on shows discussing this topic does she get? More than the winner cutting those shopping mall ribbons. Plus, she IS a freakin’ hot chick… maybe a guy on the fence of SSM will say, “DANG! That set me straight.” (No pun intended.)

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@magellan01

Because when one’s thinking is biased, it is not good, it colors conclusions. Even if one has a strong bias toward a position, it’s generally considered to not be an asset to allow that bias to affect the thinking/logic/rationale process. I’ve never experienced someone thinking the opposite until you.

So, some people on a debate board think it’s fine to shun objectivity. Who knew?

Everybody knows that. Didn’t you ever compete in a debate in high school? It’s adversarial. Even if you’re assigned a position you don’t actually agree with, you take it and argue your position vigorously. People don’t enter debates entirely neutral looking for a conclusion to end upon, and nobody except you thinks they do.

Entering a debate with a clear position in the argument is not even remotely the same as being closed minded, which I agree would be a bad thing. So spare me the false indignation.

[Clothahump]

@flickster

She answered with her honest opinion, which should be valued more highly than by giving an answer someone else wants to hear.

She won much more than a hokie pageant.

Well stated.

And please note her answer:

During the pageant, Hilton asked Prejean if every state should follow Vermont in legalizing same sex marriage.

“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” Prejean responded. “But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

She answered the question in the first sentence, speaking in the generic sense of all Americans. But then, since the question was specifically about her, she added her personal opinion and belief, which was the correct thing to do.

My question is this: why did they have a total asshole like Perez Hilton as a judge in the first place? Did they do it knowing that he would have an agenda and knowing that it would cause controversy, and therefore gain publicity for the pagent? It sure backfired on them - they got the publicity, but it exposed the bias in the judging.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Clothahump, you didn’t quote her answer. You quoted part of her answer. You also didn’t quote the actual question she was asked.

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, 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 and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Her answer was idiotic. I’m not referring to her beliefs, just the phrasing and garbled sentences. “Opposite marriage”? “In my country”? She doesn’t even state what she believes, only what she thinks she believes. And if she thinks she believes that, why does she think it’s “great” that gays can marry?

IMO, she lost because she is an idiot who cannot articulate her thoughts well.