It does not appear to me that Ms. California expressed any bigotry, i.e. intolerance of people whose views differed from hers.
Whether Miss USA choses the winner fairly or unfairly doesn’t seem like a big deal to me, like Stuffy said it’s a private contest and they can do what they want. But how they handled this political hot-button does seem kinda cheap. Has the Miss Universe organization made it their official stance that they support same-sex marriage rights? (I have no idea) If not, and the organization is neutral on the issue, then why are they probing the opinions of contestants? If they are officially pro-gay marriage then how did this woman end up as Miss California, sharing her opinions on national TV? They are basically choosing a representative of their organization, they can certainly ask about the contestants’ core values earlier on in the process. But they didn’t because that wouldn’t be as entertaining. And yes the point of the show is to provide entertainment, but that doesn’t mean they have zero responsibility for what people say when put on stage.
Be that as it may, this particular accusation was more specific than that : “if you slam people who are anti-gay rights because they are anti-gay rights, you’re the bigoted one”. Which sounds very much like tosh to me.
“people who don’t share my sexual orientation should be denied some of the civil rights I enjoy” isn’t intolerance and bigotry ? You should alert the ACLU, they seem to have erred in that regards.
I hate people that are bigoted against bigotry! They oughta go back to where they came from!
I’m not sure, but anyway I doubt that’s the position of most people who oppose gay marriage. I imagine Miss California would say that gay people should be free to marry, as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex (and they are otherwise eligible). I realize that as a practical matter, this would pose a problem for many gays who wish to marry a person to whom they are sexually attracted. But still, if you define “bigot” as including anyone who would put limits on peoples’ right to marry the persons or entities they are sexually attracted to, it leads to weird results. For example is someone a bigot if they would prohibit incestual marriages? Polygamous marriages?
And by the way, I’m not making an argument about whether gay marriage should be prohibited or not, I’m simply talking about who should or shouldn’t be considered a “bigot.” If somebody is necessarily a “bigot” for opposing gay marriage, it’s hard to see why someone should not be considered a “bigot” for opposing incestual or polygamous marriages.
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. You can bet that had a pro-gay contestant won, Fox news and innumerous religious groups would be lamenting the downfall of American society and accusing the gays of corrupting such an institution as Miss USA and the dreams of millions of little girls.
In the same way Barbie had to change from simply being a pretty girl with tits and short skirts to having a real job, not speaking out against this bigotry can have effects, sometimes subtle, on people’s minds. People should take a stance that being a hateful bigot is wrong, and whenever possible, we’ll take away your tiara, crown, plaque, trophy, or medal because of it. Because the bigots would and have done so in the past, so must people do that to them now, to show them that their hurtful and evil beliefs have consequences.
Bigot means anyone who disagrees with mainstream liberal opinion. That’s about it.
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! You forgot about dogs! You never bring those other ones without using the “marry their dogs” gambit, too! :rolleyes:
Newsflash, genius: Sexual Orientation is an innate part of one’s nature. Polygamy? No. Incest? No. Is that so “hard to see”?
I have to admit, I feel some sympathy for this woman. She was put in a tough place by that question. She’s in a beauty pageant, a peculiar institution whose fan base is largely stolid middle Americans, which is run almost entirely by screaming queers. Any answer she made was going to piss off one of those groups. In terms of winning the contest, she clearly made the wrong choice, but in terms of her after-pageant employment prospects, I suspect things are looking good for her.
There were far more beautiful contestants than the top two.
Oh I see; I’m with you now. You said “In this case, should we tolerate intolerant people ?”
You should have said, “In this case, should we tolerate people who are only intolerant of intolerant people?” I think that would have been more clear.
You know what would be even more clear? “Should the level of our toleration of the intolerant be such that it can tolerate being subjected to additional intolerance from less tolerant people and still withstand, within certain tolerances?”
Much clearer.
If you can’t see that distinction, it’s hard to see how you could see any distinction. If anti-gay people are necessarily bigots, do you think people are necessarily bigots for not eating ice cream or preferring comedies to dramas?
It’s not that any time you disagree with something you are bad. It’s having hateful narrow minded beliefs that hurt other people that makes you bad.
Can you prove that polygamous or incestuous sexual orientations are not natural occurrences, or rather innately part of an individual’s nature? They seem to be just as natural of occurrences to me as homosexuality is.
I fail to see how someone can argue without proof that homosexual orientations are natural but other sexual orientations are not, without it being a double-standard. :dubious:
Personally I’d like to see a perspicuous yet pithy inquiry as to the limits of tolerance for people who argue over the clarity of inquiries into whether the level of tolerance for people who are intolerant of those who are themselves intolerant and whether the level of our toleration of the pedantic (with respect to tolerance) should be such that it can tolerate being subjected to additional intolerance from less tolerant people and still withstand, within certain tolerances.
The topics of the bigotry of other posters in this thread is now officially CLOSED.
yeeesh
[ /Moderating ]
What is a polygamous sexual orientation? I’m pretty sure everyone is attracted to multiple partners. Polygamy is not an orientation, it is a relationship structure that is independent from a person’s sexual orientation.
The reason bans on polygamy are OK and bans on gay marriage are not is that bans on polygamy apply to everyone equally, since everyone is attracted to multiple partners.
The stronger argument would be pedophilia. There you are denying relationships to a discrete group of people who are attracted to children. But, of course, there you have a clear and much, much more compelling reason to do so.
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.
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?
This is just repeating what ArchiveGuy said. Do you have proof that there’s no such thing as a “polygamous” sexual orientation? And how is it not discriminatory when the majority of people (I do not believe your claim that everyone is attracted to being in a polygamous marriage) dictate to a minority that they’re not allowed to have their relationships legally recognized?
I don’t see much difference between that and the arguments for gay marriage.
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?
BTW, so you don’t get the wrong idea, I’m pretty much playing devil’s advocate here. The concept of letting gays get married is such a simple one in itself, but it does lead to these kinds of other questions. It’s just the process a culture goes through as it evolves, IMO.
The ban on polygamy most certainly does not apply to everyone equally, no more so than the ban on gay marriage applies to everyone equally. It specifically targets a ban at a minority of the population. :dubious:
The incest argument seems stronger than pedophilia to me, given the whole “age of consent” thing. Not even adults can legally enter an incestuous marriage (AFAIK). How is that any different from being gay?
“Well, I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my in country, in my family, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but thats how I was raised, and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.”
Tolerance != acceptance.
She answered fine, and truthfully. I don’t share her opinion, but so long as she wasn’t up there advocating constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, then I’m cool with it.
If she lost because of that statement, the judges are dolts.