Miss California keeps crown...

What if she says "Hitler" ?

Like dirtvert said, she should have found a way to answer it diplomatically.

Her answer didn't even make sense, she said "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage." completely ignoring the fact that in California you can't choose.

 

i guess the problem i have is the hypocracy of sharing your view. Since when is freedom of speech only for popular speech?

 

It isn't, that's rather the point, but as I said earlier, freedom of speech means accepting the responsibility of sharing your views.

Especially if you're up on stage specifically asking to be judged.

 

Not exactly the same way! :lol:

 

Aaron, we must bear in mind the great (and accurate) quote by William F. Buckley...

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there ARE other views."

 

No, those are MUCH better

Are you saying that if someone expressed a view you find objectionable that you shouldn't have the right to argue against it?

Freedom of speech goes both ways, if you're going to put forward a viewpoint, you don't get to be immune from criticism from those with an opposing viewpoint.

That's called a discussion.

 

show your man-tits aaron

so what if this was 1960 and the question was about segregation. and what if she said that she was raised to believe that "colored" folk didn't deserve the same rights as others. does she get a free pass because "she's entitled to her opinion"?

conservatives always look ridiculous/sad in hindsight, e.g.: "Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common needle users, and on the buttock, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals."...and this gem: "The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.”--blowhard buckley

i guess the moral of this is pageant queens should just close their mouths and open their blouses. now who could argue with that.

i say good day.

:beer:

 

let me know when you find someone who was able to choose their skin color doug....LOL

But to answer your example, that question probably shouldnt be asked.

 

i will, my young friend, as soon as you show me someone who chose their sexual orientation. you can ask mr. cheney about that...did he turn his daughter gay? LMAO

i mean, really- i grew up in kentucky, and i didn't meet an openly gay person until i was about your age, because "coming out" would have meant getting your ass kicked, or worse. who signs up for that? who wakes up one day when they're nine and says: i'm going to make my life as difficult as possible and seek out same-sex relationships (evidently about 5% of the population makes that "decision").

this whole issue will seem silly in a few decades...it just seems pathetic now (just my opinion).

 

Leaving aside the argument over whether someone chooses their sexual orientation, religion isn't genetic, does that mean it's ok to discriminate based on your religious beliefs?

What if she'd said "I believe that only Christian marriage should be recognized legally"?

I would tend to agree, but only because she was singled out in this way, I would rather that all of them were asked the same batch of questions.

We have no idea what the eventual winner's answer would have been to the same question because I don't believe she was ever asked it (I didn't watch the damned thing, but I don't believe they all answer the same questions).

 

singled out = unfair

At least we agree, the question should have been dropped all together, or asked to everyone (but what relevance would that have at a beauty contest....)

Doug - might see ya at hurkey this sat

 

Well if they want to keep up the pretense that these women are supposed to be ambassadors and not simply eye candy, they have to have some element that goes beyond physical appearance.

Bearing in mind that it's a judged event and not a simple popular vote on the part of the audience, not all of it need be televised, so they could have a boring interview type section and only televise the "highlights".

Personally I'd like it to have an assault course

... with an extended mud section

 

we'll keep an eye out for ya, aaron. we're in site 109 (and there's room for 2 in my tent...).

 

Mmmmmmm... eye candy!

 

Hilton is a A-hole,

He was judging a beauty pageant, he was not supposed to judge her on anything else but that.

 

Then why is there even an interview section?

They could replace that with something far more worthwhile like jello wrestling.

 

and the big question that even the most homophobic or commie-liberal among us is afraid to ask: who the hell actually won the contest?

cynical answer--trump, in a landslide.

"it was a very classy affair. the kind of class most people can't buy."

 

When did marriage become a right? There's certain criteria to get a driver's license, and there's certain criteria to get a marriage license. It doesn't prevent a gay dude from boning another gay dude.

You know what's funny about all this? People that want gay marriage legalized in California try to say that they deserve the same benefits and whatnot as a married couple.

However, in reality, I will give you an example. My coworker was living with his girlfriend at the time. She was unemployed and he wanted to extend his benefits to her by paying extra every month. No can do. It turns out, if you are unmarried, ONLY a domestic partnership can get benefits for a significant other. Guess what a domestic partnership applies to. It only applies to same sex couples OR an opposite-sex couple IF one of the individuals was over 62 years old. Go figure. Double standard? I think so.

LOL, always look ridiculous in hindsight? I guess the liberals spitting on Vietnam war vets and calling them baby killers are heroes in your mind. Those people were ridiculous and sad IMO.

IMO, the government should have never taken over marriage. It should have always been a religious institution. So people of faith that believe in marriage between a man and a woman, get married in a church and also get a civil union license. Gays can get their civil unions and be recognized by the government. Everyone gets the same benefits. Everyone is happy. I don't see what the problem is. I don't even see why most gays even want anything to do with marriage, considering they feel like churches are hateful to them.

Back on topic: The chick probably should've lost her crown for nudie pics, since other chicks lost their crowns, but punishing her for speaking truthfully? Lame.

 

Equality of ALL people under the law is a key part of the Fourteenth Amendment, if straight couples can get married, then gays can get married.

In your example above, would denying gay people the privilege of driving purely because they're gay be considered Constitutional? Not likely.

Agreed, definitely a double standard.

Extremists on both sides look ridiculous in hindsight, I think we can all agree on that.

Agreed, the religious institution of marriage needs to be decoupled from the secular institution of marriage, there are, however, plenty of people who will have a problem with that as well.

You are aware that many churches and religions have no problem with gay marriage right? The Episcopal church has openly gay clergy but cannot perform gay marriages even though they want to, a direct violation of the First Amendment - so much for the argument that prop 8 "protects religious freedom" (which is a bullshit argument anyway, nobody's forced the Catholic church to ordain female priests, nobody is going to force ANY church to perform gay marriage if they don't want to).

 

If the last election had not been as historic, Prop. 8 would have been voted down easily. The record turn out by groups whom normally don't show (and are religiously conservative) up to vote is what doomed it. Gay marriage advocates need only to bid their time and put up a referendum in a non-presidential voting year and it will pass easily.