Miss California and gay marriage

[CharleyH]

Well, I am off for vacation for a while, but I did want to discuss the statement made by Miss California and also the aftermath of her statement.

In response to the question of whether or not she believed in gay marriage, she responded...

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think 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."

Now, she was truthful and honest and I will give her that, but I must ask that if the question was 'Do you think that Jews and Catholics should marry?' or 'Do you think that blacks and whites should have children' and she responded in the same way, "No, but no offence" would she still be Miss California?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nope, because those battles have already been fought.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the response to the original statement has been overblown and that this reflects reverse prejudice and PC silliness. And the proper comparison wouldn't be between gay marriage and marriage between a Jew and Catholic or a black and a white, it's between the answer she gave and if she said her personal belief was that marriage should--no offense intended--only be between gays, but she accepted others making other decisions. And, in any event, those weren't the comparisons she was asked to make. Why crucify her for what she didn't say?

People made jokes of the "world peace and harmony" questions/answers in beauty pageants for decades and now they are asking more personal questions and expecting more glib answers. The woman gave an honest answer, not avoiding the dividing choice by mealymouthing the response into the "world harmony" approach, and she clearly got in there that it was a choice others could make for themselves and she did have a choice and wasn't going to be in anyone's face about it."

Equal access is not the same thing as erasing personal choice and making everyone step off in lockstep on their personal beliefs.

Now, what she went on to do and say about it later is another issue--but it's one I don't think should have been forced on her.

So, others think she was obligated to give an answer that just suited them, or was politically correct in their own view, or was mumbled pablum?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

To reveal how absurd this is, the real comparison ought to be: SHOULD GAYS AND STRAIGHTS BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?

They already do. Gays can marry straights, straights can marry gays.

Dont get your hopes up, the real issue is all the rest, and all the rest will kill same-sex marriages.

 

[sr71plt]

Wonder what "all the rest" means.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Your particular kink was what came to mind....something along the lines of Noah's Ark.

 

[sr71plt]

I have no such kink, of course. Still don't grasp what idiocy you are pushing here, although I'm sure you're giggling so much at your "cuteness" that you're about to fall out of your Laz-Y-Boy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I'm saving my best for the right moment.

 

[sr71plt]

Anything to do with you and "best" would be a non sequitur, JBJ. You're a bottomfeeder (in all the ways you could image that word).

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, others think she was obligated to give an answer that just suited them, or was politically correct in their own view, or was mumbled pablum?

Well, of course!

 

[sr71plt]

Well, of course!

That certainly is what the reaction seems to point to.

 

[DeeZire]

In response to the question of whether or not she believed in gay marriage, she responded...

The question was not whether or not she believed in gay marriage, it was:

"Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

I saw the question as a state's rights issue. In other words, do the states have the right to legalize gay marriage? She didn't answer. She did give her personal view of gay marriage, but how that view figured into the state's rights issue was not addressed. I noticed one or two other contestants who also missed the point of their question, or who gave evasive answers. This phenomenon begs the question: Is being as dumb as Sarah Palin a requirement for getting into a beauty pageant?

 

[sr71plt]

These were beauty contestants. Trust me; they didn't have any notion what the questions were about. But then, it nasty to ask them such questions as this in a beauty contests. Sandbags them.

And, let's get serious, two-thirds of Americans couldn't field that question either.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Miss California can marry anyone she wants: except in California

 

[DesertPirate]

She was asked a loaded question by a judge that was not impartial and had an agenda.
She answered it honestly.
The oh so tolerant of everything Left (unless you disagree with them, oops) then wanted her gutted and fileted in public!
End of story.

 

[sr71plt]

She was asked a loaded question by a judge that was not impartial and had an agenda.
She answered it honestly.
The oh so tolerant of everything Left (unless you disagree with them, oops) then wanted her gutted and fileted in public!
End of story.

Oh to be so dogmatic. I said the same thing earlier than you did--and I'm about as far Left as you can get.

It's not a Left/Right thing, Arid.

 

[Edward Teach]

She gave an honest answer to a loaded question. Who gives a shit what answer a 21 year old model gives to a question about gay marriage or String Theory or the Teltubbies so long as she has great hooters. I mean, hell, it ain't like she's Paris Hilton.

Edward the Judgemental

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEEZIRE

Dum is the new chic.