Miss Beverly Hills says death to gays

[superstring01]

That's cutting too much slack. She is quoted as quoting chapter and verse from Leviticus, about putting people to death.

She probably didn't mean it quite like it reads - but it's a bit hazardous to go along with people saying things like that, on the assumption that they don't mean them. They should get called out.

Sure. Why not call her out. She's a fucking dingbat. People who accept publicity and fame for profit forfeit the right to their dignity in social discourse.

I mean, I can start with the fact that she's a creationist in an era where there is. . . well. . . there appears to be no need for fairy tales, no? For shit's sake, we have a porn-acting-skin-flaunting ditsy beauty contestant quoting a book on ancient morality that would have her STONED in the goddamned town square for (a) not being married (b) showing so much skin (c) fucking, outside wedlock, on video tape (d) daring to debate men on issues in public (e) having a job (f) not having kids (g) thinking she has the right to any sense of self outside her immediate familiy. . . need I go on?

I mean, how well would Prejean fit in at the time of Christ, in her glittery gown and fake crown? She'd be raped and murdered by the locals. And yet, she somehow--by some weird twist if insane fate--feels it necessary to believe the wheedling of ancient men who lived eons ago and would NEVER approve of anything she does. And yet she quotes them. . . .

Ahh the insanity. The things in which people will invest just to find security.

~String

 

[pjdude1219]

PJ. You're grasping. Moreover, you're stating an expectation of a thing that hasn't happened yet.

So now I'm not allowed to have opinions?

I'm talking hard figures.

that from 4 years ago when the last major legislation was out.

You quoted a poll, which you didn't even provide (a tactic often used by you) to support an opinion that is then phrased as fact.

Wow what a suprise the great superstring above the rules as always trying goad me. I don't post links because of the people who support. reign them, in and you'll get you info. If I don't have to defend a source people disagree with I' do it. you want polls http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf
here's another http://cbs5.com/national/gay.marriage.poll.2.996134.html

Fact, PJ: Americans (as in: out of 300 million people, more than--say--180 million) OVERWHELMINGLY disagree with gay marriage. Every SINGLE vote by the people in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION has banned gay marriage or reversed it (see: Maine). So, talk to me about "polls" when you can find one that has a large statistical group (say: like an election, for example!!!) that shows that this fact has shifted much.

I will show you an election when it happens but to dissmiss changes that happen since they happen inbetween only empowers those who oppose it.

Look, I'm fucking GAY for Christ's sake. I think it should be legal. I want it to be legal. I cringed in shame when it lost in Ohio by such a massive amount. But, I'm not silly enough to draft my hopes into expectations, and don't fool yourself into thinking that there is a single state that would approve gay marriage--anytime soon--by popular vote, except maybe California and even that is iffy. Why CA again? Because the "Obama" vote brought out the socially conservative black vote, which in many ways tipped the vote against gay marriage. A second ballot initiative may well have it pass in CA. But that is crazy speculation, at best! In liberal states like Maine, Rhode Island and Hawaii, it loses every time and has continued to lose.

~String

I've seen people from my generation lecture their elders about being against gays. The demographics are changing and my generation has positive view on gay marriage. We may not be successful in the next couple goes but by god we will bloody those bigoted bastards.

 

[superstring01]

So now I'm not allowed to have opinions? that from 4 years ago when the last major legislation was out. Wow what a suprise the great superstring above the rules as always trying goad me. I don't post links because of the people who support. reign them, in and you'll get you info. If I don't have to defend a source people disagree with I' do it. you want polls http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf
here's another http://cbs5.com/national/gay.marriage.poll.2.996134.html


I will show you an election when it happens but to dissmiss changes that happen since they happen inbetween only empowers those who oppose it.


I've seen people from my generation lecture their elders about being against gays. The demographics are changing and my generation has positive view on gay marriage. We may not be successful in the next couple goes but by god we will bloody those bigoted bastards.

PJ, Did you see the sample size? 900-and change! That's their "poll" size. What are we, San Marino? The USA has a population size of THREE HUNDRED MILLION +. There is no way to sample, with a shred of accuracy, what the nation believes with a poll of 900 people. With that small of a poll, all they need to do is "randomly" call people from more urban or liberal states to show a marked shift, which shift, could then be phrased as: "America's views are changing!"

Did you notice that in the most liberal states, a state like Maine, gay marriage got REPEALED by the voters?

But, DUH, I know America is changing. I know that younger people are growing up just not caring. Even amongst my "conservative" Christian friends and employees, the thought is becoming, "Uh. . . why not? Nobody's stopping me from marrying, right? Good, then I don't care." In fact, I clearly stated that we should probably see a total shift in this policy in the next 30 years. I expect most of the "coastal" states to have gay marriage in the next ten years.

The problem is, that your acting like things are changing, measurably, now. And they aren't. In five year blocks, I'd agree with you. We'll see change that is brought on by continued social exposure (TV, movies, songs, books, etc) and by younger people reaching voting age. And if things are shifting so markedly, how did the CA, RI and ME vote end up so badly for gay people?

And as to your claim that I'm "goading you", remember that it was you that quoted a poll then failed to support it, not me. Bringing up a point, which point is accurate, that you often times make bold statements without providing linking proof is a fact. I've seen it before. How about, when you quote polls, just post it for all the world to see?

~String

 

[pjdude1219]

PJ, Did you see the sample size? 900-and change! That's their "poll" size. What are we, San Marino? The USA has a population size of THREE HUNDRED MILLION +. There is no way to sample, with a shred of accuracy, what the nation believes with a poll of 900 people. With that small of a poll, all they need to do is "randomly" call people from more urban or liberal states to show a marked shift, which shift, could then be phrased as: "America's views are changing!"

while a little small its major. most polls are done with around 1100 people. a surprising small number can net you the 95% confidence they shoot for.

Did you notice that in the most liberal states, a state like Maine, gay marriage got REPEALED by the voters?

and that was a wake up call. the supporters are being less complacent now.

But, DUH, I know America is changing. I know that younger people are growing up just not caring. Even amongst my "conservative" Christian friends and employees, the thought is becoming, "Uh. . . why not? Nobody's stopping me from marrying, right? Good, then I don't care." In fact, I clearly stated that we should probably see a total shift in this policy in the next 30 years. I expect most of the "coastal" states to have gay marriage in the next ten years.

and people with in my generation are working on getting are lazy asses out there.

The problem is, that your acting like things are changing, measurably, now. And they aren't.

I don't see the changes as in being successful at stooping them. We will just be better able to orginize and bring resources to bear. Look at prop 8 the bigots had a huge advantage in resources and infrastructure to push for it. I see in the next couple of cycles will match them in that.

In five year blocks, I'd agree with you. We'll see change that is brought on by continued social exposure (TV, movies, songs, books, etc) and by younger people reaching voting age.

I'll admit in the 2010 and 2012 any of the more material changes are going to be slight but the logestical ones will pay off.

And if things are shifting so markedly, how did the CA, RI and ME vote end up so badly for gay people?

complacency. Did you think to go to those places to help fight for gay rights? probably not and neither did I. but the haters did. we need to start doing that.

 

[Tiassa]

Prejean needs a makeover

But, Sandy also has a point. For what it's worth, all Prejean said was that she thinks marriage is for a man and a woman. While I disagree, it's not like she's coming out with some backward, dark-ages statement that is stunningly different from what the rest of the nation believes.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Prejean had a remarkable talent for burying herself. I think, to the one, her answer was fair in itself; Perez Hilton fucking asked her.

However, the larger part of her troubles were contractual; she apparently started bailing on her obliged Miss California events in support of ... well, in truth I forget which cause ... and started using her celebrity as a tool in political advocacy. Some would pretend she was stripped of her crown for merely having an opinion, but there is much more to it than that.

And, besides, it's really hard to feel sorry for a beauty pageant contestant with fake tits, a sex tape, and a built-in political audience to keep her working as a professional martyr for years, simply because she wasn't ready for the heat of celebrity.

Okay, she's probably an idiot, California's version of a Spears sister. And she's probably being manipulated. There are plenty of people in the political industry who would know how to use a "pretty" face like hers. She has all the proper assets for a fresh-scrubbed appeal to middle America's most private values, and that's what she'll be. Much like an actor might end up a "prettyboy sidekick", or the "fat, bong-toking party guy that everyone loves but isn't too bright", Carrie Prejean has landed a career as one of America's premiere stupid people.

It's an unfortunate archetype. She's cannon fodder. The people who love her should be protecting her, not encouraging more public humiliation.

 

[Bells]

She did not bash gays. She gave her opinion of gay marriage. One that most Americans share.

Oh?

Shall we have a little look at Ashley 'not bashing gays'?

Ashley told FOX News. "In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white."

Is this a view that most Americans share?

"If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/crimesider/entry6235745.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.6

Ah, there's that lovely Christian spirit!

 

[iceaura]

It's an unfortunate archetype. She's cannon fodder. The people who love her should be protecting her, not encouraging more public humiliation.

Whether cannon fodder or not, it's dangerous to let that stuff slide. There are humanitarian arguments on all sides- she's an adult, she said it, she should catch flac for saying it.

 

[Bells]

As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

And yes, she should be held responsible for what she has said. We are not talking about a little slip of the tongue or a child here. She is an adult and she knew exactly what she was saying and who she was saying it to.

The Conservatives are probably drooling over this girl now, because she's apparently telling it like it is. I mean look at Sandy's comments. Most Americans apparently share her views. It is quite a terrifying prospect.

The City she apparently represents are not happy:

In a statement Wednesday, the city said it was “shocked” by Ashley’s description of herself as “Miss Beverly Hills.” The city “does not sponsor a beauty pageant and has no association with Miss California USA,” the statement said. “As such, there should be no individual claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills.”

The city’s statement said Ashley lives in Pasadena and “does not represent Beverly Hills in any capacity.”

(Source)

 

[Tiassa]

Depends on how much effort you want to put into despising the despicable

Whether cannon fodder or not, it's dangerous to let that stuff slide. There are humanitarian arguments on all sides- she's an adult, she said it, she should catch flac for saying it.

I wouldn't say she shouldn't. Indeed, part of that flak is that she is allegedly a beauty pageant contestant. She has the freedom to speak her mind. And I'm sure what she has to say is important ... to someone. But if any of these beauty queens are going to speak out and embarrass themselves, they ought to be prepared to eat it. For the rest of us, it should be enough to look at the person next to us, shrug, and say, "She's a beauty queen. What else do we expect?"

And then move on with life. This is one where the best rebuke is to simply ignore her. Or, if one must feel better about himself, at most to take the moment to dismiss her as an idiot.

I mean, as celebrity figures go, if she was someone important, or famous for something other than aspiring to be a top-shelf bimbo, maybe it would really matter what she thinks. But in giving Lauren Ashley or Carrie Prejean any more consideration than that, we are actually lending political weight to her vapid, otherwise useless opinion.

 

[superstring01]

Did you think to go to those places to help fight for gay rights?

Nope. I don't go anywhere to fight for anybody's rights. That's my right. I vote, that--for me--is enough. While I care about this issue, I'm content to allow Californians and Mainers deal with their own issues. I happen to be okay with the federal model. In Ohio, I speak out, when the subject comes up. But protest? I've seen no historical evidence that "protest" works in swaying public opinion where there is no oppressive government. In Ohio, who am I going to protest? Farmers in Zainesville? Miners Chillicothe? As I said, I'm okay with the slow and steady crawl of history. I believe that, on our natural course, we'll see this issue change in about 30 years. And if not, well, that's life.

See, I have this thing called "a job" and it occupies between 50 and 60 hours of my life per week. I have my heart set on being a VP by the time I'm forty and most of my energy is focused on that. I also have a boyfriend, a second job at a night club, a family, friends, two cats, a gym membership, a Hold'em league (that is my biggest passion after work and boyfriend) books to read, TV shows to watch, bills to pay and various vacations to take. If, and when I would ever have time for community service, it all goes to something that REALLY matters: the Berea Children's Home reading books to kids and chaperoning fun events with people from work.

I think that's enough.

~String

 

[BenTheMan]

Well, perhaps not in so many words but....

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/crimesider/entry6235745.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.6

Is it asking too much of a beauty queen to think for herself rather than a dusty old book telling her what to believe?
Such a shame in this day and age, sigh.

People who take opinions from beauty queens about anything other than exfoliation should be shot.

She doesn't have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[GeoffP]

She has a right, I suppose, to believe as she likes, but she's talking about the death penalty for homosexuals.

And here I'd thought all the dinosaurs were extinct. Remove her crown, spanking in the public square. Administered by Genji.

 

[Thoreau]

Well, perhaps not in so many words but....

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/crimesider/entry6235745.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.6

Is it asking too much of a beauty queen to think for herself rather than a dusty old book telling her what to believe?
Such a shame in this day and age, sigh.

I guess intelligence isn't a factor in beauty pagents. :shrug:

 

[PieAreSquared]

Death is a little harsh... a Island might be cool

 

[Asguard]

I wouldn't say she shouldn't. Indeed, part of that flak is that she is allegedly a beauty pageant contestant. She has the freedom to speak her mind. And I'm sure what she has to say is important ... to someone. But if any of these beauty queens are going to speak out and embarrass themselves, they ought to be prepared to eat it. For the rest of us, it should be enough to look at the person next to us, shrug, and say, "She's a beauty queen. What else do we expect?"

And then move on with life. This is one where the best rebuke is to simply ignore her. Or, if one must feel better about himself, at most to take the moment to dismiss her as an idiot.

I mean, as celebrity figures go, if she was someone important, or famous for something other than aspiring to be a top-shelf bimbo, maybe it would really matter what she thinks. But in giving Lauren Ashley or Carrie Prejean any more consideration than that, we are actually lending political weight to her vapid, otherwise useless opinion.

as i said, isnt the more important issue "why the hell are people still lauding stupid women with big breasts rather than the female scientists, pollititions, doctors ect ect ?" You know the people who actually GIVE to sociaty and make a difference, those with intelligence rather than those with big breasts?

 

[Orleander]

I say death to Beverly Hills.

and that puts you at her level doesn't it?

 

[GeoffP]

as i said, isnt the more important issue "why the hell are people still lauding stupid women with big breasts rather than the female scientists, pollititions, doctors ect ect ?" You know the people who actually GIVE to sociaty and make a difference, those with intelligence rather than those with big breasts?

Can't we love them all? Maybe especially the latter?

 

[sandy]

...those with intelligence rather than those with big breasts?

Many of us have both.

 

[PieAreSquared]

you know someone?

 

[sandy]

you know someone?

Yes. Several.