Miss California: Pro-Opposite Marriage view cost crown

[General Zod]

I hope i'm not being a DB with all the dictioanry quotes i am just on convvroversial ground and want to make my vocabulary clear. i wouldn't disagree that her opinion appears homophobic, i somehow doubt she has an elaborate system of reasoning to back up her assertion and considering she is good ffriends with a homosexual it wouldn't take much for her to reconsider her position. A person making the assertion that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" is no more a homophobe than a person asserting that "a woman has a right to choose" is a murderer.

So if someone says "marriage should be between a white man and a white woman" he isn't racist? I hear some racists have a token colored friend too.

[Themightytom]

She's not automatically a homophobe because of a single belief, unless a consistent pattern emerges.

You realize the language she used is precisely the same language used by Proposition 8 apologists, yes?

I do now... and if it turns out shes a well schooled advocate for section 8 than I would consider her a potential homophobe, but in her statement as quoted she seems to support the freedom to choose same sex marriage. her following assertion of her own belief was not an argument to ban it.

[Themightytom]

I hope i'm not being a DB with all the dictioanry quotes i am just on convvroversial ground and want to make my vocabulary clear. i wouldn't disagree that her opinion appears homophobic, i somehow doubt she has an elaborate system of reasoning to back up her assertion and considering she is good ffriends with a homosexual it wouldn't take much for her to reconsider her position. A person making the assertion that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" is no more a homophobe than a person asserting that "a woman has a right to choose" is a murderer.

So if someone says "marriage should be between a white man and a white woman" he isn't racist? I hear some racists have a token colored friend too.

What are you Rush Limbaugh? If a person doesn't want to marry someone of a different race, they aren't racist, if they try to propose a law banning such marriage, they are. There's no system to the first example, there IS in the second.

By the way ZOD you DO know not all racists are white right? Your "token colored friend" comment implies otherwise.

[General Zod]

What are you Rush Limbaugh? If a person doesn't want to marry someone of a different race, they aren't racist, if they try to propose a law banning such marriage, they are. There's no system to the first example, there IS in the second.

Thanks for proving you're a moron who can't read. Saying "marriage should be between group x and y, but not a and b" IS wanting to ban such marriage.

By the way ZOD you DO know not all racists are white right? Your "token colored friend" comment implies otherwise.

So instead of actually addressing my point you're going to try weaseling out of it? Way to go there.

[Covenant]

Your premise is incorrect. You don't need a system or a sustained series of beliefs before you're a bigot. How much racism does someone need in them before they're a racist? I would say that it's a pretty binary system--but that you don't treat every racist the same way.

So if the only reason someone didn't want to marry someone was their skin color, that's pretty much racism, if you ask me. If they share culturally different backgrounds, fine, but if we remove all those other variables and the reason they still say "Not interested" is color, then that is racism. If the only reason why these other two people shouldn't be allowed to marry is because they're gay, then that is bigotry.

[General Zod]

Your premise is incorrect. You don't need a system or a sustained series of beliefs before you're a bigot. How much racism does someone need in them before they're a racist? I would say that it's a pretty binary system--but that you don't treat every racist the same way.

So if the only reason someone didn't want to marry someone was their skin color, that's pretty much racism, if you ask me. If they share culturally different backgrounds, fine, but if we remove all those other variables and the reason they still say "Not interested" is color, then that is racism. If the only reason why these other two people shouldn't be allowed to marry is because they're gay, then that is bigotry.

I assume you're addressing themightytom?

[Covenant]

Yes. I'm just sayin' that being "just a little" homophobic still makes you homophobic, just a little bit. You can discriminate between the discriminatory people though: someone who dislikes watching men kiss and someone who wants to make it illegal for them to are different, and what Miss Bigot said wasn't that she hated gays, but she did still say that they should be denied access to the same rights everyone else, based solely upon the fact they're gay. Which is bigotry.

If she had said "I support civil unions, not marriage" then she would have been at least putting forth the idea that people should be allowed to get civil rights equally, regardless of who they are, and then you get into a bit of semantics but it's still one of those acceptable bits of mincing. But the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing is obviously just lifting a term right from the anti-marriage playbook. And it was the only thing in that statement which approached normal sentence structure as well, so it wouldn't exactly be a stretch for me to think she didn't just come up with that on her own, right there, which would imply she's part of the Prop 8 bunch.

[Lord Pounder]

Hitler and a lot of his friends also believed that Jews aren't nice people. But thats just his opinion, hey!

This moron was of the opinion that she was against same sex marriage (this is very much a black and white issue you are either for or against it), so Hilton was of the opinion he wouldn't vote for her, as where some of the other judges who voted obviously. Using the excuse "that's how I was raised" is a complete contemptible bullshit excuse. I was brought up in a house where my dad was a homophobic loyalist anti-catholic bigot, yet I never grew up to be any of them.

[Knife]

She's not automatically a homophobe because of a single belief, unless a consistent pattern emerges.

You realize the language she used is precisely the same language used by Proposition 8 apologists, yes?

I do now... and if it turns out shes a well schooled advocate for section 8 than I would consider her a potential homophobe, but in her statement as quoted she seems to support the freedom to choose same sex marriage. her following assertion of her own belief was not an argument to ban it.

lol, the freedom to choose same sex marriage. You are free to choose same sex marrigae but I support the right of people to marry only in on man and one woman affairs.


Yeah, no bigotry there.

I, personally, don't give a shit whom another person marries. I won't marry another dude, and I love my female wife in such a way I can not describe. My belief in my own straight marriage does not interfere with my notion of what others can or should do.

[Themightytom]

quote="Themightytom"]
What are you Rush Limbaugh? If a person doesn't want to marry someone of a different race, they aren't racist, if they try to propose a law banning such marriage, they are. There's no system to the first example, there IS in the second.

Thanks for proving you're a moron who can't read. Saying "marriage should be between group x and y, but not a and b" IS wanting to ban such marriage. [/quote]

no it isn't, you only identify two extremes of thought. You donb't allow for someone with a differing opinion who is unwilling to impose their opinions on others legally. And this addresses the copy cats echoing your argument.

By the way ZOD you DO know not all racists are white right? Your "token colored friend" comment implies otherwise.

So instead of actually addressing my point you're going to try weaseling out of it? Way to go there.

I addressed your point and imply that even a simple statement can be taken to infer prejuidce

[General Zod]

I like the way you keep dismissing her statement as just an opinion. Since when can't opinions be homophobic?

As to your second "point", that's mind numbingly retarded. In one case you're making shit up; in the other the phrase in question has well known connotations associated with bigots. Don't like it? Don't use phrases commonly associated with bigots and maybe you won't get that label.

[Covenant]

I ain't no copycat, goofus, as I'm addressing issues of fractional bigotry. This isn't a dogpile yet, but you're sure going to attract one with your wriggling. People, even Beauty Queens, are not allowed to express an opinion and then not want to be grouped in with other people who also express that opinion. And people who say they shouldn't are being silly.

Thanks for proving you're a moron who can't read. Saying "marriage should be between group x and y, but not a and b" IS wanting to ban such marriage.

no it isn't, you only identify two extremes of thought. You donb't allow for someone with a differing opinion who is unwilling to impose their opinions on others legally. And this addresses the copy cats echoing your argument.

What you're debating about here is a tiny, tiny issue of intent. You can't guess someone's intent, or how far they'd go personally to deny others their civil rights, so what you've done is build your fortress on the assumption that she doesn't or at least cannot be proven to support a ban on gay marriage. Even if she's not in favor of a ban, that doesn't preclude her from being bigoted, as there's a lot of racists or sexists out there who wouldn't give up their weekend to roll back civil liberties, but still treat other people with veiled contempt. But her weasel answer doesn't offer a lot of evidence to support the idea she'd be against a ban either. In her FOX interview she said "This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith."

Combine that with her statement at the microphone, if you will: "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."

To me it sounds like the rest of the Prop 8 anti-gay stuff, coated with just enough ditzy ignorance to say she didn't want to hurt all her friends and supporters and such, but that they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You really need to twist these interpertations to make it otherwise. All she sounds like is a well-meaning bigot, who really hopes she can reach out to the gays and help them find Jesus.

[Themightytom]

What you're debating about here is a tiny, tiny issue of intent. You can't guess someone's intent, or how far they'd go personally to deny others their civil rights, so what you've done is build your fortress on the assumption that she doesn't or at least cannot be proven to support a ban on gay marriage. Even if she's not in favor of a ban, that doesn't preclude her from being bigoted, as there's a lot of racists or sexists out there who wouldn't give up their weekend to roll back civil liberties, but still treat other people with veiled contempt. But her weasel answer doesn't offer a lot of evidence to support the idea she'd be against a ban either. In her FOX interview she said "This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith."

Combine that with her statement at the microphone, if you will: "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."

To me it sounds like the rest of the Prop 8 anti-gay stuff, coated with just enough ditzy ignorance to say she didn't want to hurt all her friends and supporters and such, but that they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You really need to twist these interpertations to make it otherwise. All she sounds like is a well-meaning bigot, who really hopes she can reach out to the gays and help them find Jesus.

well I literally WAS debating a tiny tiny issue of intent. I said as much when I indicated that were a pattern of behavior to emerge i would acknowledge she has homophobic tencdencies. Which you provided with your quotes, so i concede the point.

I like the way you keep dismissing her statement as just an opinion. Since when can't opinions be homophobic?

opinions can be interpreted as homophobic sure but you were calling her out as actively repressing rights based on her expression of opinion.

"marriage should be between group x and y, but not a and b" IS wanting to ban such marriage.

You can't ascribe a systematic pattern of behavior based on anectdotal evidence from one statment. Covenant made his case with additional factuaql evidence in the form of quotes which is what my point was initially.

Given that example I would say she has discriminitary tendencies.

As to your second "point", that's mind numbingly retarded. In one case you're making shit up; in the other the phrase in question has well known connotations associated with bigots. Don't like it? Don't use phrases commonly associated with bigots and maybe you won't get that label.

The second point where I pointed that a phrase can be easily misconstrued? I don't even know what you're referring to.

[Flagg]

Why are they asking these largely idiotic and vapid women questions like this, anyway? I thought beauty pagents were about showing off the tits, ass, and makeup, not a serious venue for political discourse.

[General Zod]

opinions can be interpreted as homophobic sure but you were calling her out as actively repressing rights based on her expression of opinion.

Because it's a phrase commonly associated with bigots who want to repress gay rights. This isn't rocket science.

You can't ascribe a systematic pattern of behavior based on anectdotal evidence from one statment. Covenant made his case with additional factuaql evidence in the form of quotes which is what my point was initially.

So if a guy I've never met before says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists and should be shot or deported he's not a racist because it's just one statement?

The second point where I pointed that a phrase can be easily misconstrued? I don't even know what you're referring to.

There is no room for misinterpretation here unless you're defending a phrase well known for its use by bigots or being a pedantic twat.

[CmdrWilkens]

I just want to add two cents to the general dialouge. She is entitled to her opinion, and Hilton is entitled to mark against her for it, and we are certainly free to examine it and note the clear indication of bigotry that it expresses. What really peaves me is just how porrly it was structured. Yes these pagaents aren't designed to have the highest IQ in the room but the idea behind the Q&A is to basically see if a contestant can manage their stage presence when faced with a difficult question and the need to formulate a response on the fly. Within that test she failed miserably, she didn't address the question, she repeated her point without providing a narrative in between her initial statement and her conclusion and she used some truly atrocious wording not the least of which is"opposite marriage."


As an aside THAT little tidbit, above and beyond the overall theme of her answer, tends to identify her as bigoted in that you would be hard pressed to find someone calling gay marriage/same sex marriage "opposite marriage" anywhere outside of the religious right.

So anyway I have no issue with her dropping to second palce and getting the cold shoulder from the Miss California organization mostly because they have sponsors who care about the potential backlash for supporting someone who basically put her homophobia out on national TV. I don't think she is some evil villain in this whole thing because I really don't see where she has suffered any so I have no sympathy for her only because I can't see where she is the victim nor do I see anythign paticualrly hurtful in the actions everyone else took.

[Covenant]

Actually, I think she was calling Heterosexual Marriage "Opposite Marriage," as opposed to same sex marriage. I think. She's pretty hard to understand, but a degree of stress and confusion is probably easy to understand--and she was probably also looking to formulate some kind of response that wouldn't get her hung out to dry.

[Darth Yoshi]

Understandable, but that doesn't change the fact that she essentially froze up under pressure, which is a killer in any contest of this sort. I'm not disagreeing with you or anything; I just figured I should spell it out.

[ArmorPierce]

What are you Rush Limbaugh? If a person doesn't want to marry someone of a different race, they aren't racist,

Yes they are. That meets the definition of racism and I don't see who you could argue otherwise. Only people I see that argue otherwise are closet racists themselves

By the way ZOD you DO know not all racists are white right? Your "token colored friend" comment implies otherwise.

Not all whites are racists, most whites are somewhat racist even if they are not aware of it or try to rationalize it away (applies to people of other races as well).

[Axis Kast]

Because it's a phrase commonly associated with bigots who want to repress gay rights. This isn't rocket science.

It's also a phrase somebody would be likely to use if they happened to believe that heterosexual marriage was the "correct" kind of marriage.

Did this young woman vote for Proposition 8? Presumably, she did. However, her answer to the judge's question did not endorse legislation of any type.

I think you'd be hard pressed to sell an argument that she was trying to introduce her values into anybody's bedroom. It seems likely, but suspicion is not the mark of success of a rigorous test of somebody's beliefs.

These kind of logical disconnects have become extremely common lately. For another, just look at the historical discussion on the motivations of Southern fighting men during the American Civil War. It's fair to talk about whether her expressed opinion makes her a bigot. It isn't defensible to assert that she's pushing Proposition 8 insofar as her specific answer to Perez Hilton goes, based on what somebody else has said.

[General Zod]

I think you'd be hard pressed to sell an argument that she was trying to introduce her values into anybody's bedroom. It seems likely, but suspicion is not the mark of success of a rigorous test of somebody's beliefs.

So what? Even if she wasn't trying to force her values onto anyone else that doesn't change the fact the remark itself is rather homophobic and associated with a group with known, bigoted outlooks on gay-marriage.

[Axis Kast]

So what? Even if she wasn't trying to force her values onto anyone else that doesn't change the fact the remark itself is rather homophobic and associated with a group with known, bigoted outlooks on gay-marriage.

I didn't say that her remarks were not homophobic. I agree that her position is regrettable. Even more so because it is so widespread in this country and elsewhere around the world.

I disagree on the point of association, by which I mean that I think it would be logically unsound to insist that one can draw linkages between the contestant and Proposition 8 specifically on the basis of what was said to Mr. Hilton.

[General Zod]

I disagree on the point of association, by which I mean that I think it would be logically unsound to insist that one can draw linkages between the contestant and Proposition 8 specifically on the basis of what was said to Mr. Hilton.

Then you missed the point. If someone is using the same talking points as certain groups then it's not unreasonable to assume that they at least have similar outlooks towards the issue in question as the said group.

[Axis Kast]

Then you missed the point. If someone is using the same talking points as certain groups then it's not unreasonable to assume that they at least have similar outlooks towards the issue in question as the said group.

I missed no such point. Directing yourself to my original post, you will notice that we are in agreement that it is reasonable to assume that the contestant supported Proposition 8. However, suggesting that she was making a plug for it, or that she was simple appropriating somebody else's argument, cannot be borne out. All we have is suspicion that she would support legal bars against gay marriage.

My aim is to endorse more rigorous logic. The "talking points" you're referring to are going to be commonplace for anyone opposed, personally or otherwise, to gay marriage. They aren't sufficiently specific that we can have high reliability that the contestant would have phrased her opinion otherwise even if she'd never heard of Proposition 8.

[General Zod]

I missed no such point. Directing yourself to my original post, you will notice that we are in agreement that it is reasonable to assume that the contestant supported Proposition 8. However, suggesting that she was making a plug for it, or that she was simple appropriating somebody else's argument, cannot be borne out. All we have is suspicion that she would support legal bars against gay marriage.

Then perhaps you could offer some actual explanation as to what else it could possibly mean when someone says "I think marriage should be between one man and one woman" except that they think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?