Video: Perez Hilton at the Miss USA contest?
posted at 1:35 pm on April 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Mix an almost-anachronistic beauty contest with an outspoken gay liberal blogger, and you get … a classically awkward moment. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mail about Miss California’s response to Perez Hilton about her stance on gay marriage, all of it cheering her defense of traditional values:
According to the person who clipped and uploaded the video, Miss California got booed, but if so, not by many. Perez himself shakes his head in annoyance, but what did he expect? These beauty contests are celebrations of kitschy Americana — of bathing suits and evening gowns, of “world peace” and apple pie.
In fact, one has to wonder why the organizers invited Perez to be a judge at all. Surely Perez’ readership doesn’t represent their core audience, and his celebrity-dish-loving readers could care less about Gracie Lou from North Dakota anyway. It’s a very strange choice. And Perez proves it by calling Miss California a “dumb b****” for not agreeing with him:
Stay classy, Perez. And I think you need something much stronger than a cocktail. (Thanks to my co-blogger Allahpundit for the second vid)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next »
“Those” equals exactly one. One very poor astroturfer. Not a regular. I guess turfing works then if you got sucked in, huh?
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM
This was already addressed but apparently you refuse to understand that.
Homosexual marriages CAN NEVER Produce children. Heterosexual marriages OVERWHELMINGLY produce children.
It already got ugly when you called everyone names who didn’t agree with you.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Well, call it what you will.
Homophobia is the most idiotic term ever…do you even know what that means? Literally…”Irrational fear of same.” Uh. So, that is “lame.”
Perhaps it is simply an aberration and that naturally repels people and the only way the lobby has been successful has been in highjacking the true civil rights movement. Pretty “lame.”
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I haven’t seen a straight marriage aided by state
There is a big difference between endorsing a general practice vs endorsing a single case.
Scrappy on April 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
JetBoy, so what do you think of Sweden, rest of Europe, Canada, et al, jailing Christian ministers for giving New Testament sermons that say ‘no’ to homosexuality?
There ARE consequences for the rest of us when the government decides what kind of speech religions get to make because of the puffy lips and hurt feelings of Perez Hilton.
(but you wont respond will you, because your ‘no one is harmed!’ argument has a gaping hole — men and women of the cloth rotting in prison http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2004-08-05 )
battleoflepanto1571 on April 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
There is no place for political questions in a beauty pageant. It then becomes a contest of you politics. She wasn’t running for office.
scrubjay on April 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Again, the first thing you people did after the California Supreme Court overturned prop 22 was ban bride and groom marriages. There is no way you people will allow bride and groom marriages while you have to have “Party A – Party B” marriages. It would hurt your feelings.
Buddahpundit on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
He thinks the same “equality” should occur here.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
There is one poster trying to gin up some comments he can use to smear the entire site as ‘hateful’. It didn’t work.
Both he and you = fail.
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
It’s also the most liberal city in the nation. Have you considered that maybe it’s the liberal attitude in the city that allows things like the Folsom Street Fair, and not the gay attitude? Liberals try to thrust their ideas on opinions at others by force just as much as any activist group.
Wait…so because it’s “gay friendly” they have huge prostitution, legalized beastiality, etc? Okay, if that’s the standard you want to use, Madison, Wisconsin is equally gay-friendly. However, I didn’t get the memo about legalized beastiality, and I’m not sure which part of town has all the legalized prostitution. Maybe I missed it.
And how many gay people have communities throughout the country that don’t have Folsom Street Fairs? Again, if you’re going to use an extreme example to represent an entire community, then it’s suitable to use the Fundamentalist LDS to represent the Mormon church. The fact is, both comparisons are intellectually dishonest.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Perez Hilton shouldn’t hate Miss California. You see, its not her fault… her limbic brain is pressing up against her frontal lobe, so its causes the synapses to misfire.
El_Terrible on April 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Miss California is a hero and a patriot for standing up for the sanctity of marriage.
Perez Hilton on the other hand is a slimy,wormy little creep who has taken character assassination to the level of it being an art form. This guy seriously needs to be served a nice piping hot cup of SHUT THE HELL UP!
pilamaye on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Miss California should be Miss Republic of Texas! Wait, come to think of it, EVEN THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA VOTED FOR PROP 8! I, for one, thank her for her standing up for her family values. Perez Hilton’s question was designed to cause trouble. He would have made a case out of it no matter how she answered. Since when does every show have to have a liberal message? Like why does the CMA show have to invite Jamie Foxx to ridicule country music and white people? And why no outrage at the way he treated Miley Cyrus similarly to the way Imus treated the girl’s basketball players?
Christian Conservative on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Megs, give it a rest, you’re going to hurt yourself.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Perez Hilton was pisssed because she made him look foolish. After sheanswered, he averted his eyes, almost shamefully.
Good for her for being honest. I wish they all could be California girls….
Dork B. on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I think your right. I can’t remember this even being an issue before say 10 years ago.
I think they alway have a grievance in the que waiting to use it as a sledgehammer. If we caved completely there would just be something else completely unrelated to use against traditional mores.
The goal isn’t gay marriage, its our defeat
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Yes, that is the bottom line here. How many YouTube viewings. Perez probably generated more interest than the contestants.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Sad thing is that my little sister and I would “force” my dad to stay up and watch these with us…we’d sit and keep score of our favorites and, always, dad would fall asleep in the middle of it…but, he liked having to do that girly thing with his daughters. Too bad we have to worry about this hack now. What a sad thing.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I wasn’t referring to Hot Air in general. However, by the time I posted that, voices of reason were still fairly muted by the cries of “fag” and “homonazi”. Hell, could anyone ever use a blanket statement to refer to posters on this site?
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Correct response
Q: How do you feel about same sex marriage?
A: Under the 5th Amendment protection in the Constitution I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may be held against me.
Prior to answering the question, she should have asked what the correct answer MUST be and then repeat that.
kurtzz3 on April 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Or you just have a problem with comprehension, which has been my argument for a while.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I am friends with a gay couple. One of them actually has a modicum of fame and is wealthy. Neither of them are classified as Republicans and both of them have told me that so-called “gay marriage” is ridiculous idea to which any self-respecting members of the GLBT community should be opposed.
Why? Because you can choose who visits you in the hospital, inherits your assets after you die, and other benefits of traditional marriage through legal contracts. Wanna have the same “rights” as Teh Breeders? Then go write up a contract and have it notorized. That’s America!
The End.
ScottMcC on April 20, 2009 at 3:02 PM
And, unless Jesus returns, our civilization will go the way of the greeks and romans. So enlightened, so progressive…so depraved and bloated with our own self indulgent importance.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Less of a stalker and more of a mosquito.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:02 PM
He’s so lucky, and they are sooo devoted.
: – D
thomasaur on April 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I have to say, megs, I’m quite impressed at your point here, considering you were on record a while back calling all Arabs “jihadists.” Not Muslims, mind you, but Arabs as an ethnicity.
Or, are you just being a hypocrite?
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM
He’s yours if you want him!
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Here is mark levin on this subject
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzE0ZTExMjAwYmQyYTE4YjUwYzE1YTFkNWY4MjhjNzI=
Here is an excerpt
Jim also asks, “Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?” Whose stopping them from living as they wish? The assault on ordered liberty here is coming from the state bench, not the public. And what of our constitutional system (federal and state)? Should we abandon that too? Should 4-3 decisions in California and Massachusetts, which do not adhere to the law in these states, be celebrated? Should these state courts be able to export their decisions to other states, which is, in fact the tactic of the litigants? What exactly is the standard by which we should be governed if we abandon Constitutional constructs? The manner in which these decisions are made is vital to the republic.
Moreover, if, as Jim suggests in his statistical exposition, that gay marriage is inevitable (I disagree, but don’t want to divert from my point), then its inevitability will play out over time because of society’s changing standards. And if it is inevitable, why the necessity of imposing it on a society, in this case California, by judicial fiat?
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Thanks, but I’m trying to quit. : )
thomasaur on April 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Thanks. I do understand your concern. I too was concerned.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I think gay marriage is definitely inevitable here in America. Of course, so is the implosion of the country.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Please quote me referring to “all Arabs” as anything.
Here’s a start. Good luck finding me “calling all Arabs” anything.
Now, unless you can back up your bit of slander, which you can’t, stop responding to me.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Apparently in this new era of Hope ‘n Change, it’s no longer acceptable to have an opinion that differs from secular progressives.
I must go now, my limbic brain is applying too much pressure on my frontal lobe…or something.
Wyznowski on April 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Why would you jump to that conclusion? I’m saying for a man and a woman, it is possible. For two men, not possible.
What the homosexual community is arguing for is equal legal rights. It has nothing to do with religion. So why not change the law to read marriage or civil unions? Then the homosexual community can have civil unions and all would be eqally legal.
But that isn’t how they are approaching the issue. They are trying to force religions to do something that the religion is against. So they are making it a legal issue instead of a legal issue.
PappaMac on April 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Precisely, he acts like so many in treating BO as the second coming of Jesus…meanwhile Obama doesn’t support gay marriage either. So he reveres him and his wife and his policies, while everyone else remains a dumb blond b**ch? Where is this tolerance you fat raging hypocrite?
hollygolightly on April 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM
But they aren’t equal.
Consider:
ANYONE can get married. Want to? Fine. Just one man and one woman. It’s equal opportunity.
No, you want “equality” under false pretenses. You want men and women with unique biological means to join together as a, general, societal good to be leveled DOWN with any other coupling. This is a symbolic repudiation of traditional morality and a rejection of science and sanity.
I do not doubt homosexual lust is a formidable thing. I believe it is very convincing…as is any lust for something outside of traditional marriage. DOES. THAT. MAKE. IT. RIGHT or EQUAL? no.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM
You specifically lumped in the people who beat up hitchens with jihadists, despite them having no commonality except being arab and living in Lebanon/Syria.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM
FIFM
PappaMac on April 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Oh, but, they can…in vitro. And that, somehow, someway legitimizes it.
It’s too bad that so many people are so swayed by emotional arguments.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Interesting, in a nation founded on 1st Amendment rights of free speech we have another example of someone being discriminated against for telling the truth about what they think. Is Janet Napolitano going to now add her to the DHS right-wing domestic terrorist list because of this?
DL13 on April 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Madison: Again, you say that the Folsom Street Fair is a product of liberal thinking? But your hometown of Madison is fairly liberal too, is it not?
Look, it’s plain that the Folsom Street thing IS a gay thing–or are you forgetting the whole gay subculture of extreme promiscuity from the 70′s and early 80′s? It died down some after AIDS, but the impulse is still there. Even today, I never hear any defense of monogamy from gays–it’s all about marriage, but nothing about staying faithful. Witness the person asking about the “wheres the gay celebrate until marriage sites?” earlier in this thread.
SSM is, put bluntly, all about promiscuity and immorality. The Folsom Street Fair is just the logical extension of it. Since homosexuality is in many ways an addiction, it only makes sense. Just like any other addiction, it represents the wino on the street phase.
Again, you claim that Provo is an “extreme example?” And that the REAL Mormons are Warren Jeffs outfit? Dude, I respect you. Please don’t destroy my opinion of you by lowering yourself to this. Warren Jeffs is in jail. Are you REALLY arguing that Mormons should all be in jail?
Vanceone on April 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM
here is an interesting article on Gay Marriage and how Christians should deal with it:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/16-2memorandum.php
different from what you normally read
jp on April 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Streeeeeeetch.
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM
jp on April 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM
So you say, whether valid or not.
Were it not so, the redefinition of man and the redefinition of woman and the redefinition of “marriage is the sanctified legal union between a man and a woman” and the redefinition of issue from matrimony and the redefinition of family, and of all things pertaining to the redefinition ARE AFFECTED.
So long as someone can have what someone wants at the expense of altering the premise, nothing else matters. No.
“Nothing else” is a blind and self-willed premise dismissing the alteration as nothing. If indeed nothing is altered, then no change need be made, no alteration required.
So far as money and material possessions are concerned, civil union is equal to marriage under the law. Wills and Last Testaments and legal rights of inheritance or rights to attend a loved one while hospitalized are not inhibited by anyone who takes the measures to have specifics documented, whether heterosexual or homosexual; estates, living wills, the power of attorney and the right to be represented by an attorney are not prejudiced by sexual orientation or by any other matter.
Homosexuals are deriding the civil unions performed throughout the centuries as if civil unions are illegitimate.
Determine the linguistic term for the union of one adult to another that intrinsically either has no sexual reference/inference, or specifies the homosexual reference of the union. But do not misappropriate a term for political expediency in order to appease a radical agenda or to assume moral superiority to historical references, dismissing the traditional sanctity of the holy sacrament.
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Your argument does not contradict my statement that there is no such thing as a homophobe. It’s a made up term used to label and intimidate a person who doesn’t share your view. It’s a way of “shutting you up.”
And although I’ve never once suggested violence against gays, I reserve the right to speak honestly and openly about what I think about their desires which are worse than most animals. I will not sit here and be pressured into saying “there’s nothing wrong with it” simply to avoid being called a homophobe by some queer.
Ironically, those who censor their true thoughts on the matter based on that fear might actually be the true “homophobes.” They are, after all, afraid of homosexuals.
Maybe the term can be used accurately after all.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM
And their use of a modified swastika on their party flags, and their evident use of violence to silence dissent, and fear of them by the locals, oh yeah, and it was the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. I forget, what’s the dominant religion in Syria?
Try again. You’re trying to paint me with the same brush that you’re crying about others supposedly using on you on the gay marriage issue. Going back on topic now.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Yep. Shock jocks. Scandals sell.
shick on April 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
That’s what I said.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I don’t know what the big surprise is here. It’s not even about the celeb gossip, I could care less about that, celebs are attention whores that do it to themselves (a lot of the time), they send him and other sites info all the time. He makes a living off of hating anyone who doesn’t see the world the way he does and calling celebrity children ugly, yet he has the onions to say that anyone who thinks marriage is btw a man and a woman are ‘full of hate’. It’s all kind of a waste with people like him, there’s no need to bother. I’d rather ignore him and say a little prayer for this woman who is probably receiving a hell of a lot of crazy mail from trash monsters like this pig.
SoxNation on April 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Not surprisingly, you’ve probably never been to the middle east nor do you understand the difference between a secular government(that of Assad) and a religious government(that of Iran).
I’m just saying, when you don’t know something, as you obviously do not, don’t keep digging a hole. Ask someone to explain it to you.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Adoption.
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Perez Hilton’s question was a political gotcha question that seems inappropriate for a beauty pageant. The issue is currently a matter of hot debate in California and whichever way Miss California answered would have made her political enemies.
So, I can’t support the question, and presume that the pageant management was aware it was going to be asked and approved it. The co-executive director’s “disappointment” at the answer is very telling.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
It is the same tactic used by our enemies here and abroad…look at the Islamic radicals in western states. They completely exploit our multi-culti, relativistic society and will press and press for more and more incremental concessions until it’s all a blur and we wonder what happened.
I just want to make this very clear. I make a distinction between those who struggle with same sex attraction and the homosexual movement. I believe that individuals struggle with all manner of sin and I am the CHEIF of sinners, for sure. haha…the stories I have are horrible. But, by God’s grace, I am cleansed and believe the same can be found for all who come to Him in repentance. With that said, I LOATHE the homosexual lobby…I think it is a danger to our nation and to the west and think it furthers the bondage of so many who would be free by ENDORSING an unhealthy, personally devastating lifestyle. The civil rights equation really gets me fired up…
HOW DARE THEY LIKEN THEIR OWN STRUGGLE TO LIVE THE WAY THEY WANT TO WITH THOSE WHO WERE CHAINED AND KILLED AND DENIED BASIC SOCIETAL BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY WERE DARK SKINNED!??!!? What an outrage.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
They were promoting the NBC “America Sucks” agenda. NBC – NBC – NBC
marklmail on April 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Yeah, in terms of the pageant itself, I’m really shocked that they allow political questions of this sort. Why not just ask the contestants for whom they voted? I think the question was really unfair.
I wonder if there will be any attempt to put pressure on the sponsors? Boycott, anyone?
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Did you intentionally change the subject because you realized you were losing the argument, or did it just kind of happen?
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Since when did the Miss USA Contest Judges broadcast their rationale to bash a contestant?
Poor judgment.
Contestants are held to a high standard to represent the institution’s image.
Apply the same responsibility upon the judges to uphold the save rules that competitors abide.
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Losing what argument?
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I totally agree with this comment, Mommypundit. Yes, many people struggle with homosexual attractions. I emphathsize with them fully, for I struggle with things too (not that, though). But the SSM lobbyists and defenders are just plain in league with the devil. They want to call good evil and evil good–in fact, they do. Look at their “breeders.” It’s a sin to have a family, in the gay world.
Vanceone on April 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
What a clown.
Otis B on April 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
10 out of 10 gay couples would have to adopt. As in, get their children from someone else.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I agree with this article.
I also think abortion is a national curse. We think we WILL be judged for these things…yes, as He is probably waiting for the fullness of our sin and time before hand…but the actual depravity IS judgement. Romans clearly says he will turn us over. Is that the most heartbreaking passage or what?
We had so much light…and now we fight to see just a little bit.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Is that anything like the straight subculture of “swinging” that was so popular during the 70s? A subculture is just that: Not representative of the mainstream community.
No, I stated that Warren Jeffs was an extreme example, in the same way you used the FSF as an extreme example. I never said Provo was an extreme example. A fair comparison would be merely the cities of San Francisco(without focusing on the FSF) and Provo. You could absolutely make an argument that San Francisco is a far more sexually liberated.
I’ll give you another example. The city of Janesville, WI is known as a pretty conservative town. Now, years ago we had some KKK members hold rallies on the outskirts, one of which Geraldo made famous. Do those rallies represent the conservative community of Janesville? Of course not.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I think that megs mccain here is not familiar with most, if not all, gay parades.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I watched this last night and I heard only cheers when she gave her answer.
MechEng5by5 on April 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
To MadisonConservative. You guys were having a fairly good debate and then you just kind of veered off course to start talking about Middle Eastern politics.
I’m not really making a jab at you, I’m just kind of wondering why you felt you had to sway off topic.
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Dude, you’re just a changeophobe.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
When?
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
As to Perez Hilton’s video, I stopped watching it after he used a derogatory sexual slur to criticize Miss California.
What kind of people use such terms against women?
I am very disappointed that so few people have called this spade a spade:
Perez Hilton is a sexist bully, liberal bigot, and shows signs of being an egomaniacal narcissist.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I didn’t say it was epic or anything…
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
We weren’t debating anything other than me saying madisonconservative/megs mccain is clueless about issues and too arrogant to admit it.
The middle eastern thing came up when he was criticizing vanceone and others for making generalities, and I pointed to where he did this himself a short time back regarding arabs.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I prefer mysogynistic scumbag, but that’s just me.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I prefer poopie pants in reference to megs mccain/madison conservative, but that may be too intellectual of a title.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I’m not poor, but I have no money. So, I boycott nearly everything.
I think the sponsors need to hear from Americans who don’t like it when our young women are set up with political traps, then put down with sexual slurs by the managers and judges of a “beauty pageant.”
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
You still haven’t quoted me anywhere generalizing Arabs. Quit slandering me. I provided you the link. Quote me, or shut up.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
You’re refusal to accept and own up to what you did is rather scary. You continually used the term “jihadists” in reference to the people who beat up hitchens, after repeatedly being told the syrian socialist party and many parties aligned with it(one of which, to a degree, is the FPM, a CATHOLIC party) were not jihadists.
They had nothing in common with “jihadists” save for being arabs. Just admit what you said and move on.
Oh, and don’t be a hypocrite and accuse others of doing what you did.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I don’t fully agree/disagree with either one of your arguments, but holy crap you’re acting like a little child.
You could write an encyclopedia entry on hypocrite from your posts in this thread alone, including accusing MadCon of bashing all Arabs without having the stones to actually quote him, even after he provided you with a link to do so.
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Madison: Where, I ask you, is the condemnation of the Folsom fair amongst gays? Awhile ago in one of these threads we saw a link where Cape Cod is now having gay orgies on the beaches. We see and hear about this in Central park in NYC as well. The gay parade in Salt Lake is not as bad as the Folsom fair, but it certainly isn’t exactly “moral” in the sense of promoting fidelity, chastity, etc.
From where I sit, the mainstream gay culture does nothing to squash the gay orgy stuff. I’ll grant that the “swinging” thing was big back then, but it’s not celebrated anything like gay pride and the Folsom thing today. Are there examples of predominantly gay places where things like fidelity, commitment, etc are promoted heavily? And are they held up as the norm or the ideal?
As for your comparison with your conservative town and the KKK–is this a regular, promoted, tourist attraction like the Fair?
My question ultimately is this: Why would I assume gay rights does not lead to something like the FSF? Everything I see the SSM movement stand for and the gays I’ve dealt with all point to that being a goal in some way. Perhaps not the openness, etc–but the rampant sexual activity really seems to be the raison d’être for the gay movement. “Play without pay.”
Vanceone on April 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Oh, and TTheoLogan started this thread with some good points. It’s degenerated rapidly since then, alas.
Vanceone on April 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Now you’re just trolling.
SouthernDem on April 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Dude, you have become tiresome bordering on ridiculous. I sincerely hope that you are not acting your age, if so then you are too young to have an opinion based on real life experience.
thomasaur on April 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Sounds like someone came into this a little late. You didn’t even bother reading the earlier comments on this article, otherwise you would have known myself and megs mccain never were debating anything regarding the topic at hand. He first posted some whiny, sarcastic reply to what I was talking with jetboy and others about regarding the topic. From there, it was just responses to each other.
We were never having a “good debate.” I was calling him out for being the same poopie pants he usually is.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Pretty much.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
yeah, thinking of it as a curse against the Church instead of just a sin is a different view than what you normally hear.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I’m a Christian and you said I’d never be welcome to take part in The Holy Sacrament in your church. You’re against some Christians. You hold that political dogma but rail against someones elses srtict stance on the question of marriage.
Someone jump right in here and unconfuse me.
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
James White has been saying that for a while.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I’ve been in the thread since comment one, which is how I was able to call the sole astroturfer about two pages back. And like I said earlier, you had some pretty good points that I didn’t neccessarily disagree with, but you’ve pretty much jumped the shark as far as this thread goes.
I know you won’t admit that, but several other commenters have noticed as well, so I don’t think I’m in the wrong here.
BadgerHawk on April 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
It’s probably unhelpful to laugh. Seriously.
It is a tragedy that such manipulation of scripture is being down across the religious/Christian spectrum. Thus the new (though not really all that new) determination to examine doctrine and clearly espouse what Christianity actually IS.
jetboy, communion is denied when we have unrepentant hearts and active, unconfessed sin. Homosexuality is a sin against God’s order and, ultimately, against Him. Though your particular Catholic parish might be flimsy on this doctrine, it isn’t the fault of scripture, it is the fault of your minister who is not clearly expositing the bible.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I watched this live (sue me I like hot girls) and I was astonished to see four of the five final questions overtly political. One about if you believe in universal healthcare as a right of citizenship (lol), another about foreign policy, and another about the bailouts (this girl won; she got great applause saying she opposed bailing out failing companies, then sadly she went on to say she’d rather spend the money on esentially failing liberal pet projects.)
Since when was the final question: Do you or do you not agree with me politically?
Patriot33 on April 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I do understand and disagree with the frequent liberal argument of:
Shut up!
I am not suggesting you do this.
I am suggesting that the words you call people also say much about who you are. When you label people with derogatory slurs, to me this says you are willing to treat human beings as objects, as if they have no sacred rights. Wherever this approach to people is instituted by governments, there is tyranny and horror. I think we’ve had enough of that.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
No, you haven’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have said we were having a good debate about issues, which we were never having. We were never talking about issues at all.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
This is what happens when you don’t put scripture first and base tradition off of that, as opposed to putting them on equal footing or really, tradition over scripture.
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
The newer, much much more tolerant younger generation that ignores history and eschews the lessons of science and presumes to own nature and obliterates from mind any and all opposition, that can’t see past its own nose, THAT newer generation’s self righteous intolerance of those who embraced the rights for homosexuals and actually fought the fight on their behalf for 50 years really deserves recognition for what it is.
The radical homosexual community has been organized since 1960 and is going stronger than ever, not to gain equal rights, but as a political entity, to gain superior rights, already benefiting from the special judicial treatment through “hate crime” legislation, and most assuredly benefiting from preferential treatment in the Judicial system because of the enormous power of the ACLU.
The homosexual public agenda is not for peace and love and “can’t we all just get along” kumbaya. If it were, Perez Hilton would not be the public figure using everything as his own selfish tool to meet his own selfish ends, regardless of who suffers from his efforts to coerce what he wants. He and his cause are all that matter, AS IF.
Sexuality is a private and personal matter.
maverick muse on April 20, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Considering that many gays work on monogamous relationships, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that gay parades promote cheating on your significant other. As for the chastity bit, until gays can get married, it’s kind of impossible for them to ever have approved sex, I guess.
I agree with you that I would like to see more of their spokespeople pipe up about these things, and the lack of denouncement of these things annoys me as well. However, I don’t really know if such statements do or don’t exist as I don’t go to gay activism or community sites. Again though, I would wonder how gays are expected to create any image of commitment when they don’t have the ability to ratify marriage? That’s not snark, by the way. If people who care about the importance of monogamy and commitment would like to see the homosexual community embrace said values, why do they deny them the epitome of that sort of life?
Among the KKKers? Yes, it was. The majority of the town ignored it or protested. The Geraldo incident made the city finally take a stand. As I recall, there are protesters at the FSF, and I was under the idea that the majority of San Franciscans do not attend the FSF.
Aren’t you basing your view of the gay community on what is most publicized? Again, by the same token, if I were to use the same standard to find out about, say, Baptists, what would be the most publicized material I would find? The Westboro Baptists, of course. Do they represent Baptists? No. Judging an entire community that is spread out across the entire nation by a single, nauseating display in the most liberal city in the nation isn’t a valid comparison.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
It’s becoming more and more apparent that megs mccain/madison conservative has never
1.Been to a gay parade
2.Heard of them
TTheoLogan on April 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
We are talking about what is normative function. Every scientific study will examine norms…they include controls…they know there is a standard and bounce things off said standard. Marriage and procreation is the same.
If you are a “christian” you must believe that we are also living in an unredeemed planet and subject to sin nature and a corrupted natural world, thus sin, death, decay. Because some “choose” not to have children or some cannot have children is sad but does not dismiss the normal function of males and females and the sociological benefit of sanctioned marriage for the protection of children and, as I said (historically) women. The fact that it is clearly admonished and represented in scripture should be, to you, a plus. If you are a believer.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Gosh, I read the article you linked and can’t seem to buy it. It seems to essentially be blaming homosexuality exclusively on bad parenting, in particular that of fathers.
I would never blame my father for my homosexuality. I’ve always loved my father and respect him for how he and my mother raised me and my brothers.
But back to the topic at hand — I applaud Miss California. Perez Hilton is a moron, and gay marriage is a joke… and it’s a “cause” or premise that I don’t buy for one minute.
D2Boston on April 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next »