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 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
You’re being just as condescending in your attitude towards them as they are on that video. Calling them bigoted is a big overreaction just because they took a position on a hotly debated issue. Neither side has been proven, but you’re assuming the opposite. In that, both of you are making erroneous statements.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Yeah, but after hearing “I don’t want to set the world on fire” 3,872 times, it begins to grate just a tad.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Fixed it for you.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM
You visit Hilton’s web site daily don’t you?
PappaMac on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
I’m sorry. Did you say something? Have you EVER really said anything?
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Excuse me. I didn’t mean to interrupt. You were telling us how you’re some awesome kind of patriotic rebel by using derogatory words to describe a group of people.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:21 PM
This is true. Killzone 2? Also awesome.
SnarkVader on April 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM
The gay mafia: Winning friends and influencing people.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Still waiting. Keep trying. Eventually you’ll actually make a point. How’s that butt kissing of Allah going? Being invited for dinner yet?
Allah stalker
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM
click here and scroll to the bottom.
Miss USA inc: Donald Trump and NBC.
That just about explains everything doesn’t it.
Scumbags.
pabarge on April 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Thank you. I don’t hate homosexuals. I’m an immigration restrictionist, but I don’t hate Muslims or Mexicans. I don’t hate people who wear clothes that I think look shabby. I would prefer a traditional society, which I can argue for dispassionately without it getting personal on an individual or even a group level.
aengus on April 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM
That contest still being aired? If freaks like P. Hilton are in a starring capacity it belongs on cable, late night.
I applaud Miss California for being honest.
FireBlogger on April 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Hilton was on MSNBC saying he retracts his apology and wishes he had called her a c^%$ instead of a b&$#@. Of course MSNBC didn’t criticize him at all for this.
davenp35 on April 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM
anytime anyone, and i mean anyone stands up for traditional values, etc. they immediately get posted on every gay blog known to man to be crucified and villified for ever more and for all the world to see. now, i’m gay, and i have some harsh words for Perez Hilton and the way he carries himself and treats others, etc. but i wouldn’t want to offend anyone again after what i said about that intelligent beautiful goddess known as megan mccain.
Ghoul aid on April 20, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Now come on. You know at least some people “become” gay. How come there are, for instance, so many women who are straight and then once they are raped/sexually assaulted they become lesbians? You know they exist. One such women is my wife’s cousin.
Also, I remember years ago on Oprah where she had some teenager/college kid on her show. The kid was going on about how when he was younger kids kept saying over and over and over again that he was gay. They kept calling him gay. Then, he said that it got to the point that he thought “you know what? Maybe I am gay”.
In other words, people drove him to being gay. This happens to many, MANY people.
BTW, if all people are born gay then I guess you wouldn’t mind if it was referred to as a birth defect. What? That’s offensive? Well you can’t have it both ways.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Just as Miss CA is standing by what she says, Perez is standing by what he says. He was just on MSNBC and says he means everything he said about calling her the “B” word. He then said he was thinking the “C” word, but didn’t say it. C’mon, regardless of what you feel that is freakin hilarious and ballsy to say on live tv!! Good times.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM
One of the other finalists answered “no” (though not that emphatically) to a question on whether tax money should be bailing out failing companies.
RightWinged on April 20, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Wait a minute. What’s wrong with wanting to use a word by it’s definition? Do gays want their own version of ebonics where they get to change the meanings of words as well? Will you do a “phat/fat” mispelling? You know, calling it “gay marij” or something?
You know what? I used to not give a rip about gay marriage until people like you kept saying that anyone who is against it is a bigot. Hey, I got news for you. My wife was a “fag hag” and she’s been against gay marriage long before me.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM
By all means if one guy out of millions went on Oprah and said he was “made” gay — then clearly no one is born gay. Oprah has spoken.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Webster’s Dictionary — the benchmark for English definitions — has included gay marriage in the definition of marriage. So, technically the definition has already been changed!
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:35 PM
That’s right, and it would be interesting to know just how many threats they received from homonazis before bowing to their wishes. That IS how you people operate, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, the overwhelming bulk of the population doesn’t need Websters, or you, to tell us how marriage is defined.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Keep telling yourself that. In a few years you and all the backwoods hillbillies will look as silly as those who still want separate water fountains for the dirty “coloreds”.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:45 PM
What do Airheads think about civil unions? Are we OK with those? I’ll put in a quick personal story: About 20 years ago when I was young, single and (even more) beautiful, I was offered 20,000 pounds to marry a gay man in a fake wedding. The issue was that he was in a relationship with a British man but with him being American, there was nothing they could do to allow him to stay in Britain permanently. And OK, I didn’t take him up on it, but I felt sad that any British hetero could have a mail-order bride (or in the case of the Muslims, ship over their own first cousins from the village) and get instant citizenship, whereas these two had to conduct a transatlantic relationship for ever. Didn’t seem right, and I guess civil unions would have to include that right too. What do you lot think? I am straight and married now, BTW.
Fortunata on April 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Just because grammarians write the dictionaries does not mean they actually decide the meaning of words.
Lots of people like to pull a two-sentence entry on fascism out of the dictionary to prove that their politicial opponent – Bush, Obama, whoever – is fascist.
aengus on April 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Everyone, see the person above? Now remember, don’t feed the MOBYs!!!
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
MC, he’s just a Moby. Treat him as such.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Yeah, you like those backwoods hillbilly analogies, don’t you? Deliverance your favorite movie? Does banjo music get you excited?
Doesn’t your dog need some walk’in about now?
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Way to completely ignore me saying “Now come on. You know at least some people “become” gay.”
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Wow. You sure showed me with your clever jokes and mastery of the fine use of irony and sarcasm. I’m truly humbled.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Newbie huh? Keep tossing out those internet abbreviations enough and eventually some might believe you’re really really smart.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Wow! I didn’t know California (which voted against gay marriage) was full of hillibillies.
BTW, don’t look now but your bigotry is showing.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Oh, the irony.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM
I’m sure there are always exceptions (people doing it for attention, etc). But that is the small exception not the rule. I never understood people saying sexual orientation is a choice. By them saying that, they are fully admitting that they are as sexuall attracted to the same sex as the opposite, and have just so happened to choose the opposite gender. It’s such a faulty argument.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Dude, Moby isn’t an internet abbreviation. Infact, it’s not an abbreviation period.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I know. It’s a really good book, or if you’re gay you might use it to describe something really big. After all, their entire world revolves around their sexual desires.
Oh, Gawd. Was that bigoted? Damn!
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Technically your an idiot in a Barney Fife sort of way
Gay or straight you will always lead a very lonely life.
Why ? Because you lack social skills,proper hygene any sense of humor.
Take your blow up doll and go away
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
So then is being born gay a birth defect? Is it? You know, a feature your born with that is not of the norm? Seriously, I wonder.
Just to let you know, I do believe that SOME are born gay and SOME become gay. Usually it’s the women who seem to become gay. The ones that claim to be “bi” tend to do that because it’s trendy. The ones that become lesbians tend to do it because some POS raped/abused/assaulted/etc and psyhologically turn them off to men. The majority of men, however, do seem to have been born gay but it certain isn’t all of them.
Trust me, I have a bigger issue with “bi” women (the fake ones that do it to be trendy) then any gay man or woman. I especially seem to get along with lesbians. They are cool to hang with as long as they aren’t part of the “all men are evil” crowd. Gay dudes tend to be very entertaining/talented. The ones the tick me off on both sides are the ones who say that if you are against gay marriage then you are a bigot.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM
I’d heard of a few in Beverly Hills…
Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin at some food,
And up through the ground came a bubblin’ crude.
Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Your projecting, tell the truth
Your scared to death of black people and you have a crush on your first cousin
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Your community college degree has really benefited you. Congrats for hanging in there.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 7:02 PM
The one thing that you said that I certainly think is bigoted is saying that we should treat gays the same way Iran treats them. That’s what I have a problem with.
BTW, I’m straight, happily married, and I’m against gay marriage being forced but have no problem with it being legal in Vermont since they did it the American way. Now I would personally vote against it but if the majority votes for it then oh well.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM
You’ve made several good points in this thread. And in advocating your positions, you’ve been quite fair. I greatly appreciate that.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM
What they want is approval of their lifestyle and will straddle this line of innate/choice/civil right and not commit either way until all resistance is nullified. It is never really, REALLY about the thing they want, be it legitimacy or marriage. What they want is the shame to go away. They will do whatever it takes to remove, ultimately, religious opposition. The act can have NO dissent. Ultimately, to say it is a sin will BE the sin…and prosecution will follow.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM
In all your posts, 17 I think, you have never criticized Perez Hilton’s misogynous slur against Miss California.
Why?
What are your views about his statement?
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 7:15 PM
I agree with you.
Heck, you can call a man who molests little girls “straight” but don’t you dare call a man who molests little boys “gay”.
One of the few times that I think South Park got something a little bit wrong was saying “See, straight men can be child molesters, too”. Yes, that’s true. The problem was that the “straight” man was molesting little BOYS. The guy is either straight while having a wife as a cover or he is bi. He most certainly isn’t “straight”.
Note: I am not saying that all gay men are child molesters. Read what I said above carefully.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Okay, can we please stop is all the “ists” and “isms”? Let’s leave that to the libs.
But yeah, what does he think about Perez’s statements?
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Except that I never said that. It was someone else.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Don’t gay people tend to live in big cities where approval hasn’t really been an issue for about 20 years?
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I certainly didn’t condone his statements, either. But he did make that statement on his own video…not during the Miss America show.
As a final thought here, obviously this is a very heated issue for all sides. Very emotional. I understand that.
It’s just that after a while, I get SO sick and tired of being treated like I have a birth defect, I can change, and treated like a second-class citizen by having a basic legal document denied me.
So it really hits home for me.
But equality, and LOVE, will win out in the end. Gay marriage WILL become a reality in the USA. Soon.
God Bless.
JetBoy on April 20, 2009 at 7:31 PM
What a joke. He asked one of the most divisive questions in America today and then cries when her answer doesn’t lead to unity (ie–agreeing with him). Do gays need to make everything in society about them and their quest to redefine marriage?
Dollayo on April 20, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Is he the sister to Paris Hilton?
right2bright on April 20, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Haven’t you heard the saying “As California/New York go, the rest of the country follows”?
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I’m old. I have never referred to a woman in the way Perez Hilton did. I suppose all such language can grouped as bigotry. But it does seem to focus on specific groups of people, with each type of bigotry having different characteristics. There is racism, misogyny and many other kinds of bigotry.
I don’t believe in speech codes or “hate speech” ordinances, but do believe that irrational bias and hatred is dangerous for all of us. And, as an old-fashioned man, I am particularly distressed at bigoted slurs aimed at women.
I hope this better explains my views, whippersnapper.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Is this guy supposed to be somebody?
christene on April 20, 2009 at 7:43 PM
But anyone says they are against gay marriage in their own videos and you say “HOMOPHOBE!!! YOU HATE FREEDOM FOR GAYS!!!!”
Wait a minute. So you weren’t born gay? I mean, after all people who are born gay are technically born with a birth defect (in other words, a feature you are born with that is against the norm). So which is it? Were you born gay and therefor born with a birth defect or did you become gay later in life?
Equality has already happened on that front. Gays don’t have the special “right” of being able to marry either sex. Both straights and gays have the right to marry the opposite sex.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:46 PM
You are well respected on this site, so dump the “victim card”, it is not becoming of you.
The simple fact is marriage is between a man and a woman, you are the one who won’t accept that fact.
Just because someone would say they aren’t calling their dogs tail a “tail” anymore, it doesn’t give the dog now five legs.
Find another word, gayiage, for one. You are only talking about 1-3% of the population who will ever use it.
But then you know this argument, and you just want to change a definition, a social mores, because you want to.
Let me give us some examples: Terrorists are no longer terrorists….food stamps are no longer food stamps…and many other “name” changes.
Changed because people felt “persecuted”, they didn’t change the meaning, they changed the words.
You can have your own word, then point to us who are “married” and laugh at us for being “elitists” (used to be snobs).
98% of the population, shouldn’t have to change for you.
This is not a “homo-centric” world.
right2bright on April 20, 2009 at 7:46 PM
You know what we should do? Let’s have the definition of “African American” changed so that whites can be called that as well. That way we get all the “rights” that they have, such as Afirmative Action, minority college funds (NOTE: I actually have zero problems with those since they tend to be privately funded and help minorities that want to make sometime of themselves), and other stuff that blacks enjoy that white people don’t.
What? That wouldn’t swing? Well no sh*t, nor would I be for that happening. But you see my point?
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Hadn’t heard that. I’m still puzzling my way through “What’s good for GM is good for America”.
CA has domestic partnerships while NY recognizes gay marriages from other states. They seem like they are working through the process. They haven’t been on the leading edge of the issue but with close to 20% of the US population between them what they do will have a national impact.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
I actually screwed up the saying. It’s actually “As California/New York goes, so goes the rest of the country”.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Jesus this gets old.
Yes homosexuality is something someone is born with and it is a defect. There are some children that are born with ambiguous genetalia and the doctors have to make a tough decision. It is also very obvious that there are varying degrees of the defect both physically and chemically.
No big deal, however, no one will have an honest investigation of the issue since it carries such political baggage now.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I understand how that must feel, JetBoy, and I’m sorry everything always devolves to that.
But please understand – the way you ended your message is just as offensive to those of us who oppose gay marriage (again – my remedy would be legally-identical civil unions…everybody wins, right?) as anything anyone has said to you. It’s as if you’re saying, “We’re going to hold down your religion and force this on you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
This is a repeated theme of the gay community. Reading it wasn’t the first time I heard that very phrase today.
I think you ought to strike that one from your arsenal. I also have to wonder why you tell me you would accept the civil unions I describe, but you seem to keep pushing for more.
Seems like you’re just like everyone else, for whom this is incremental. In a conflict between your Catholicism and your homosexuality, your homosexuality has won. Sorry, but I find that truly sad.
God bless you also.
capitalist piglet on April 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I don’t feel qualified enough in constitutional law (or contract law, for that matter) to answer that.
On a gut level, I think people should be able to designate a representative to make decisions for them on medical, financial, and other serious issues. I don’t think the gender of that person should matter.
If there are states (Texas?) that currently prevent domestic partnerships or similar arrangements for gay couples, that certainly seems unfair… but whether or not we should bend the principles of states rights over this issue is not at all clear to me.
Another way to look at it is that there is sort of an implied or accepted right to work; however, it is certainly the case that some states have laws that put the employer in the driver’s seat more than do others (such as California), which lean towards workers’ rights. It seems to me that we are free to move to the state that suits us. Shouldn’t that also be the case for domestic partnership arrangements?
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Ms California is gorgeous and you know that her statement hurt her ranking. I am tired of conservative values being “offensive” to others. We have the right to our beliefs and marriage is a union between a woman and a man. Don’t like it? Sorry.
TXMomof3 on April 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Several people criticized the anti-homosexual slurs posted in this thread, including me. As such slurs are private statements by other posters, I suppose I could have remained silent. it certainly would have been safer for me to do so. But I didn’t, because silence is a method of condoning such behavior.
Silence and indifference are always an easy means of accepting such immoral behavior.
And not condoning, but neither criticizing, that is, by simply voting “present,” is also an easy means of avoiding responsibility.
May you find compassion for others, even for those who do not accept you as you are, and may you find Peace.
†
Panis angelicus fit panis hominum
Dat panis coelicus figuris terminum
O res mirabilis Manducat Dominum
Pauper, servus et humilis
Te trina Deitas unaque poscimus
Sic nos tu visita sicut te colimus
Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus
Ad lucem quam inhabitas
Amen
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
The meaning of a word changes over decades or centuries based on usage. There was no need to refer to an “acoustic guitar” until the 1930′s when someone invented an electric guitar. A purist might require a new word but ultimately usage will drive meaning. Did the U.S. post office demand that electronic messages not use the word “mail”?
For social relationships, people use the terms brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle, aunt with a variety of leniency. If a woman says “this is my daughter” but the bond is not biological (may or may not be legal) does she in some way devalue the mother/daughter relationships that are biological and began at the child’s birth?
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
How is immoral behavior on conservative’s part to state the truth of our beliefs that homosexuality is wrong?
TXMomof3 on April 20, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Now can anyone who supports the idea that gays are ‘born’ that way explain to me why first Anne Heche and now Lindsay Lohan have reverted back to guys?
technopeasant on April 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM
1; Did the other contestants get these same kind of “hot button issue” questions?
2; Did Perez Hilton have a bio of all contestants, and did Miss California’s bio state that she was a Christian?
3; Did Perez Hilton already know how Miss CA would answer?
cranbone on April 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I also haven’t had time to read all of the comments, just got home from work.
But my first thought was as you stated, what did they know about the Cali gal? Did they know she was a Christian – such as Catholic, Mormon or an Evangelical and had participated in Prop 8? Did they specifically target her? None of the other questions seemed to be targeting any of the other gals.
I think she was targeted and I’m proud of her for telling the truth. Why should she cover? Why should she be politically correct? She was adorable and there is much money for scholarships in that pageant. I didn’t see the show except the last 5 minutes, so I don’t know about the rest of it.
SHAME ON TRUMP!
Bambi on April 20, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Easy, they are more likely suffering from some sort of mental imbalance. I bet you would find some other odd behavior of a non-sexual nature.
In Lindsay’s case however, I feel it is just hollywood need for attention. Let me fill you on something. You know those trashy, hot college girls you see kissing on the Girls Gone Wild advertisements? They are not really lesbians.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 8:35 PM
I don’t think she was “targeted” per se (although I do think the whole thing stinks to high heaven). Someone earlier on the thread mentioned that the contestants chose the questions out of a bowl… and the other questions were also hot topics, although I believe this was the only one on gay rights.
If you look at the corporate website for Miss Universe, it becomes pretty clear that they have a political agenda. I’ve always preferred the Miss America contest over Miss USA — now I know why!
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 8:37 PM
This is my favorite Hot Air comment ever. Ever.
SouthernDem on April 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I don’t know anything about this Hilton guy, but when he calls the lady a “dumb bitch” for answering the question in the manner she did, Mr Hilton showed more about himself than he could ever say about Carrie Prejean.
Now I’m going to ask the question about that 800 lb gorilla in the back of the room that no one else wants to ask:
What the hell is a gay guy doing being the judge of a women’s beauty contest..hmmm?
I know, I know. More than beauty is being judged here, you know, brains, talent, etc, I get it. Maybe Hilton was taking a pee break during the swimsuit part. Yet, it still strikes me as nonsensical as if I were judging the sexiest Chippendale dancer.
So answer my question any way you like, but it still comes down to some obnoxious blogger/gossip columnist calling a young female contestant a “dumb bitch” because she has the audacity to answer his stupid question honestly and give her true belief. This guy Hilton came across as a jerk.
gary fouse on April 20, 2009 at 8:44 PM
You are right that the question is a tough one. A case possibly on the way to SCOTUS (Gill v Office of Personnel Management) could find the conservative and liberal parts of the court flip flopping. Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy have voted in the past to limit federal power in favor of states rights (notably the landmark US v Lopez on gun laws). In this case they would have to address whether DOMA constitutes the federal government encroaching on the state’s authority to regulate marriages.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Please, next time use SPOILER ALERT.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:47 PM
In an earlier post I asked a bunch of questions. They weren’t really meant to be answered per se, but were for a larger discussion about how Perez Hilton ambushed a certain type of event and decided either force Miss Cal. to either say something against her Christian values, or attempt to use his Ministry of Truth army to marginalize her into someone who’s looked upon as a cartoon bigot.
The last questions were;
8; Will the Perez Hilton branch of the Ministry of Truth send agents to all media attempting to stamp down Miss CA?
9; Will those in opposition to all branches of the Ministry of Truth argue and grumble with each other for a substantial period of time, allowing the Ministry of Truth agents to successfully persuade people the Miss CA is really a Neanderthal (i.e. “Palinized”)?
10; wtf?
A lot of this thread pertains to question #9 since I consider most of us the opposition. Looks like the anwswer to #9 is going to be yes based on this thread, and Hilton and his ilk come out on top.
Grrrrr.
cranbone on April 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM
“Be careful of fights with people who buy ink by the barrel” they used to say. Based on the way Perez relentlessly trashes big celebrities, the answer to #8 was little in doubt. However, I doubt he has much of a voice beyond his core demographic.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Constitutional issues aside for a moment, I think it would sure be a lot easier and more sensible if people’s relationships transcended state lines… but I feel that way about a lot of the big ticket issues like abortion and the death penalty.
The reason I am hedging now is that after a debate with someone (on Hot Air, I think) about states’ rights and the death penalty (which I oppose) and abortion (which I also oppose), I came to the conclusion (after rereading sections of the Constitution) that the death penalty really was intended to be left to the states. So I changed my original position which had been that I though the death penalty should be banned across the country.
I still think that abortion, which involves killing someone without any due process or consideration of that person’s rights, should be illegal across the country… but it seems to me that’s a pretty special case, like slavery.
I have to say that I do think that if marriage is redefined to include same-sex unions, there is absolutely no justification that I can see for prohibiting polygamy, at least as practiced by some religious sects, under freedom of religion. So I do really believe this is a slippery slope.
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I’m not opposed to you expressing your belief that you are right and your opponents are wrong. I do that. And, it seems everybody can get carried away in their language these days. I’ve done that too.
I wrote about using specific dehumanizing and degrading slurs to label and stigmatize your opponents. To me, that is immoral. Or, another way to put it is that vulgarity and demeaning epithets create a more vulgar and dehumanized world, where the most aggressive bullies win. Or, hate the sin, but love the sinner.
Read my post again, and the posts to which they refer, and listen to Perez Hilton’s video. If you find nothing offensive or demeaning, then perhaps I am simply a foolish old man.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 8:58 PM
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 8:35 PM
My God, faux gays. Why doesn’t the gay community out them?
Could it be that then they might have a hard time defending why they are considered faux gays or that the ‘gay community’ is comprised of a sizeable contingent of these ‘faux gays; and that perhaps then they would have to admit that some ‘gays’ embrace the lifestyle rather than being born into it.
technopeasant on April 20, 2009 at 9:02 PM
See this is typical behavior for Ghey community. So much anger, and hate. Lashing out in every direction, and so intolerant of opposing view points. Have you run over any old church ladies lately?
Kjeil on April 20, 2009 at 9:02 PM
You always seem to be a thoughtful poster. But at the moment, I’m tired of thinking. I need a good laugh.
Take good care.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I’m not a fan of the slurs either.
I didn’t step in to “defend” JetBoy on this thread because I really think that in this case he sort of set the tone very early on this thread with his dismissive attitude about opponents of gay marriage. I’m not an Evangelical Christian nor am I a homophobe nor am I “lame.”
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Yep. Thank goodness for Iowahawk! I wish he posted new stuff more frequently!
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 9:07 PM
I hear some people are born fire starters.
We should embrace that.
As for the Perez video,, I feel,, well,, inspired somehow.
JellyToast on April 20, 2009 at 9:09 PM
I don’t mean to gang up on you and I’m sure I’m not the first to point this out, but I say this with all charity. From your posts, I can only conclude that you are already too confused to ‘deal with it’.
You claim to be Catholic in a way that suggests you are a practicing one, yet you advocate ‘gay marriage’, while claiming not to have any ‘beef’ with the Church, which says ‘gay marriage’ is a sin and should be opposed…. *gets dizzy*
How do you delude yourself into believing you can separate your Catholicism from some sort of secular life and still be in communion with your Church? You may be a Catholic, Jetboy, but you are committing heresy, just as surely as Nancy Pelosi and all pro-abortion ‘Catholics’ do. Claiming you have no ‘beef’ with the Church’s position does not change that. You are advocating something that goes against the teaching of Christ’s Church, refusing to accept the teaching as truth. That makes you a heretic. Does this not worry you? If I believed the faith you profess (and I do), this would scare the bejeebees out of me.
Also, in adding to the confusion, you are also possibly guilty of bringing scandal to someone. What if you convince someone to agree with you and they in turn engage in sinful behavior that they otherwise would have avoided? Have you read Matthew 18? That should be even scarier.
And it is also doctrine to refrain from presenting oneself for the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin. To be clear, I have no idea if you do or don’t; I’m just saying.
You are probably correct that ‘gay marriage’ will become a ‘reality’ in the US, but it will still be a fallacy. It will still be sinful. capitalist piglet is correct, too. You have obviously chosen homosexual practice over the clear and constant infallible teachings of Christ’s Church to which you profess to belong. You are choosing earthly rewards at the risk of eternal ones. You are taking a great risk. I pray you reconsider.
Back to the subject of the thread….Hilton Perez…
I’d heard his name, but didn’t know anything about him. I actually assumed he was a girl. At any rate, he’s an ass.
Moby…
What’s a Moby? Or do I even want to know?
pannw on April 20, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I’m thinking Ms Prejean just became the newest SoCon martyr. I feel sorry for her if she didn’t win because of a reasonable position to hold, but because of this, she will have many more opportunities to shine… If she hadn’t stood up for her beliefs, well, she would have just faded away.
Yes, cynical, but true.
Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Oh, yay.
Putting aside the obvious fact of Hilton’s conduct, the larger question of the origin of homosexuality is always… fascinating.
First, I think it’s very hard to say there is a _genetic_ cause of homosexuality. Since homosexuality is a sexuality, it only really manifests at puberty. At issue is the fact that, by the time human beings reach puberty, the environment that they’ve been raised in and around will have a profound effect on them. Thus, the grounds on which the question can be asked are already hopeless muddied.
But let me use an illustrative example.
Myself.
First, I am Roman Catholic, and quite traditional in my beliefs.
I’m also, by almost any standard, ‘biological homosexual’. Let me explain what I mean by this. On a physical level, I am attracted to men, not women.
Culturally, of course, I am quite heterosexual. I might also point out here that I have never explicitly acted on my physical reactions to men, nor do I plan to. Do not try to argue this point to me; I simply ask that you respect my decision.
Now, of course, the question is brought up as to whether I indeed am homosexual or not. Most homosexuals would say yes, by the above. I am not so sure. Certainly, I do not dismiss such arguments out of hand as many people do, due to personal reasons. However, my childhood background is so unhappy (and, from my limited research, typical of homosexuals), and so antagonistic of a ‘normal family life’, that it is easily argued that my homosexual ‘reactions’ could have been learned. That is, if you believe that all people are genetically heterosexual, you can still believe that people, over time, can be ‘trained’ (psychologically, though by no means implicating brainwashing) to redirect those responses to a different target.
The ground of the argument changes, but the positions don’t. Anyway, I don’t mean to muddy the waters here, but perhaps the issue is not as clear as most people believe.
Scott H on April 20, 2009 at 9:14 PM
He IS a girl.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 9:15 PM
See: Gregor
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Hey Miss California! Consider your 2nd place a badge of HONOR!
gxpgxp on April 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Perez just needs to kick back and smoke another dick. Who the hell invited that shit head anyway?
GarandFan on April 20, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Well Anne Heche hasn’t seemed right in the head in the first place.
As for Lindsay Lohan, I think it was a need for some happiness and had no idea how to find it. So she turned to drugs. That didn’t do it. So she turned to a woman (who, being a DJ of the club/rave kind, probably had lots of drugs:-P). She’s on a quest to find true happiness because her life has been pretty f**ke* up.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I didn’t hear anyone on there ask a question on gay rights. There was a question about changing the definition of marriage/giving gays special privelidges, but nothing about gay rights.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 20, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Yes, it is interesting how people can move back and forth on federalism depending on the issue. I wrestle with it. Leading up to the Civil War, the North and South flip flopped on the states rights question depending on the issue.
I’m not sure though how gay marriage leads to polygamy via freedom of religion question though. It would seem that polygamists already have that avenue independent of the gender question.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Hahaha! That’s funny. MadisonConservative, who actually puts “conservative” into his userID and then consistently spends most of his time arguing AGAINST conservatives on this very blog … accuses me of being a liberal troll.
Now I KNOW you’re a hack just like Allah.
By the way …
There’s no greater “Moby” on this blog than Allahpundit himself.
Both of you should go into a three way partnership with Meghan McCain and create a new blog. It can be called MOBY DICKS.
Gregor on April 20, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Are the mean trolls gone yet?
Kjeil on April 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM
I guess Trump got what he wanted – people are talking about the Miss America pageant the day after. When was the last time that happened?
Candy Slice on April 20, 2009 at 9:38 PM
I am not ready to agree that homosexuality is an inborn or genetic trait. I saw a study several years ago about efforts to induce homosexual behavior in mice. They put 2 male mice into a cage and looked for signs of homosexual behavior. They continued to add more male mice into the cage and observing until they finally were able to observe homosexual behavior. They found that they could induce homosexuality in mice with adjustments in environmental (crowded conditions) and social (only same sex available) conditions. Interestingly, the mice who showed homosexual behavior were later shown to be able and willing mate normally with female mice when given the opportunity. In fact, none of the mice would engage in homosexual behavior exclusively and only would under very crowded high stress conditions when only a same sex partner was available. This study clearly showed that you can create homosexual behavior in mice with adjustments in environmental and social influences. Note: these influences were not choices made by mice. It is possible that homosexuality is caused by social or environmental influences and not genetic ones without it being a choice.
They went on to speculate that the crowded conditions in large cities might be a factor in the larger percentage of the population who identify as homosexual in larger cities than in small towns. I tend to believe that sexual identity is developed at a young age and not simply discovered and that the developmental process is based on social and environmental factors that are usually not conscious choices made by children. Until they can isolate a gay gene I can’t conclude that anyone is born gay through genetics. More scientific study needs to be done to find out for sure. Since this is such an explosive political issue, unfortunately I don’t expect any honest scientific studies will be forthcoming anytime soon.
Dollayo on April 20, 2009 at 9:38 PM
It’s not the gender aspect, it’s the redefinition of marriage aspect — moving it away from a man and a woman to something else.
It seems to me that the framers of the Constitution were much more explicit about accounting for rights associated with religion than they were about rights associated with gender preferences or even sexuality… so I don’t see why polygamous marriages cannot be recognized by the state? Why shouldn’t all wives enjoy the same benefits?
A couple of months ago I read that in the U.K. muslim men with multiple wives are entitled to additional “welfare” benefits. I got the sense that this was seen as a precursor to legalizing polygamy over there.
I’m willing to entertain the possibility that polygamy is not a horrible thing… I’m not there yet, but who knows?… but I dispute the assertion made by some that broadening marriage to include one man and another man (or one woman and another woman) does not open the door for other arrangements.
Y-not on April 20, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »