Let me start by saying, this obviously wasn't her platform before. Ah, and I know good and well what happened. Whatever personal opinions she may have had before the Miss USA pageant, she didn't go on a crusade over them. But afterward, all of a sudden certain groups, like NOM and I'm sure a bunch of other right-wing wacko groups, got wind that she was a.) in the news, and b.) for their cause. Throw enough money at most people and they'll sell their souls for anything. So yes, you are right in thinking where I'm taking this. The anti-gay marriage lobby has bought her off.Miss California to Campaign Against Gay Marriage
NEW YORK – The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."
The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.
She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.
Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19. Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.
Come on California! This stupid, unthinking, parrot, sorry-excuse for a human being doesn't deserve to be Miss California. Is this the platform of Miss California, to deny rights to other people? To be an ignorant, uncouth, unthinking, bought-off fool? Do the right thing and strip her of her crown.
Well...after all, she IS from California! Sometimes those folks seem to have a different way of thinking than the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe that's just me!
Ha! Hermit Jim good point. It seems to be a stereotype that Californians are weird. Of course, I don't put much stock in stereotypes as a lot of people think that all Texans are ignorant gun wielding right-wing Republican wackos. We may all have guns, but there's plenty of liberals here >.<
ReplyDeleteI think this just set me off. My best friend is a lesbian, and it pisses me off that they're treated like they're less than equal.
Gotta say, the title of this post pretty well says it all...don't know what I can add...
ReplyDeletePageant official: We paid for Prejean’s implants
ReplyDeleteShe confirms that group paid for Miss California’s breast enhancement
Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA, said she supported Carrie’s plastic surgery, however, she had a hard time standing behind Carrie’s opinion against gay marriage.But oh, look, the tits got her some work:
Miss California to star in ad opposing same-sex marriage Apr 30, 2009, 08:42 AM | by Clark Collis
*sigh* She gives Californians a bad name.
I wonder if the people at Rock Church knew that the reason the bitch had breast implants was because "sex sells", and knowing that would they still have allowed her to speak. Oh...wait... that's right, it's a double standard. That doesn't matter as long as she's against gay marriage...besides, the deacons probably like drooling over those tits, like so many of the pervs in other churches.
ReplyDeleteTitties are "something very dear to my heart", which is why I'm opposed to augmented breasts. Let's all stand up for traditional boobies!
ReplyDeleteMiss CA is a perversion against GAWD! Plastic surgery is an abomination!
A message from the National Organization for Tits
OMG! The pageant paid for breast implants? So does that mean their contestants are all fake little Stepford Women? They start them young with those baby pageants and train them up to all be exactly the same. She reminds me of that idiot contestant who had the garbled, incoherant answer to the question about maps.
ReplyDeleteLulz... the National Organization for Tits also known as "NOT". So many possible parodies, so little time.
ReplyDelete@Nancy: You mean, "Is France a country? I know Europe's a country. I think they speak French there." Yeah, these pageant contestants aren't the brightest crayons in the box, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteBeing in favor of traditional marriage is bigoted? That's kind of dumb.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Gabriel, would you like to define "traditional" marriage? Would that be between a man and as many wives and concubines as he can support as is the predominant form of marriage in the Bible? Or is it the ancient Greek thing where a man had a wife and a male lover on the side? What exactly constitutes "traditional"?
ReplyDeleteSlavery was "traditional" and we put a stop to that. Discriminating against blacks was "traditional" and we came to realize it was wrong. Discriminating against gay couples is wrong too, and someday, not long from now, people will realize that.
You want your church marriage you can have it. But in this country, marriage affords you all kinds of legal rights, like power-of-attorney, the ability to make decisions in the event of your spouse being incapacitated in the hospital. Are you even aware that if you're not married, your family can tell your significant other that they cannot see you if you're dying in the hospital because you have no "legal" right to see them, because you are not married or related. I have heard of this happening in heterosexual instances too. I can't imagine loving someone and not being able to see them as they lay dying because a bunch of bigoted fucking religious fanatics tell me that my love is wrong.
I'm straight by the way, but I have the empathy and ability to put myself in someone else's shoes. You should try it sometime.
I'm sorry, my wording was not correct in my previous comment, therefore I deleted it.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I should have posted:
Only a homophobic Rethuglitard wouldn't think that was bigoted. Of course the right has a corner on bigotry, it's one of their standards.
Thank you Grandpa for your comment. It's right on as usual.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to throw this out there, I believe that if organized religion were not present here, the world would be a better place. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that if everyone believed in reincarnation, there would be less hate and injustice in the world. Because, it might cross one such as Gabriel's mind there, if he believed such, that he might get reincarnated as a gay boy in Singapore, and therefore might decide that having to wear the shoe on the other foot, he'd like to be treated equally. Just sayin'
That would only work if the reincarnation belief also said what you get reincarnated as was completely random.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand them, reincarnation beliefs have some sort of karma thing, where what you do now determines what you'll be next time. So if gay is considered bad, then being bad would mean you might come back gay. Not much of a stretch from there to:
1) outlaw being gay for the gay person's sake
2) consider it fair game to abuse the gay for they are, after all, currently being punished for some bad things from their last lives
3) consider being bad to gays actually a good thing (which of course would save you from coming back as a gay)
Imo, let's lose all the fucking woo and just deal with reality.
Karma is a Hindu and Buddhist concept, which are organized religions. I suppose I was speaking of reincarnation from a purely functional point of view, as a mechanism. I disagree with atheism only on the point that many believe that there is no afterlife. On the contrary, I have a problem with that from a scientific stand point, in that we are energy, the impulses in our brain are electric, and since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it has to do something or go somewhere and has to have been something and somewhere before we came into this physical existence. But this is completely off topic. The point was, to have empathy for others, not dogma on what one must believe, as I did say we'd be better off without organized religion, which would include concepts of Karma.
ReplyDeleteThat's a non sequitur. The existence of energy or matter within a human being hasn't shit to do with the continued existence of consciousness after death.
ReplyDeleteConsciousness is nice, and no one quite knows how it all works yet, but absence of information is not a license to invent fantasies. That's how religions came to be. What are those things in the sky? Where does the sun go at night? Why am I sick? All questions once "answered" with religious and similar supernatural beliefs, beliefs held until actual answers were found.
I appreciate your view PhillyChief and am indeed sympathetic to your point. If there is ever credible evidence of something else that contradicts my long held private *belief*, indeed it is my explanation for what I see, then I may change it at that point. I, unlike fundamentalist wackos, will admit when I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is that how do you conduct scientific experiments on where the consciousness goes at death? Now, if we ever figure out how to test something like that, well, I for one will be quite amazed.
This is my fault for dragging this post off topic. Can we get back on topic about how ignorant Miss California is?
That's a silly question loaded with troublesome assumptions, not the least of which that the mind is an independent thing. There's no reason to think that it is.
ReplyDeleteA good read is The Accidental Mind (I forget the author).
"Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages.""
ReplyDeleteSo can someone please explain to me how opposing same-sex marriage "proects traditional marriages?" I can't fathom how allowing same-sex marriage threatens my "traditional marriage." Just sayin'.
@Philly, There's also no reason to think that the mind isn't independent... what were you saying about making assumptions? I'll tell you what this boils down to, and that is "We don't know." However, I will look up that book, as I do like reading.
ReplyDelete~~~
@Ginger, it doesn't. These people are just wanting everyone to do everything their way, and believe their dogma, and there is no room in their view for any argument or discussion, and unfortunately, a great deal of humanity, *whatever* their views are, are much the same. It's their way or no way.
"To be an ignorant, uncouth, unthinking, bought-off fool?"
ReplyDeleteYou know who I thought of when I read this?
Congress as they vote on legislation, lol.
@nunya, True, very true.
ReplyDeleteEvidence points to the mind being a function of the brain. There's no evidence to suggest the mind is an independent thing. Thinking it is independent is an unwarranted assumption. Again I recommend The Accidental Mind.
ReplyDeleteThe entire argument for dualism is predicated upon a confusion of labels and things. The mind is not a thing, it's a collection of processes. Effect the thing creating the processes, and the processes are then effected. That goes a long way to killing the assumption that the mind is something independent. Now of course you could argue that there's some sort of symbiotic relationship, but then that would then put to rest that notion of the mind surviving without the brain, no? At the very least, if effecting the brain effects the mind, then should the mind survive without the brain, then it stands to reason that the mind would not be the same.