I have so many mixed emotions about these semi-nude photos of Miss California Carrie Prejean, exposed on TheDirty.com.When asked about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, Prejean said that it was great that Americans had a choice. The fact is that they don't have a choice except in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa (it will be legal in Vermont on 9/1), so Prejean is ignorant at best.
I also think that anyone who denies basic civil rights to any citizen is a bigot. All the arguments against gay marriage mirror the comments made during the civil rights struggle, when African-Americans were denied their equal rights under the law.
Then came word that the California state pageant paid for Prejean to get breast implants in order to put her "in the best possible light on a national stage" , thus making her a first class phony.
I applaud any woman who gets breast surgery to correct deformities, reduce excessive size, or for reconstruction after a mastectomy, but when an obviously attractive and healthy woman gets breast augmentation merely to win a contest, it puts her in the porn star category as someone just selling his or her body for money. It's objectifying the already objectified.
So when a bible-thumping ignorant bigoted phony is shown posing in sexy lingerie with a come-hither look on her face, she adds hypocrite to her rapidly expanding list of labels.
I really don't care if she posed totally nude, or topfree, or even made a sex tape - the problem here is that she has taken hypocrisy to a new stratospheric level by wearing her religion on the sleeve of one arm, while wearing her sexed-up phoniness on the other.
I don't know Carrie Prejean, she might well be a fine person and all of this is merely a public-relations disaster, or she might be a victim of the whole pageant industry which has gone from celebrating female beauty to manufacturing it.
Beauty pageants have disappeared from nudist resorts, and the Miss America Pageant, once the queen of them all, has trouble finding a basic cable channel to carry their event. Perhaps this Carrie Prejean fiasco will spell the end of this outdated, sexist and objectifying practice, or the old adage of "all publicity is good publicity" will actually generate more interest by a public hungry for tawdriness.
11 comments:
How small we liberals have become. We equate open mindedness with liberalism and take pride in it. Then we deny another’s opinion which was neither voluntary nor dishonest. In spite of her past she probably lost the pageant because she had the guts to answer the question truthfully. That is something we liberals have lost on the way to achieving “political correctness”. And on a site that purports to accept everybody but now has become a soapbox for people who are intolerant of others whose opinions differ from their own.
It's not a matter of opinion. Denying the civil rights of any American by using religion as an excuse is not only guilty of discrimination, but also intolerance. I don't begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, be they Christian, Scientologist, atheiest, or other, but once those beliefs begin to tread on the civil rights of others, then I have a problem. It's a good thing that people who "speak the truth" and reveal themselves to be bigoted lose pageants, or political races.
I really don't see how marriage is a "civil right" in any way at all. Nothing in the US Constitution guarantees a person the "right to marry." In fact, marriage is an establishment of religion, so I fail to see why you get upset that gay marriage would also be opposed by religion. By your logic, with nudism being a "lifestyle choice", nudists should also have a "right" to practice nudism anywhere they want. In fact, I can probably argue a better case for unfettered nudism under the 1st Amendment than I can unfettered homosexuality. The hostility towards Ms. Prejean is quite out of place, in my opinion. Stick with naturism - it's much more "your thing."
Our government extends civil rights to married couples. Check the tax code. Also, married people have legal rights over each other's person and property. Again, look it up, I'm not doing your research for you. If, as you say, marriage is an "establishment of religion", then not only are all non-religious people not entitled to be married, but the government's breaks and special recognitions for married couples is a violation of the separation of church and state, and is thus unconstitutional.
I don't care if people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, that is their personal choice, but keep those personal choices personal and out of the public arena of politics and law.
Marriage is not a civil right, the individuals in a marriage each have civil rights. There are some tax advantages and some disadvantages to marriage status. Societies throughout history have granted benifits to married couple to promote the family and the raising of children. These benefits are not based on the rights of the individual but on good to society.
I strongly believe that each child has the right to a father and a mother. Yet this basic right is not a civil right. I oppose the redefinition of civil rights. Gay people have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
Marriage was a religious artifact with the government having nothing to do with it. They only invented the concept of marriage licenses in the 1830s so that they could deny them to certain couples-mixed race couples at that time.
My thought on the matter is that marriage is available to anyone. If you want to be sure to marry someone of the opposite sex, fine. That is no concern of mine and who I marry is no concern of yours.
Can we all just learn to mind our own business and keep the guns of government our of our lives.
Anonymous, of course marriage is a civil right...there are civil ceremonies, a government document is issued, and the IRS treats married couples differently than singles. According to the Constitution, civil rights must be granted equally to all citizens, and there cannot be discrimination based upon race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It's a basic civics lesson that is very easy to understand.
Thankfully states are beginning to recognize the inequity. Maine and DC made strides today.
To say that gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals is astoundingly naive. Gays cannot marry, they cannot inherit property, they have no family visitation rights in hospitals, etc. These "rights" all come with marriage.
I agree with Mike4Freedom, get government out of the marriage business altogther. If anything, a legal paper recognizing a civil union would work just as well for society, perhaps even better. For example, if two heterosexual women wanted to live together. they could apply for a civil union, and while they would not have a marriage, they would have rights over each other's person and property.
And no child has a "right" to a mother and a father. Perhaps biologically, but not in reality. Try telling any single mom that she is violating her kid's rights by not having a man around the house. It's a dumb argument to make.
People always bad mouth Christians for standing up for traditional marriage, but what few seem to realize, is what right do gays have to redefine the ancient institution of marriage that predates Christianity and Judiasm? Miss California is being criticized for expressing her opinion, an opinion which she has every right to express. The first amendment protects a peoples right to free speech, is doesn't mean anyone has to listen. If anyone disagrees with what she said, you don't have to listen, but calling someone a bigot for having a opinion different than yours betrays everything that this country holds dear. The judge who asked the question got exactly the reaction he wanted, and his expectation of a politically correct answer is unjustified. Political Correctness is just a tool used by the Democrat Party and the media to intimidate and silence their critics. Gays have used this tool very effectively. The goal of political correctness is to silence any free speech that the Democrat Party disagrees with. Is that the America you want to live in?
Nobody - repeat - NOBODY has said that Prejean doesn't have the right to express her opinion. The problem here is taking an opinion and using it to deny others civil rights. Prejean's comments are discriminatory and clearly bigoted against gays. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of definition.
This wingnut talking point that Dems are trying to silence free speech really lame. Show me some examples where liberals have tried to deny anyone freedom of speech.
Nudiarist's original comment on the Prejean affair has, in my estimation, more magnificent turns of phrase and nails being hit on heads than anything I've read in the media. Whether or not she is such, Prejean comes across as a total bimbo. Her understanding of Christianity looks as close to zero as it could get, even compared to that of many atheists.
She, Donald Trump, and the entire Miss America gang need to be sent away permanently to some place the media don't know about and can't ever find.
As for not redefining the institution of marriage from before Judaeo-Christianity, okay. Then we will forbid any marriages to take place outside the tribe. In fact, we will make all marriages arranged by parents and do our best to make sure everyone marries by the age of maybe 14, because they probably won't live much past 30.
We'll also have to ban love as a reason for marriage. That's an invention of the past couple centuries. As for divorce . . .
Thanks Paul, kind words from someone whose opinion I value.
Post a Comment