Perez Hilton loses Pageant for Miss CA

[Faris]

love doesnt know age teehee

[Melchiah]

Given Perez Hilton's track record, it's just obtuse to try and say that he was grading her on the quality of her answer instead of the content.

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not gay, I'm not into pageantry, and my only qualm with gay marriage is that some legal and tax benefits bestowed by married status are there for the express purpose of encouraging childbirth, which homosexual couples cannot participate in. Now, that being said I'm not against tax and civil law revision to bestow certain benefits in regard to child rearing upon heterosexual couples who breed and in the same stroke NOT bestow them upon couples who do not breed, in the interest of fairness.

As for the debacle regarding the Miss USA pageant:

Miss CA's answer was not articulate, and it seemed she had two lines of thought and didn't manage to separate them in her answer. However, her answer was worded to indicate that those were her personal feelings based upon the way she had been brought up, and never once did she try to say that her feelings should be the absolute truth and law concerning the matter. Given these things, and the extreme difficulty of the question posed(in which she very easily could have pissed off the other judges if they happened to be fundamentalists) the score she was given by Perez Hilton was absolutely NOT indicative of the quality of her answer. Her answer, while a bit unrefined, was not a zero-score answer.

As for Perez Hilton: I first find myself questioning his qualifications to judge a beauty pageant, especially one of the magnitude of Miss USA. Has he ever judged a pageant before? What qualifies his opinion as a counting score in the Miss USA pageant? Because he's gay? Or because he's a pseudo-celebrity?

Second, I find myself questioning the intent behind his choice of question. Being such an open, obnoxious gay activist, one is left little room to consider his choice of question anything but an excuse to act like an asshole in public. That question was clearly loaded, clearly the judge asking it had some personal stake in the content of the answer, and given those two things that question should have been disqualified as soon as he finished asking it. Hilton's behavior in general is crude and low-class, but I have to say I find this incident to have been a calculated attention-grab at the expense of another person who really didn't deserve to be taken advantage of in that manner.

Summary: Miss CA could have answered the question in a more articulate manner, but I find the content of the question inappropriate for that forum. I approve of Miss CA having the fortitude to give her honest feelings with the knowledge that it might very well cost her the pageant. I disapprove of Perez Hilton first being a judge in that contest, and second for his use of the pageant to further his own agenda of smearing people who think differently than he does.

[Rhinox]

this thread is making me dislike gay people

Surprised you know what gay is considering there are no gays IN DA MIDDLE EASTZ amirite?

[Faris]

BG taught me whats a gay

[Correction]

love doesnt know age teehee

Tee hee.

[archibaldcrane]

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not gay, I'm not into pageantry, and my only qualm with gay marriage is that some legal and tax benefits bestowed by married status are there for the express purpose of encouraging childbirth, which homosexual couples cannot participate in.

I'm pretty sure the tax breaks are for the express purpose of child raising, moreso than the physical process of birth - do you have a problem with gay couples who adopt, or lesbian couples who have a child via artificial insemination receiving the same tax breaks as straight couples who have a child via traditional means? (The idea that lesbian couples especially cannot participate in childbirth is kinda ...completely wrong.)

Seems like kind of a strange line to draw - although you'd have to point to a specific tax code measure to possibly strengthen your argument. I'd be happy to hear it.

[Melchiah]

I'm pretty sure the tax breaks are for the express purpose of child raising, moreso than the physical process of birth - do you have a problem with gay couples who adopt, or lesbian couples who have a child via artificial insemination receiving the same tax breaks as straight couples who have a child via traditional means? (The idea that lesbian couples especially cannot participate in childbirth is kinda ...completely wrong.)

Seems like kind of a strange line to draw - although you'd have to point to a specific tax code measure to possibly strengthen your argument. I'd be happy to hear it.

The hospital visit for the actual birth carries a fairly hefty cost, even moreso for those who are uninsured/underinsured.

This next part stems from my personal feelings, so I'm going to go ahead and put on my firesuit: I do not think that same-gender households promote the American ideal of a healthy family unit, and thus I am not in favor of gay or lesbian couples rearing children together. I don't know that I have any emperical evidence to validate this position, but it's just how I feel about it.

I think that there is a certain demographic in the gay community who feels an irrational need for validation(case in point, Perez Hilton) and to this end they quest after every accoutrement normally ascribed to heterosexual households.

I think that it is extremely important for a child to have a stable household with both a male and female role model. In a homosexual household, one or the other of these would be denied to a growing child, and thus part of an extremely valuable education goes missing.

[Demosthenes11]

you are implying societal gender roles are needed, which is ridiculous

[EternityEnd]

Do you also feel that single mothers or fathers are unfit to raise their children? How far does your irrationality extend, exactly?

[Correction]

I think that it is extremely important for a child to have a stable household with both a male and female role model. In a homosexual household, one or the other of these would be denied to a growing child, and thus part of an extremely valuable education goes missing.

'traditional' marriage does nothing to guarantee this. Hi2u divorce rate.

[kuronosan]

The hospital visit for the actual birth carries a fairly hefty cost, even moreso for those who are uninsured/underinsured.

This next part stems from my personal feelings, so I'm going to go ahead and put on my firesuit: I do not think that same-gender households promote the American ideal of a healthy family unit, and thus I am not in favor of gay or lesbian couples rearing children together. I don't know that I have any emperical evidence to validate this position, but it's just how I feel about it.

I think that there is a certain demographic in the gay community who feels an irrational need for validation(case in point, Perez Hilton) and to this end they quest after every accoutrement normally ascribed to heterosexual households.

I think that it is extremely important for a child to have a stable household with both a male and female role model. In a homosexual household, one or the other of these would be denied to a growing child, and thus part of an extremely valuable education goes missing.

Fact: More homosexual households in the United States are much more stable, socially, than many heterosexual households.

People are divorcing more and more because they're forgetting that marriage is not an institution of eternal happiness and bliss like the bible states; it's an instituation that requires hard work and dedication.

People wanna be individuals, wanna be lazy, and don't want to work hard. That's why they're divorcing.

Love is fictional, at best. It exists only as happiness and even then, people forget that love is not about what you get in return, it's about what is given by everyone.

Gays have just as much right to be happy as anyone else. To say that children need stability is to pretty much defeat your argument right there.

[Kuya]

Actually, the point he is making isn't too far fetched. It goes to reason that if people learn how traditional relationships work by observing one up close, children observing their two opposite sex parents interacting and using this schema for their future endeavors, then one can also conclude that single parent and same sex parent children have less of an ability to form a opposite sex relationship for the purpose of child rearing, and quite the opposite, children raised in single parent families might make better single parents, while (here it comes) children raised with same sex parents might function better in that context.

Of course, without some empirical evidence this is all nothing but theoretical, even if it does make sense. Is there evidence that single parent children are less prone to form homes with another partner? Would same sex parent children also prove to be less prone to form households with two opposite sex parents? Is there any research into this?

Of course, to people who don't mind the idea of more none traditional households, it doesn't matter.

[Melchiah]

you are implying societal gender roles are needed, which is ridiculous

I'm going to just have to disagree with you here.

I learned things from both my parents that the other was incapable of teaching.

How does Little Timmy explain to his peers that he has two dads or two moms? It's much easier to explain a divorce situation to one's peers as a child than it is to explain why there are two parents of the same gender. To me, same gender households wanting to either bear or rear children is pretty damned selfish and doesn't take into account the impact on the child. The world is traditional, trying to force non-tradition on others is annoying and selfish.

[Correction]

To me, same gender households wanting to either bear or rear children is pretty damned selfish and doesn't take into account the impact on the child. The world is traditional, trying to force non-tradition on others is annoying and selfish.

It's selfish to raise an orphan. OF COURSE HOW DID I NOT REALIZE THIS EARLIER.

[EternityEnd]

That "tradition" that you speak of is merely the aftereffect of two bigoted parents passing on their prejudice and ignorance onto their children. A practice that is, regrettably, far too common.

When generations become more liberal and open minded, which is occurring as we speak, so too will old prejudices become obsolete. Without ignorant parents clouding their judgement and teaching them whom it's currently acceptable to hate, children won't discriminate.

It's people like you who are holding the country and the children of the country back with your morally bankrupt idea of "tradition". How about we form a tradition based around what the U.S.A. allegedly stands for; freedom, liberty, and justice for all?

[Rhinox]

Oh boy Thread was dieing a bit but not anymore

[Yuri-G]

It's selfish to raise an orphan. OF COURSE HOW DID I NOT REALIZE THIS EARLIER.

Pretty much sums it up. I have nothing to add to this thread that wouldn't be an obnoxious rant at this point. If people want to be bigoted, I certainly can't stop them. And that's what you are when you believe gay people are inferior to straight people at raising children - you're a bigot. You have the right to that belief, but you can't hold it and claim you're not prejudiced, especially since you admit you have no empirical evidence to back up your feelings. Making judgment calls like that with no evidence is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry, no matter how many gay friends you have or how much you like them outside of the child-rearing debate.

[archibaldcrane]

Melchiah - the problem here is:

You state that gay couples shouldn't receive the same sort of tax breaks as straight couples via marriage, and then also say that children adopted or born into same-sex couples are at an inherent disadvantage.

Why should the government help disadvantaged kids less? That is the result of your desire to prevent tax breaks for same-sex marriages.

If your issue is gays adopting or receiving artificial insemination, target that, not marriage. I assume of course that you also feel that straight women who are not married should also not be able to receive artificial insemination (i.e. the Octomom), nor should single straight people be able to adopt.

Right? I just want to make sure your logic is consistent (2-parent opposite-sex couples are the only ones who should be raising children) and that it doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. That seems to be what you're saying right?

[Plow]

We should ask the LARGE crowd of gays that booed her answer, if they are into pageants.

Perhaps you should watch the video again, without hitting the crack pipe this time:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0



Perez asks question.
Small amount of cheering, tiny bit of jeering when he says Vermont legalized gay marriage.
Dead silence while she talks about how she thinks it's great how "you can choose."
Applause when she says "marriage should be between a man and a woman."

[EternityEnd]

That's because that video was edited to show on TV. Look it up, the boos were overwhelming.