myril
Veteran Detective
Merry One [/color][/center]
Posts: 795
|
Post by myril on Apr 27, 2009 16:45:14 GMT -5
What is the buzz though here? Another wannabe celebrity blurring out some stupid phrases. Frankly, I don't think Perez Hilton did gay rights really a favour with his outburst as reaction, not liking the answer to his question (what did he expect?). Probably would have been out of headlines and blog/twitter talk already, if not for some folks crying wolf again, complaining it's another example for liberals, left wings and gays shouting everybody down not talking "pc" (=political correct). Great, more fuel to fire up a renewal of that fraking pc-debate we had in the '80s and '90s. Does anyone serioulsy expect something smart to be said in a pageant show? His outburst? Probably a bit much. But I don't think this is about being PC; I hate when people get too PC. It doesn't help anything. But Miss California was not being non PC here, she was being homophobic. Saying that in her country she doesn't want same sex marriage is just outright homophobic, never mind any PC nonsense. She was homophobic, do agree with you on that, but that's not how some people see it. I am refering to a debate taking place mostly in the 90s and particular conducted by conservatives, accussing left and liberals of wanting to deny people the right to have and voice their own opinion in their own words. "PC" was turned into a negative term, something threatening the freedom of speech. Haven't seen this term used in this very sense yet again in recent commentaries, but wouldn't be surprised if it will happen again. Some conservatives reduced and reduce some things like equality nearly to a question of language (PC original was never meant that way), letting it look like people were critized, because of how they said things, not because of what thinking and views are expressed by it. Doesn't change, that I don't expect much of it. Not expecting something doesn't exclude, that it can happen. Given, I don't have a good opinion about these pageants, and that won't change with all the Miss Somethings being smart and accomblishing a lot for their communities even. |
|
|
|
Post by Electrophile on Apr 28, 2009 0:53:22 GMT -5
I think you're unfairly targeting beauty pageants or should I say, scholarship pageants. Miss America, Miss USA, Miss Teen USA....all these events allow these women to not only further their education through the awarding of scholarship money, but do a lot of serious work in their communities and the country as a whole on the basis of their platform. Some choose medical research (cancer, AIDS, autism), some choose social outreach programs (domestic violence, child abuse, teen pregnancy/sex education), some choose environmental awareness. I'd say that's a hell of a lot more impressive than anything you or I will accomplish.
I don't watch them mostly because they don't interest me, but at least I don't throw a blanket generalization over all of them. I mean, really. Not all of these women and young girls are ditzy blondes who can't find their own state on a map. I'd think you were better than to do something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naj on Apr 28, 2009 8:31:56 GMT -5
Speaking of these beauty pageants, in general, I think they are out of style in this day and age. Yes, they are scholarship pageants and serve good causes but I just can't stand this parading around of women like they are some kind of an object. The whole system of these pageants needs to be modernized or done away with. I don't like the message it sends to younger people. Granted Hugh Hefner isn't funding these but Donald Trump is and while Donald does advance women in entrepreneurial positions he also loves beautiful women which to me sends a message that women have to be beautiful to advance in their careers while men can look like Donald Trump and it's fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by lillyfan on Apr 28, 2009 8:44:59 GMT -5
Speaking of these beauty pageants, in general, I think they are out of style in this day and age. Yes, they are scholarship pageants and serve good causes but I just can't stand this parading around of women like they are some kind of an object. The whole system of these pageants needs to be modernized or done away with. I don't like the message it sends to younger people. Granted Hugh Hefner isn't funding these but Donald Trump is and while Donald does advance women in entrepreneurial positions he also loves beautiful women which to me sends a message that women have to be beautiful to advance in their careers while men can look like Donald Trump and it's fine. Good point |
|
|
|
Post by smallbarbie on Apr 28, 2009 11:14:23 GMT -5
Christianity is so stupid... Have you guys read about what reform Judaism says about gay marriage? They support it because they said that it's natural and if the person wants to marry another person is Ok... Look for it on wikipedia... Christianity is absurd I agree with you, christianity is stupid and I too think that if woman wants to marry woman or man wants to marry man it's OK and it's nothing bad but we can see that some people don't accept it!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Electrophile on Apr 28, 2009 14:29:15 GMT -5
Christianity is so stupid... Have you guys read about what reform Judaism says about gay marriage? They support it because they said that it's natural and if the person wants to marry another person is Ok... Look for it on wikipedia... Christianity is absurd and I too think that if woman wants to marry woman or man wants to marry man it's OK and it's nothing bad but we can see that some people don't accept it!!!! I have had about enough of this. I was raised Catholic and although I've since left the Church, my family is still practicing. Are you telling me they're stupid? Because you're not going to like me very much if you're insulting my family. Or any of my friends or anyone else I know who practices the religion of their choice. The choice to follow a religion is a personal one, it doesn't make them wrong and you right or vice versa. Christianity is not stupid. Islam is not stupid. Buddhism is not stupid. Hinduism is not stupid. Judaism is not stupid. Atheism is not stupid. Religions in and of themselves are not the problem. It's the people who practice them and choose to do the wrong thing with it. THAT is the problem. No one wants to see that, though. They'd rather spout on an on about something they know jack and squat about. Speaking of these beauty pageants, in general, I think they are out of style in this day and age. Yes, they are scholarship pageants and serve good causes but I just can't stand this parading around of women like they are some kind of an object. The whole system of these pageants needs to be modernized or done away with. I don't like the message it sends to younger people. Granted Hugh Hefner isn't funding these but Donald Trump is and while Donald does advance women in entrepreneurial positions he also loves beautiful women which to me sends a message that women have to be beautiful to advance in their careers while men can look like Donald Trump and it's fine. Women are only objectified when they have no choice in the matter. These women voluntarily join beauty pageants when they're younger and then choose to continue working their way up to state level pageants. There can be no objectification if the person is choosing to do all this of their own free will. That's why I get a get a kick out of people who say porn is objectifying women. Please, they choose to do porn. Women can make boatloads of money, work 5 or 6 days a month and need nothing more than a high school diploma. It's lucrative to women who enjoy sex, so they do it. Nothing wrong with that. Beauty pageants do not objectify women, this isn't the 1960s anymore. Back then, it really was a "beauty" pageant and the contestants were not expected to be anything more than pretty face for a year, then they were to go off and get married and pop out some kids and that was that. Starting in the 1970s, you started to see more contestants choose college and career over the "traditional" home life previous years' contestants had trumpted. One of the Miss America winners (Rebecca King) became a lawyer shortly after winning by using her scholarship money to fund going to law school. They also furthered causes that at the time, were very controversial, such as abortion and equal pay. It was the feminist movement of the 1970s that forced Miss America and other subsequent pageants to completely revamp the way they presented itself. They had to change with the times. You have no idea just how modernized these pageants are. Who cares if Donald Trump is funding this? He likes beautiful women, so do about 100% of all men if you really ask them. These pageants aren't telling anyone that you have to be beautiful to advance in your career. These women advance on their own because they're smarter than you, me, and everyone else here and about 90% of the people watching at home. Have you ever paid attention to the schools these women are enrolled in and their majors? We're talking Ivy League schools and high-powered majors. They will succeed in life, even if they aren't drop-dead gorgeous. What these pageants do is give them an opportunity to win money so they can stay in school. College is expensive and for some women, this is a great way to a) earn the money and b ) get a cause they believe in out in the public eye. |
|
|
|
Post by longislanditalian2 on Apr 28, 2009 14:40:38 GMT -5
I basically think people are entitled to what they want to believe in, but I think she went way too far and insulted a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by eduardodelroice on Apr 28, 2009 14:44:28 GMT -5
I basically think people are entitled to what they want to believe in, but I think she went way too far and insulted a lot of people. I'm homosexual and I did not feel offended. I mean, she said what she thought b/c she was brain washed by religion |
|
|
|
Post by Naj on Apr 28, 2009 15:33:01 GMT -5
Well, I don't watch them anymore - haven't for about 20 years and I do, respectfully, disagree but these women are basically drop dead gorgeous. Not by my standards but I'm sure by Donald Trump and men in general.
I haven't read anything here that anyone suggested people who practice Christianity are stupid. There was a statement that Christianity is stupid and I'm in the camp that it probably is less than the truth of Christ's actual message. I was brought up catholic also and my family are still humble members of this religion but I don't condone them for it. There are many paths to God and religion happens to be their path. No one's path is the right definitive path - only that there is one best path per individual and we each have to decide what path that is.
Getting back to Miss California's statement. What angered me about her statement was not that she doesn't believe in gay marriage, but more pointedly, she wouldn't approve of it if there was a decision to make on it. America was founded to practice freedom of belief (not solely Christian belief) but Miss California, like most of those people who have organized religion, desires to impose her beliefs on the whole and disrespect the free will we each deserve in making our own choices. I could care less what Miss California does in her bedroom and she shouldn't care what I do in mine as long as there are two (or more) consenting adults. This is where Christianity over steps - when Christians seek out to force others to live their beliefs through state laws. If you want to be Christian and practice what you believe then do so in your own life but stop judging and pointing the finger because that's not what Christ taught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Electrophile on Apr 28, 2009 15:35:39 GMT -5
I basically think people are entitled to what they want to believe in, but I think she went way too far and insulted a lot of people. I'm homosexual and I did not feel offended. I mean, she said what she thought b/c she was brainwashed by religion Okay, so now you want to insult people too? Fabulous. People who are religious are not "brainwashed". I get really sick and tired of hearing that argument bandied about every time someone wants to jump on the "anti-religion" soapbox and start railing away. It's insulting, plain and simple. Brainwashing implies torture, force, coercion, threats......people are religious or choose to be religious for their own reasons. 99% of those people are peaceful, law-abiding people. Why should you or anyone else feel the need to completely degrade them just because you don't agree with that choice that they made? I'm not religious anymore, in fact I haven't stepped into a church in damn near 10 years. That doesn't mean I can't respect someone's choice to believe in something and follow something I don't. This whole thread has irritated me 10 ways to hell and for all the wrong reasons. Well, I don't watch them anymore - haven't for about 20 years and I do, respectfully, disagree but these women are basically drop dead gorgeous. Not by my standards but I'm sure by Donald Trump and men in general. I wasn't saying the women in these pageants aren't "drop-dead gorgeous". I was saying that if they weren't, they would still be successful in life, because of their intellect, passion and drive for what they care about. Yes, they're gorgeous women. So what? That doesn't give anyone the right to hate on them. |
|
|
|
Post by eduardodelroice on Apr 28, 2009 15:47:35 GMT -5
I don't think we will ever agree on this.
I said that It's OK she wasn't hypocrite and said a lie. She said so b/c she stated that her "values" stated that.
What I say that about religion? B/c it's the main obstacle for LGBT people to get rights recognized.
Too many gay people get killed just because of their sexual preference, That's even legal in Islamic countries... and why is it? because of religion.
|
|
ali
Senior Detective
Social One[/color]
Posts: 560
|
Post by ali on Apr 28, 2009 16:47:46 GMT -5
There are no reasons to quarrel: we can debate reaspecting each other.
Until now we insisted on the opposition religion/homosexuality, and in particular about Christian doctrine.
But, as I said few days ago, I don't think that religion (or better still, the way men interpreted religious basics) is the only reason for homophobia.
There are many Catholics, for example, who are extremely open-minded, and a friend of mine is both lesbian and believer: don't confuse Religion and doctrine, Christianity and ecclesiastic hierachy (which was, in fact, a political authority since the latest centuries of Roman Empire).
Homosexuality was considered innatural also before Christianity: Romans derided Greek because of that, but we have to consider that in ancient Greek culture (which was strongly misogynist) the relationship between men (not women), was important to consolidate frienships, alliances, political parties, and the entire (male) society.
The religious matter is important in this argument, but only because religion exert influence in people's minds.
Homophobia rises from confused religious teaching (Jesus never talked about that!), prejudice, ignorance, fear of what's different.
What of those things induced Miss California to say what she said? I don't know, maybe all of them (if we consider only homophobic argument), maybe a pondered convinction: she talked about gay marriage, and this is a more complicated matter.
I don't know what American law say about marriage, but, in general, is the union between two people, recongnised by authority, with legal rights and duties.
Some States recognize this "contract" also between same-sex people, some other not.
The reason why Chatholic Church (and, consequently, countries with a catholic substrate) can't recognize same-sex marriages is because of the Catholic concept of marriage: the purpose of marriage, in the christian view (but not only the christian view...), is procreation, which is physiologically impossible for two men ot two women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trublu on Apr 28, 2009 17:56:06 GMT -5
Let's calm down here folks. This thread was meant for debate of what happened on the Miss America pageant, and was not meant for us to throw around insults.
Everyone has a right to express their opinions on whatever subject matter comes up. If you do not agree with an opinion, that is certainly within your right, however please do not attack said opinion. All opinions are welcome unless they are incendiary or hateful.
On the issue of the particular debate taking place: stating that Christianity is stupid is borderline incendiary; if you don't agree with Christianity that is quite alright, but we should keep in mind that there are still people who practice it, and they deserve to be respected. Likewise, if someone disagrees with a religion, that should not be seen as a personal attack towards anyone. I have not seen any posts here that were specifically hateful towards anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by eduardodelroice on Apr 28, 2009 18:03:42 GMT -5
Well, I just stated that the main reason why LGBT People are discriminated is b/c of religion. Obviously there are some Christian and religion people who accept LGBT but most people don't
|
|
|
|
Post by Trublu on Apr 28, 2009 18:20:27 GMT -5
In the interest of keeping my comments as admin separate from my personal comments I'm double posting; don't try this at home!  Our conversation concerning religion here has deviated a bit from where it really should be. Allow me to reiterate the following: not all sects of Christianity are homophobic. It is only specific sects, most notibly Catholicism, which are hateful. And that is not to say that all Catholics are hateful (while I am not religious my family is/ claims to be) and they mostly are good when it comes to respecting everyone. What we're really talking about here is extremism, which happens in every religion. Extremist Christians, extremist Jews, extremist Muslims all exist in the world, and that is who spreads the hate. Fortunately, they seem to be doing so in smaller and smaller numbers as people begin to question these faiths. I basically think people are entitled to what they want to believe in, but I think she went way too far and insulted a lot of people. I'm homosexual and I did not feel offended. I mean, she said what she thought b/c she was brain washed by religion Most religions don't brainwash; people hold these opinions on their own because they believe in their faith. If someone telling you that you don't have the right to marry is okay by you, then that is your belief to defend. Me, I'd like to get married someday and have the same rights as my straight friends. I don't think we will ever agree on this. I said that It's OK she wasn't hypocrite and said a lie. She said so b/c she stated that her "values" stated that. What I say that about religion? B/c it's the main obstacle for LGBT people to get rights recognized. Too many gay people get killed just because of their sexual preference, That's even legal in Islamic countries... and why is it? because of religion. Again, this is extremist religion. Not every Muslim subscribes to these practices. Fortunately, there are only 7 countries that it is legal to kill GLBTQ people or perform an honor killing. Homosexuality was considered innatural also before Christianity: Romans derided Greek because of that, but we have to consider that in ancient Greek culture (which was strongly misogynist) the relationship between men ( not women), was important to consolidate frienships, alliances, political parties, and the entire (male) society. Actually, the Romans weren't opposed to homosexuality in the beginning; it is even rumored that Julius Caesar presided over the wedding of a couple of gay friends. Unfortunately, it was only when Christianity was introduced that we started to see homophobia, which doesn't help the correlation between religion and homophobia. |
|
|
|
Post by Naj on Apr 29, 2009 9:56:46 GMT -5
Here’s the hole kit n caboodle why I’m upset with Miss California and basically the last thing I have to say about the pageant. Let’s say Miss California had been asked a question about womens’ roles in the home when she’s married and has a baby (I’m sure this question has probably surfaced in decades past in the pageant. Actually I do recall it was asked). But let’s say she had been asked this question. I would think she would have answered that it’s up to a woman to choose when she has a baby whether she stays home or has a professional life and then she would have given her own answer as to what she would do. Given that Miss California believes in the Bible (because she referenced to it in her answer for the question given her that night) why wouldn’t she answer that a woman’s place is being owned by her husband and he should decide what she does when she has a baby? Why isn't she submitting to her husband's authority on the matter? The Bible was written for a time and then came Christ (the New Testament). Christ was a radical for his time. He brought the lepers, the harlots, the beggars inside the city and allowed them to wash in the same waters as the common folk did. That infuriated the leaders. Christ stood up for those that didn’t have a voice for the times. In doing a random google on the history of marriage, I came up with this site: Married Women’s Property Rights Changing Views and Challenges www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson17.htmlAs you can see women moved from being owned by others to self ownership. *Everything changes*. Why aren’t the organized religions fighting to put women back as ownership of men? Why aren’t the organized religions fighting against divorce? Why isn’t organized religion fighting inter racial marriages? Or single parent families? Or no businesses open on Sunday’s Or no taking an excess of so many steps on the Sabbath? Or? ..., As you can see from that article the progression of change for women, so, too, we are in a progression for change for gay rights, because, in my opinion, it’s the nature of God working through our time and our world to unharden our hearts. Christ’s message was simple: “Love.” God is always about becoming and not about stagnation and rigidity. This is why (IMHO) gay marriage will be accepted, eventually, and become a challenge met and dissolve into the flow of life as just another natural part of existence. ~~~~ Absolutely agree. |
|
ali
Senior Detective
Social One[/color]
Posts: 560
|
Post by ali on Apr 29, 2009 12:17:25 GMT -5
Homosexuality was considered innatural also before Christianity: Romans derided Greek because of that, but we have to consider that in ancient Greek culture (which was strongly misogynist) the relationship between men ( not women), was important to consolidate frienships, alliances, political parties, and the entire (male) society. Actually, the Romans weren't opposed to homosexuality in the beginning; it is even rumored that Julius Caesar presided over the wedding of a couple of gay friends. Unfortunately, it was only when Christianity was introduced that we started to see homophobia, which doesn't help the correlation between religion and homophobia. It's a complicated issue, we can debate about homosexuality in the ancient world for years, but what I know is that in Roman culture homosexuality was tolerated since they had contacts with the Greek culture: the mos maiorum (the traditions handed down from the ancestors) didn't include homosexuality as society's foudation like in the Greek culture or the marriage between same-sex people. Cato the Censor, who auto-promoted himself as defensor of Roman tradition, thought that homosexuality (for him, typical corruption from ellenistic culture) was dangerous for the State: he lived in the second century b.C. (three centuries before the great expansion of the Christian thought in Rome). |
|
The Reverend Bizarre
Lilly Rush
10 0011 10101 [/b][/color]
"The way your prophet breaks his bread does not speak the future." - Mephirostus
Posts: 2,605 
|
Post by The Reverend Bizarre on Apr 29, 2009 13:34:01 GMT -5
This might sound odd but, in a way I admire her. Now why would it seem odd? Because, I'm bisexual and, a Christian. I also consider myself to be a true liberal (or close to one. There are some things that I absolutely cannot tolerate) and believe fully in freedom of speech; even if that freedom of speech is a double edged sword.
A choice that she should only be allowed to make if she were ever the head of a church. I do believe that the churches should have the right to decide if they'll allow gay marriage or not. I don't believe that the government should decide for the church and, I don't think the church should decide for government.
It depends. When the settlers first came to America it was a theocratic type of government (see the Salem Witch Trials). But, when the constitution was written, freedom of religion was allowed. Even so, there are some that will claim that America was founded on Free Masonry which according to some is a branch of Satanism; which I don't quite buy (the Satanism bit).
|
|
|
|
Post by eduardodelroice on Apr 29, 2009 13:45:24 GMT -5
I do admire her too. She said what she felt and that's OK for me. She had been "brainwashed" (yes, that's what I think) so her opinions are based on what she has been told
|
|
|
|
Post by Electrophile on Apr 29, 2009 14:02:07 GMT -5
The Treaty of Tripoli (look it up) expressly said that we were not founded to be a Christian nation. By percentage a good chunk of the populace identifies themselves as Christian, but we have no national religion. And we never will. That's just how it works here.
I could have sworn someone here already discussed that being religious is not the same as being "brainwashed". In fact, I'll quote that comment.
For the last time, Miss California believes what she believes because she is religious and that is what her faith lays out. I don't agree with it either, but that doesn't mean I am going to be derogatory about it.
|
|
