About the whole Miss California thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35zNXq7C0s (For those unfamiliar.)

To be perfectly honest, I think her original response wasn't particularly inflammatory. Given it wasn't a popular or politically correct answer, but I certainly didn't see it as malicious.

So just out of curiosity, what are your takes on her response? (Again, not so much do you agree/disagree, but on the delivery/presentation.)

Given it wasn't so concise or well worded, but I think it was void of anything offensive. Given it hurts if you don't like the answer, but I think it was given about as softly as can be done on the fly with that sort of pressure on you.

I voted yes. Whether you agree with her stance or not, the fact remains that she answered the question she was asked honestly, and in an un-offensive manner. The whole zealous crusade Mr. Hilton is on is making him look bad more than she.

Going back to my love for liberals (/sarcasm), there's a popular saying that "Liberals are champions of tolerance and free speech...as long as you agree with them."

Perez Hilton is a huge troll (funny as well)

By C word she means Cunt right?

uke wrote:I voted yes. Whether you agree with her stance or not, the fact remains that she answered the question she was asked honestly, and in an un-offensive manner. The whole zealous crusade Mr. Hilton is on is making him look bad more than she.

Going back to my love for liberals (/sarcasm), there's a popular saying that "Liberals are champions of tolerance and free speech...as long as you agree with them."

You say you voted yes, but the rest of your statements sound you meant no...i r confuzzled.

I voted no. She was just saying what she believed.

I don't agree with what she said, but I don't see how she said it as inflammatory or anything like that either. GOGO SENSATIONALIST MEDIA!

The way she said it wasn't offensive but what she said certianly was.

Sharlos wrote:The way she said it wasn't offensive but what she said certianly was.

all the girls from "miss California all they do is try to mold their personality on what the media likes" she says that she giving her opinion. she probably doesn't even know what her opinion is anymore. Models that content in those places give a back name to all women by showing themselves like cheap trash.

I wouldn't say i agree with what she says (about on the fence) but she stood up for her opinion and wasn't afraid

It sucks that her Miss California title is probaly going to go down the drain after that though

Lightbeard wrote:I wouldn't say i agree with what she says (about on the fence) but she stood up for her opinion and wasn't afraid

It sucks that her Miss California title is probaly going to go down the drain after that though

if you think about it, what those people prefer is their business for attraction. just like religion, religion diversity is good. just as long as you don't try to push it to me as a law, which retards that keep hitting the point as in "its bad". okay, what if its bad? they are doing their thing over there and not telling us we have to do the same like we do to them and how Jehovah witnesses do before you call the police and have them arrested.

Minnerva wrote:

Lightbeard wrote:I wouldn't say i agree with what she says (about on the fence) but she stood up for her opinion and wasn't afraid

It sucks that her Miss California title is probaly going to go down the drain after that though

if you think about it, what those people prefer is their business for attraction. just like religion, religion diversity is good. just as long as you don't try to push it to me as a law, which retards that keep hitting the point as in "its bad". okay, what if its bad? they are doing their thing over there and not telling us we have to do the same like we do to them and how Jehovah witnesses do before you call the police and have them arrested.

sorry for being a bit angry there but i never liked the whole "we believe this so you have to follow it as law" when i was in high school i wanted to be in art class. counselor said "there is no more space" i walked out of her office and a <not racist comment> white kid and the counselor gave him the class. i told my mother and the next morning my mother was saying "you did not give her the class cause she is not white?" my English was bad at that time and the counselor said "well i say that your child focuses on something closer. her speech would probably land her a job at mc donalds at best.

so i do take offense went retards like that make comments "you have to feel this way because the mayoralty feels this is how it should be".

Let me start by saying that I have no problem with gays or lesbians because someone is most likely going to take this the wrong way. In my opinion the question was completely loaded. It was either she sink down to the failure that is political correctness and feel guilty for not saying what she thought, or she loses but goes home knowing she said what she felt was right. This is n example my teacher gave us the following class. If the question was "What is your opinion on pedophiles?" you can apply the same mentality that Hilton used. If she said she disagrees with pedophiles then she would instantly alienate millions of pedophiles with her answer. Now I am in NO way saying that gays and pedophiles are similar and I am sorry if it appears that way. It is just an example to prove a point.

Um, that example makes absolutely no sense.

Also I don't think alienating 'millions' of pedophiles is a major concern of anyone.

The point of it was to show that with that kind of question, no matter how it is answered, someone is going to take offense. I just used an incredibly extreme example, that, i will admit, makes no sense in today's world. But think of this another way. Just a few decades ago, offending a few million gays was not a big problem either. As some other thread pointed out, its all a matter of perspective. All that has changed is how socially acceptable certain things are.

As long as your opinion doesn't hurt anybody, go ahead

This was out of line, imo. Let people make their own decisions, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. If I want to walk around all day, covered in marshmellows, syrup and go up to people on the street saying:"got tea?" I'd be bothering the world more than if two gay would marry

right?

There was nothing offensive about how she said what she said. She didn't call them anything bad, she didn't say 'I think gays and lesbians are hedonistic evil filth', she simply stated that she doesn't support gay marriage.

It's funny to think that if she would have given a PC answer, she would have been lying, but that would have been acceptable. But she tells the truth and is ostracized for it.

If politicians would follow her example, this country would be a much better place.

Can we get religious marriage and legal marriage seperated? Then comments like this wont cause a shitstorm and the religions can't bitch and moan about gay couples. I hardly think any gay people would care if they couldnt get married in a church if they can get basically the exact same thing but without the boring ceremony in some dull church given the church will probably be against it law or no law.

No. If someone has the balls to ask you such a question, particularly in such a fluff environment as a BEAUTY CONTEST, they should be prepared for the answer they get. She was polite and tactful, and knew what the judge wanted but was honest instead of pandering. I don't particularly care on the issue but I give her credit for not lying nor being a dick about pushing her opinion beyond stating what it was.

Where's the 'who cares what beauty queens say' option?

While were at it, wheres the 'Perez Hilton is a moron' option?

It wasn't offensive.

I don't share her opinion but I do think she has the right to say her opinion without being attacked for it.

Anyhow, I think the solution is just to remove the right to marry from the church and make it a completely legal function done by the state and then the church can have all the monopoly on the ceremony that they want.

At least she better then

>.>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHH ... re=related

Lightbeard wrote:At least she better then

>.>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHH ... re=related

Man that was hilarious.

There is nothing really to discuss here. She at least is willing to speak her mind, and that is to be welcomed nowadays considering you can't say anything without offending someone. Whats the point of getting upset over this? If you can't handle someone having an opinion that disagrees with yours, you shouldn't even have one.

my whole thing about this issue.

Legally...we should not be infringing upon anyone's rights as an individual to marry who they choose. People should be able to, legally, get married. However, any and all marriage criteria must apply. ie, must be consumated etc etc. Such criteria I know are outlined in immigration law.

Religiously, morally, etc...there's the slippery slope.

Anyhow, I think the solution is just to remove the right to marry from the church and make it a completely legal function done by the state and then the church can have all the monopoly on the ceremony that they want.

Separation of Church and State, constitutionally this can't happen, then again the Constitution is treated like toilet paper by most law br.. err makers these days. If anything they need to leave marriage to the Church/Religion and remove the right from the State. Give the State the right to recognize 'legal unions', defined by each state. This could be as broad or specific as they want then, because they aren't redefining a relegious term or practice.

Those of you who are lurkers probably know where I stand on the issue, but that said:

It was not a good answer. It wasn't phrased well. She didn't really address the question completely (there are more reasons than "that's how I was raised"), and "no offense" isn't a professional way of saying things. It's almost slang. A more proper way to say that would be to start out with, "I certainly don't mean to offend anyone and this is a particularly divisive issue, but ..."

Besides, Trump was on TV and said that this answer didn't change the tides based on previous score cards. If it was because of how she felt about the issue, then it was wrong that she didn't win. However, she didn't answer the question well anyway, and I didn't see the rest of the competition.