Hot off The Press !

[Kip Powick]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Donald Trump will let Miss California USA Carrie Prejean keep her title despite controversy over semi-nude photos and charges by state pageant officials that she had abandoned her duties to devote time to opposition to same-sex marriage.

"We're in the 21st century," Trump said, explaining Prejean is a model

[zipped]

Trump is an amazing manipulator of the press. I was impressed with Carries speech. She is a strong beautiful woman with strong convictions. She has a great future a head of her. Watch out Sarah Palin in 2012.

[chockalicious]

Hooray for bigots!

[zipped]

Are you referring to Perez Hilton??

[chockalicious]

I am referring to all those who would deny someone else's rights.

FWIW I think Perez Hilton is a moron and could not care what he thinks about anything.

[Guest rattler]

Hooray for bigots!

Let's see, one side voices their convictions and they are labelled bigots, the other side voices their convictions and they are not labelled at all?????? W.T.F.

Aren't both sides allowed their convictions?????

[chockalicious]

Let's see, one side voices their convictions and they are labelled bigots, the other side voices their convictions and they are not labelled at all?????? W.T.F.

Aren't both sides allowed their convictions?????

I don't have an issue with a person voicing their convictions.

It is when those people seek to deny others rights that they become bigots.

I realize some people have a religous arguement against gay marriage which while I find it idiotic, I can respect that they feel it is against gods word (never mind all of the other contradictions in the bible)

Now the dingbat in question is associating with groups that seek to deny marriage to same sex couples. This makes her a bigot.

[Guest rattler]

I don't have an issue with a person voicing their convictions.

It is when those people seek to deny others rights that they become bigots.

I realize some people have a religous arguement against gay marriage which while I find it idiotic, I can respect that they feel it is against gods word (never mind all of the other contradictions in the bible)

Now the dingbat in question is associating with groups that seek to deny marriage to same sex couples.  This makes her a bigot.

In actual fact all that makes her is someone who does not agree with you. The term "Bigot" is a gate that swings both ways.

bigot

One entry found.

Main Entry:big·ot

Pronunciation:\ˈbi-gət\

Function:noun

Etymology:French, hypocrite, bigot

Date:1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Now before you label me, my POV is that despite my own personal beliefs, if the majority of the population in a democracy votes on a particular issues, that is the end of the debate. Democracy wins.

[Kip Powick]

if the majority of the population in a democracy votes on a particular issues, that is the end of the debate. Democracy wins.

well not quite....unless there are human rights involved, as well as an attempt to overturn a judicial ruling not liked by the "majority", in that the judicial ruling went in favour of the minority........cue Upperdeck for all the legalileeeeeze mumble jumble

[chockalicious]

Good Point Kip.

At one time in our history women were not allowed to vote. I would hazard a guess that the majority of people in our democracy would have voted against giving women the right to vote.

I don't agree with "majority rules" in every instance. There are people that need to be protected from the majority.

Rattler, in your haste to rush out an do a copy and paste you missed my point.

I don't brand her a bigot for her, or anyone, having the views they do.

I brand her, and anyone else, a bigot when they seek to deny rights that other people enjoy because of these views.

[IFG]

In actual fact all that makes her is someone who does not agree with you.  The term "Bigot" is a gate that swings both ways. 

Now before you label me, my POV is that despite my own personal beliefs, if the majority of the population in a democracy votes on a particular issues, that is the end of the debate.    Democracy wins.

Rattler - Duelling dictionaries ... Chock's application of the word may not meet your chosen definition, but he did specify how he was applying it, i.e. "It is when those people seek to deny others rights that they become bigots". The word is widely used that way, referencing intolerance in action, not simple conviction.

bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations

It is not Ms. Prejean's convictions that expose her, but her actions toward the denial of other peoples' freedom to marry, rigorous etymology notwithstanding.

There's much to recommend democracy, but as the only arbiter of all things moral or ethical? Hitler was elected. Just sayin'

Cheers, IFG

[Guest rattler]

Good Point Kip.

At one time in our history women were not allowed to vote.  I would hazard a guess that the majority of people in our democracy would have voted against giving women the right to vote.

I don't agree with "majority rules" in every instance.  There are people that need to be protected from the majority.

Rattler, in your haste to rush out an do a copy and paste you missed my point.

I don't brand her a bigot for her, or anyone, having the views they do.

I brand her, and anyone else, a bigot when they seek to deny rights that other people enjoy because of these views.

You just validated my point. In the example you provide, eventually a democratic vote made the change and granted women the right to vote. Hell, even in Alberta, Gay marriage was granted by the democratic process.

Thus with all of it's failings, with enough work by those who want a change, democracy works.

[IFG]

Not sure how much democracy prevailed in Alberta's handling of same-sex marriage. I'm not all that well informed on its provincial politics, but I recall that judicial decisions dominated the discussion, and that Klien basically capitulated to the courts.

Wikipedia on Same-sex marriage in Alberta (it's Wiki, correct it if it's wrong )

.... On July 12, 2005, Klein conceded that the advice given to him by legal experts is that a challenge in Court to refuse to marry same-sex couples has no chance, and wasting taxpayers' money to fight it would be "giving false hope." Klein said, "much to our chagrin," the Alberta government will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the bill receives royal assent .... [and presumably not before that?]

Cheers, IFG

[chockalicious]

You just validated my point. In the example you provide, eventually a democratic vote made the change and granted women the right to vote. Hell, even in Alberta, Gay marriage was granted by the democratic process.

Thus with all of it's failings, with enough work by those who want a change, democracy works.

Hi Rattler

Actually I did not validate your point at all in my example.

The right for women to vote was not voted on by the "majority of the population in a democracy". The right to vote was enacted by an act of Parliament.

As per my earlier comment I would submit that if this had been put to a popular vote it would not have passed. Simply saying MAJORITY RULES is not always the right thing to do.

womens voting rights in Canada

The relentless campaign of petitions, lectures and demonstrations spanned over four decades. Undeterred by hostile politicians and public opinion these women overcame enormous obstacles. Manitoba was the first province to allow women to vote.

Regardless of women being able to vote provincially or not, on May 24, 1918, the Canada Elections Act enfranchised all Canadian women 21 years of age and over for federal elections.

[Guest rattler]

Hi Rattler

Actually I did not validate your point at all in my example.

The right for women to vote was not voted on by the "majority of the population in a democracy".  The right to vote was enacted by an act of Parliament.

As per my earlier comment I would submit that if this had been put to a popular vote it would not have passed.  Simply saying MAJORITY RULES is not always the right thing to do.

womens voting rights in Canada

The relentless campaign of petitions, lectures and demonstrations spanned over four decades. Undeterred by hostile politicians and public opinion these women overcame enormous obstacles. Manitoba was the first province to allow women to vote.

Regardless of women being able to vote provincially or not, on May 24, 1918, the Canada Elections Act enfranchised all Canadian women 21 years of age and over for federal elections.

And those in parliament were elected by the majority of the voters thus validating the democratic process.

Change brought about by the majority either through voting in the right MPs or other means is what democracy is all about.

As far as Miss Sunshine, the only quote I can see from her is that she didn't agree with same sex marriage but I can not find a quote where she said that same sex marriage should be banned. Therefore I fail to understand how voicing her opinion made her a bigot, thus my original reply to your first post on the subject.

She replied that it was great to live in a country where people can choose same-sex marriage, but she believed a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    "That's how I was raised," she said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/...nt_11367549.htm

[boestar]

Looks to me like she walked a line and walked it well.

She replied that it was great to live in a country where people can choose same-sex marriage, but she believed a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    "That's how I was raised," she said.

1. Great to live in a FREE COUNTRY

2. I'm not for it but ITS A FREE COUNTRY

3. I was raised with traditional cristian values

So whats the issue???? she spoke what she believed and did not try to tell people how to live. it was a simple "THIS IS ME".

[chockalicious]

Well Rattler you have shifted the goal posts of your argument from "a majority of the population in a democracy" to the "democratic process'

Regardless of how you want to parse it, I don't think MAJORITY RULES is the be all and end all to every arguement. It is why we have the Charter of Rights.

By your logic if the majority, thru their politicians decreed that all members of a race could be banished to their own schools, it could be done.

Just because the majority wants it does not make it right.

Now as for the dingbat in question:

If your phone rings and there's a voice recording asking you to donate money and sign a petition against gay marriage, you can draw comfort from the fact that the person who recorded the message is really hot.

Again, I have no problem with anyone's individual views.

Attempt to deny rights to others based on those views = bigot.

[Guest rattler]

Just because the majority wants it does not make it right.

Now as for the dingbat in question:

If your phone rings and there's a voice recording asking you to donate money and sign a petition against gay marriage, you can draw comfort from the fact that the person who recorded the message is really hot.

Again, I have no problem with anyone's individual views.

Attempt to deny rights to others based on those views = bigot.

Denying others = rights is just plain wrong, the devil is of course always in the detail however when determining = rights.

Good bad example is a case where a "male equipped" person is claiming that he/she has been denied his/her human rights because of being denied access to the womans restroom.

Another good / bad example is the ability, when conducting interviews, of female sports reporters to access male locker rooms (this is considered ok) but on the flip side Male Reporters continue to be denied access to Female Locker rooms.

And then we get into = access to certain groups (faternal organizations etc.) Gets tricky indeed.

However that aside I do agree that all things being equal, no one should be denied rights enjoyed by others.

[Steam Driven]

Beauty queen vs. gays (II)

National Post

Published: Wednesday, May 13, 2009

After witnessing the firestorm unleashed by proponents of same-sex marriage in the United States over the comments made by Miss California last month, it is abundantly clear that "liberals" are also capable of hate.

Carrie Prejean is entitled to her opinion and so are the rest of us who believe that marriage should be exclusive to one man and one woman. Gay men like blogger Perez Hilton (who called her insulting names) and British MP Alan Duncan (who joked on television about murdering her for being homophobic) have ensured that any accusations of hate by anyone on their side will henceforth ring hollow.

Well done, Carrie. You have more supporters than you know.

Alan Baker, Chatham, Ont.

[Timothy]

Excellent post, Steam Driven. Carrie can count me as one of her supporters.

The traditional meaning of marriage has served mankind well over the centuries and there is no need to change it. This matter has nothing to do with "rights". A "gay marriage" simply cannot accomplish the ends that usually come from a traditional marriage and should not assume that name. If employers and governments want to give gay couples the same benefits that married couples enjoy that is their decision. Most of us really don't care.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is in chapter 19 of Genesis. There is nothing ambiguous about it and the same message is also found in several places in the New Testament. I'm sure that many more people put their trust in the Bible than in the pronouncements of politicians or newspaper editors.

Just my 2 cents, but I don't think I'm alone.

[chockalicious]

I respect your right to feel that way Timothy however the bible has no place in government. I always get a chuckle on the selective reading of the bible to justify attitides towatrds gays. Doesn't the bible say it is also ok to keep slaves?

Marriage was a legal contract before it was a religous one.

I am sure Carrie will have a lot of supporters and as long as she does not try to impose her views on anyone else I think most people would not have a problem with her.

It is when she seeks to deny the rights of others because of her own religous views that creates the issue.

[Timothy]

Thanks for your reply Chock. I too have a problem with slavery. The New Testament was written some 2000 years ago and the Old Testament much earlier. The context in which they were written reflected the customs of the times and evidently slavery, or servitude of some type, was prevalent then. To the best of my knowledge, slavery was never advocated in the Bible. I am not conversant in Hebrew or Greek, but I wonder if the term "servant" can or should be substituted for "slave".

As mentioned in a much earlier post, the Bible cannot be read as a novel. It must be studied and reflected upon if one wants to profit from it. The attitude of those of us opposed to the gay lifestyle is based on the entire message in the Bible, not on selected readings. I don't think that those of us that agree with Carrie are persecuting gays, we just do not agree with that lifestyle. It's not the person, it's the lifestyle that is contrary to the message in the Bible.

While we may be on opposite sides with this issue, I'd be happy to buy you a coffee or a beer if our paths were to cross.

[Steam Driven]

I admire Carrie for standing by her convictions. It says a lot about her character. The easy thing to do would have been to utter some vanilla blather that would have been acceptable, one may say expected, by the judges.

By taking a stand that is the polar opposite of the entertainment industry as a whole took not only courage but strength of character. For that, she has my admiration.

[chockalicious]

Hey Timothy

Thanks for the coffee or beer offer and I would certainly be more than happy to reciprocate.

While I can understand that your view is based on the study of the bible I simply can't agree with your interpretation. I appreciate that you have a nuanced and thoughtful approach on this rather than trotting out the standard Leviticus line that seems to be the standard for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

That being said I am not sure where the bible as a whole comes out against a "gay lifestye" The majority of the gay people I know have pretty normal lifestyles, worries about career, family, etc. They just happen to be attracted to people of the same sex.

The bible says many contradictory things however I think the overall message is obviously very good.

My approach is that marriage is a legal contract that predates Christianity. The same rights that straight people are afforded should be extended to those that are gay.

As far as Carrie Prejean goes I could not care less what her or any other wannabe celebrity thinks. She is making the most of her 15 minutes of fame.

I look forward to seeing her in Playboy to see if it was money well spent on her fake boobs

[Kip Powick]

As far as Carrie Prejean goes I could not care less what her or any other wannabe celebrity thinks. She is making the most of her 15 minutes of fame.

I look forward to seeing her in Playboy to see if it was money well spent on her fake boobs 

Well it was good writing until here.... ..why mar a good discussion by making sarcastic and personal remarks about an individual who voiced her opinion, which in my mind is her right, and has been proven that it was her right.