Carrie Prejean meltdown on Larry King

[Hot Mega]

its not morally right

<chuckle> "asshole..." you're on a porn site arguing what isn't "morally right"?

 

[Facetious]

Asshole ! ^



What's not morally right ? Elaborate for the audience, would you please ?
Is there a specific sub topic that you would like to discuss /pursue ?

The woman is not morally right ?

The chiding of the woman is not morally right, what ?

 

[assholebythedoor]

the off subjects where they dipict her nature. Thats whats not right.

 

[assholebythedoor]

wheres her porno? who with and what?

 

[meesterperfect]

Now asshole please, youre being Inappropriate.^

 

[assholebythedoor]

sorry, Its hard to believe that there is an actual sex tape. so I was thinking was it a Paris Hilton type deal or a motion picture.

 

[TrueTranssexual]

You're right. Their religious practice is being discriminated against. :2 cents:

I see your point...but Voodu religion, for example, allows for animals to be sacrificed. Should the government also sanction it, because of the freedom of speech and religion clause?

Now who's the one presuming someone has a underlying prejudice??:1orglaugh I just gave you an example of how a person could support a traditional marriage to the exclusion of other arrangements beyond a same sex one and the position not be anti gay. Her position may or may not be anti-gay but her statement under the circumstances is not determinative. And how on earth are you going to presume I have a "double standard" by assuming what you think my position on an issue would be???

I think I see what you were trying to say in your last post now.
But obviously people against polygamous marriages have a bias against polygamy. Just like people against gay marriage have a bias against homosexuality. It is not presumptuous to state what's logical.
Does that necessarily mean they hate this people? No.

Regarding interracial marriage had that been the question...lets summarize briefly; It is legal for Americans to marry in a one man, one woman arrangement. If you happen to support that arrangement unless it involves two people of different races..then that position by definition is racist. Now that doesn't portend racial bigotry per se, which is another step. But identifying something as racist doesn't mean the person is a racist bigot. Consistently so, just because a person doesn't support the idea of same sex marriage doesn't necessarily portend they are anti gay or not supporting plural marriages meaning they are anti-Mormons or anyone else who practices polygamy.

OK. I undestand. This is sort of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality, or "that is just not for me." Cool. But the question was not whether she would marry someone of the same sex, but whether all the states should allow gay people to marry.

And now thinking about it....she said something, not very eloquently, along the lines of "its great you can choose either same sex or opposite marriage...." but in her country, she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don't see any problems with her answer, except that she was obviously nervous and didn't word her message correctly.
At least that is the excuse Perez Hilton used.

And while I don't necessarily agree with polygamy...that doesn't mean I would like the the Mormon church to stop recognizing those unions. Unlike gay marriage opponents whom want the state to stop sanctioning such unions.:2 cents:

As far as the public reaction....she would have been skewered by the PC crowd for making public a position against interracial marriage much the same way she's been skewered for a position against same sex marriage. She didn't do herself any favors by buffooning up her response but she would have been attacked by the usual activists and defended by the usual defenders as she is now.

Agreed.

How are they brainwashed???

Yes, brainwashed. Americans and many around the world are constantly bombarded by messages that lesbianism can be acceptable and that displays of affection between women is normal and to be expected. The same obviously cannot be said of men. (Except maybe in some Muslim countries, where men can even hold hands...but there is not a double standard like here, since lesbianism is frowned upon as well.)

 

[TrueTranssexual]

If not being in favor of gay marriage makes one a bigot, then how and why can some gay people not be in favor of gay marriage?

No one said people against gay marriage where "bigots" ReyC, at least not me.
I think sincere people with religious convictions can be against gay marriage and not be "bigots." However, it is obvious that they have a bias against homosexuality.

Gay people not in favor of gay marriage is a different story altogether.... Self-loathing idiots!!! Unfortunately, many gays are too understanding and rationalize the prejudices of others against them. They accept abusive remarks from their parents, family and even "friends," because deep down they can't even accept their homosexuality themselves. They grew up in a society that constantly told them they were wrong for being that way, and many internalize that message.

 

[TrueTranssexual]

[OOPS, Double message by mistake, moderator pls delete!)

If not being in favor of gay marriage makes one a bigot, then how and why can some gay people not be in favor of gay marriage?

No one said people against gay marriage where "bigots" ReyC, at least not me.
I think sincere people with religious convictions can be against gay marriage and not be "bigots." However, it is obvious that they have a bias against homosexuality.

Gay people not in favor of gay marriage is a different story altogether.... Self-loathing idiots!!! Unfortunately, many gays are too understanding and rationalize the prejudices of others against them. They accept abusive remarks from their parents, family and even "friends," because deep down they can't even accept their homosexuality themselves. They grew up in a society that constantly told them they were wrong for being that way, and many internalize that message.

 

[TheAmazingRed]

To think all started because she said she didn't approve gay marriage or something like that...

Even though the state voted AGAINST it.

Typical American hypocrisy, I guess...

 

[Jane Burgess]

Hilton's a complete tool.
But for those who have either forgotten or don't know, Prejean picked the question at random out of a bowl. She could just as easily have picked a different question and one of the other contestants would have gotten Hilton's question. So it's not like Hilton set her up.

But all that's beside the point. Prejean's problem isn't her stance on gay marriage, it's her lack of character and integrity. It's her blatant double standard when it comes to honoring contractual stipulations (yes when it serves her, no when it doesn't). It's her shameless pimping of her moronic book, often via so-called liberal media outlets, all the while decrying liberals and liberal media for suppressing her right to speak. Most of all it's her pathological lying, and her complete failure to take responsibility for it.

How anybody can hold this phony, lying, manipulator up as a model of anything admirable or respectable is completely beyond me. Maybe some people haven't dealt with a professional victim on a personal level before. For those of us who have, Miss Prejean's act is readily identifiable and painfully familiar.

I work in the adult industry. Half the people are phony, lie, and manipulate. Fans hold up a lot of the women in adult as idols or the ideal women without knowing who they actually are. Frankly I do not understand why this is such a big deal. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

I see your point...but Voodu religion, for example, allows for animals to be sacrificed. Should the government also sanction it, because of the freedom of speech and religion clause?

Wow...you just warned me against citing examples of bestiality, pedophilia, etc. but turn right around and compare the religious practice of polygamy with animal sacrifice. Pretty confusing logic IMO.

Again, the point is other types of arrangements are banned not just same sex arrangements. Ergo, same sex couples are not being targeted singularly for discrimination as some proponents of same sex marriages would have us believe.

I think I see what you were trying to say in your last post now.
But obviously people against polygamous marriages have a bias against polygamy. Just like people against gay marriage have a bias against homosexuality. It is not presumptuous to state what's logical.
Does that necessarily mean they hate this people? No.

Not necessarily so. Some people are just interested in what they believe a marriage consists of and preserving that so as not to create a slippery slope. I doubt many people who care about the preservation of what they believe a marriage consists of give much thought to polygamist or those who think they should be able to marry their immediate family members or whatever else kind of arrangement that is banned. And like I said...it could just be a favoring of a traditional arrangement.

OK. I undestand. This is sort of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality, or "that is just not for me." Cool. But the question was not whether she would marry someone of the same sex, but whether all the states should allow gay people to marry.

And now thinking about it....she said something, not very eloquently, along the lines of "its great you can choose either same sex or opposite marriage...." but in her country, she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don't see any problems with her answer, except that she was obviously nervous and didn't word her message correctly.
At least that is the excuse Perez Hilton used.

And while I don't necessarily agree with polygamy...that doesn't mean I would like the the Mormon church to stop recognizing those unions. Unlike gay marriage opponents whom want the state to stop sanctioning such unions.:2 cents:

Again, your analogies and conclusions are wildly off base IMO. Some people could totally support the idea of people who love each other having a legal arrangement (essentially what a marriage constitutes) which affords gays or otherwise all of the legal benefits of a marriage but not believe a marriage should say husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and wives, brother and sister, etc.

Yes, brainwashed. Americans and many around the world are constantly bombarded by messages that lesbianism can be acceptable and that displays of affection between women is normal and to be expected. The same obviously cannot be said of men. (Except maybe in some Muslim countries, where men can even hold hands...but there is not a double standard like here, since lesbianism is frowned upon as well.)

So if it's a worldwide sentiment and perception...how can it be brainwashing? I suppose if I put some thought to it I could reason why it is that lesbianism isn't thought of the same way gay men are but the fact is lesbianism is seen as far more palatable than gay men by men and women. I don't see that as brainwashing but a recognition that sensuality and sexuality in women is different.

 

[Hot Mega]

I work in the adult industry. Half the people are phony, lie, and manipulate.

JaneB...that is the world we live in...and it's not just confined to people in porn.:2 cents:

Fans hold up a lot of the women in adult as idols or the ideal women without knowing who they actually are. Frankly I do not understand why this is such a big deal. :2 cents:

Fans of anything or person extend their perception of the professional unwisely to the person.

 

[Elwood70]

So if it's a worldwide sentiment and perception...how can it be brainwashing? I suppose if I put some thought to it I could reason why it is that lesbianism isn't thought of the same way gay men are but the fact is lesbianism is seen as far more palatable than gay men by men and women. I don't see that as brainwashing but a recognition that sensuality and sexuality in women is different.

.and guys are gross.We all know it.

 

[TrueTranssexual]

Wow...you just warned me against citing examples of bestiality, pedophilia, etc. but turn right around and compare the religious practice of polygamy with animal sacrifice. Pretty confusing logic IMO.

Again, the point is other types of arrangements are banned not just same sex arrangements. Ergo, same sex couples are not being targeted singularly for discrimination as some proponents of same sex marriages would have us believe.

I think any reasonable person would understand that you can't compare consensual adult sexual behaviour with paedophilia or bestiality. I warned you, because it became apparent you were using the "slippery slope" arguments many use when they bring up up poligamy. And that is where you have your double standard. Perhaps for many in the past, and some now, the slippery slope started when we allowed interracial couples to get married. Some religious groups were against it, most Americans as well. In fact, people had such strong convictions about it that it had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court for the policy to be changed nationwide.

Comparing one religion to another, as an example of why the government may not sanction their practices, is not the same as comparing consensual adult sexuality to the rape of a child or an animal.

Not necessarily so. Some people are just interested in what they believe a marriage consists of and preserving that so as not to create a slippery slope. I doubt many people who care about the preservation of what they believe a marriage consists of give much thought to polygamist or those who think they should be able to marry their immediate family members or whatever else kind of arrangement that is banned. And like I said...it could just be a favoring of a traditional arrangement.

There is a reason behind why they favor a "traditional" arrangement, not just because of nothing. The fear of the so called slippery slope is nothing more than uncertainty avoidance. Not a good reason to deny others equality IMO. And perhaps the logical thing to do is to address this fears before they even form an opinion on the subject; otherwise is not a very objective, thoughtful opinion.

Again, your analogies and conclusions are wildly off base IMO. Some people could totally support the idea of people who love each other having a legal arrangement (essentially what a marriage constitutes) which affords gays or otherwise all of the legal benefits of a marriage but not believe a marriage should say husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and wives, brother and sister, etc.

I see, essentially "separate, but equal." The definitions of many words are bound to change anyways as society evolves, getting all worked up over it is kind of silly. This change has already happened in other places. The word husband, wife, in a secular context means you are married and what sex you are. It shouldn't necessarily be an indication of the sex of the person you choose to marry, but that's just my opinion.

So if it's a worldwide sentiment and perception...how can it be brainwashing? I suppose if I put some thought to it I could reason why it is that lesbianism isn't thought of the same way gay men are but the fact is lesbianism is seen as far more palatable than gay men by men and women. I don't see that as brainwashing but a recognition that sensuality and sexuality in women is different.

So now we know that because something is popular and more "acceptable," there must be a benign reason behind it it. History taught us right man, and machismo is not really cultural either, is biological!

 

[Hot Mega]

I think any reasonable person would understand that you can't compare consensual adult sexual behaviour with paedophilia or bestiality. I warned you, because it became apparent you were using the "slippery slope" arguments many use when they bring up up poligamy. And that is where you have your double standard. Perhaps for many in the past, and some now, the slippery slope started when we allowed interracial couples to get married. Some religious groups were against it, most Americans as well. In fact, people had such strong convictions about it that it had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court for the policy to be changed nationwide.

Comparing one religion to another, as an example of why the government may not sanction their practices, is not the same as comparing consensual adult sexuality to the rape of a child or an animal.

I must admit I stopped reading your post after these two paragraphs. In your response below you'd just rebutted by comparing the religious discrimination against plural marriages with legalization of animal sacrifices. In the next breath you're expressing the absurdity of arguing against gay marriage using the bestiality and pedo slippery slope. You really are I'm done.:hatsoff:

I see your point...but Voodu religion, for example, allows for animals to be sacrificed. Should the government also sanction it, because of the freedom of speech and religion clause?

There is a reason behind why they favor a "traditional" arrangement, not just because of nothing. The fear of the so called slippery slope is nothing more than uncertainty avoidance. Not a good reason to deny others equality IMO. And perhaps the logical thing to do is to address this fears before they even form an opinion on the subject; otherwise is not a very objective, thoughtful opinion.

I see, essentially "separate, but equal." The definitions of many words are bound to change anyways as society evolves, getting all worked up over it is kind of silly. This change has already happened in other places. The word husband, wife, in a secular context means you are married and what sex you are. It shouldn't necessarily be an indication of the sex of the person you choose to marry, but that's just my opinion.

So now we know that because something is popular and more "acceptable," there must be a benign reason behind it it. History taught us right man, and machismo is not really cultural either, is biological!

 

[TrueTranssexual]

I must admit I stopped reading your post after these two paragraphs. In your response below you'd just rebutted by comparing the religious discrimination against plural marriages with legalization of animal sacrifices. In the next breath you're expressing the absurdity of arguing against gay marriage using the bestiality and pedo slippery slope. You really are I'm done.:hatsoff:

I'm so sorry I am so confusing to you HM. I am also very sorry that you could not understand what I thought was a clear message, that religious practices are not supposed to be sanctioned by the state, and shouldn't be as there is a separation of church and state. The Mormon's choice to marry more than two people is not any more legitimate than the Voodo's rituals in which they kill animals. No matter how outlandish you may consider it, millions practice the religion around the world. Yet the government doesn't accept this. You were implying that denying poligamy is government discrimination towards Mormons, and I just gave you a different example of how the government also "discriminate" other groups based on their well-estalished religious beliefs.
Nevertheless, straight Mormons still have the option to CIVIL marriage with one person who they fall in love with, something gays of any religion can't.


If you think this comparison is like comparing consensual sex between adults or gay marriage with the rape of a child or an animal, then you are the one that's really confusing here.:2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm so sorry I am so confusing to you HM. I am also very sorry that you could not understand what I thought was a clear message, that religious practices are not supposed to be sanctioned by the state, and shouldn't be as there is a separation of church and state. The Mormon's choice to marry more than two people is not any more legitimate than the Voodo's rituals in which they kill animals. No matter how outlandish you may consider it, millions practice the religion around the world. Yet the government doesn't accept this. You were implying that denying poligamy is government discrimination towards Mormons, and I just gave you a different example of how the government also "discriminate" other groups based on their well-estalished religious beliefs.
Nevertheless, straight Mormons still have the option to CIVIL marriage with one person who they fall in love with, something gays of any religion can't.


If you think this comparison is like comparing consensual sex between adults or gay marriage with the rape of a child or an animal, then you are the one that's really confusing here.:2 cents:

<*gasp*> Marriage IS a religious practice sanctioned by the state...plural marriages are but one version of it. Also, gays aren't prevented from getting married either....if you get my drift.

This started off with you asserting Mormons weren't discriminated against based on sexual orientation. I agree and added their religious practice is discriminated against. Now you're running around in circular arguments as best I can tell...or you're just adding posts to keep from not saying anything I guess.

 

[TrueTranssexual]

<*gasp*> Marriage IS a religious practice sanctioned by the state...plural marriages are but one version of it.

It's not just coincidence that marriage, as in a religious practice, is nearly universal and not unique to one or two religions. And that the government in many states only accepts the traditional Xtian definition of it as of now. On the other hand, civil marriage, what gays are asking for, is not a religious practice. There are some religious marriages that the state do not sanction because it goes against their laws.

 

[Wainkerr99]

Carrie is a beautiful woman. I know one like her, also stunning. This acquaintance has brought me to tears three times. I actually felt my eyes sting with tears, which has hardly ever happened in my life. She is a very positive person, dedicated to her work, her image, making the right friends and connections, doing the whole 'networking' thing, etc, etc. Kind of reminds me of this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRpw4tYMM-c

She is friendly, no doubt. I even watched her put down that black round open faced playa guy all the girls goggle over a couple of times. She slapped him down so hard the floorboards creaked. He had it coming. He actually bowed out of College as he think he pissed off too many people. She is a determined person, set to success.

She is not inscrutable. One simply needs to look at the structure of American society. The one that expects one to be positive, bright, happy, energetic, well adapted to and understanding the system. Understanding it so well that you play it with consummate ease.

The only thing I have a problem with is one needs to play the game. One needs to play the game the way she plays it. She is a red personality, a type A. If she was a guy she would probably be Alpha male numero uno. She, and probably Carrie, have their goals set,the way forward mapped out and planned.

Want to know where they are going?

They are headed this way>>>>>$.

You see, the beauty industry can train people a certain way. It can influence the way you think. It can also make one very bossy. This acquaintance of mine is a self confessed dirty-minded person. However, from the surface one would never tell.

I am not putting this across very well so I hope I am making sense. It is difficult to actually find fault with someone when by society's standards they are doing things the right way due to the right mental attitude and all that sort of thing. Right positive work ethic based positive bright sparkly friendly mental attitude plus hard work and making the right connections is equal to success.

They are the ones the rest of the world envies.

I guess Carrie just does not want to move out of her box and step a little to the right maybe. There is nothing either Larry King or anyone else can do about it.

Sucks huh?