Was Miss California USA Truthful About The Extent Of Her Semi-Nude Modeling?
I have no problem with modeling, nude or otherwise, as long we we’re all adults here. The issue is the extent to which a beauty queen preaching “values” is familiar with the truth. We already know she signed a statement stating there were no nude or semi-nude photos of her. We also know her contract stated that she could not make commercials or speak on behalf of other groups with permission from pageant officials, and that she did not honor that part of her agreement.
And when a photo surfaced of Carrie Prejean semi-nude, she vowed it was the only one in existence. “There are no other photos of me. This is the only one I took,” she promised. But now the site that published the first photo, thedirty.com, has a second one. But a rep for Miss California says someone photoshopped her face on someone else’s body.
The rep went on to say that Prejean maintains that one photo was taken during that session, “as far as she can remember.” Her rep noted that the photo was taken four years ago and “her memory might be faulty.”
Prejean’s rep also told Access the photo was taken by a friend of Prejean’s, who sent it to an agent, but that she “can’t remember his name.” The rep said they believe the agent might be responsible for releasing the photo to TheDirty.com.
According to her rep, Prejean has contacted the Web site and asked them to stop using her photo.
However, Nik Richie of The Dirty says:
Carrie, your lips are flapping and all you keep doing is lying and making everything worse! You and your “rep”? Isn’t it stated in your agreement with the pageant that you are not allowed to even have your own PR rep.? You have not tried once to get in touch with me or anyone here at TheDirty.com. The image is NOT photoshopped and an agent did not release these images to me. As for your statement, “can’t remember his name” that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Carrie, TheDirty Army and I will pray for you.
Exodis 20:16
Ephhesians 4:24-25
Carrie, I am sure you skipped over those passages. I decided.- nik
Exodus 20:16 says, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Ephesians 4:24-25 says, 24″and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” 25″Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”
it does sound ridiculous that only one such photo would exist..I’m sure the cameraman was firing away trying to get a good shot…as for this picture, it would be one heck of a photoshop. But the response of this guy at dirty sounds like a 12 year old.
—-
Isn’t it stated in your agreement with the pageant that you are not allowed to even have your own PR rep.?
—-
it also says not to do any nude or semi-nude modeling…my guess is that she didn’t exactly read the 12 page document all the way through.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
t also says not to do any nude or semi-nude modeling…my guess is that she didn’t exactly read the 12 page document all the way through.
Actually, there has been quite a bit of controversy re: Miss America over the years w/ nude photos and the like.
These women that participate in these pageants at this level know very well what the rules/expectations are. It’s all a bit silly, but I would be very surprised if she didn’t know the rules about nudie pics.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:07 am
granted, but I doubt she read it all together, thus missing the no personal PR rep clause.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Wouldn’t it be rich if she lost her title, and the right-wingers would come out and cry “foul’ and become staunch defenders of her right to use her body for profit?
Imagine, conservatives all over America fighting for the right of women to pose nude! Finally, they could support the ‘glamour’ industry in another way, besides just secretly buying the magazines…
Kregg Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Frosty: Imagine, conservatives all over America fighting for the right of women to pose nude! Finally, they could support the ‘glamour’ industry in another way, besides just secretly buying the magazines…
K: Frosty once again you are right for the wrong reason. She has freedom of speech and expression and if she chooses to use her body for such then conservatives would support it.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Have we not milked this story to the point of ridiculousness. I for one could care if she was photographed with farm animals.
A) She answered a question that reflected her opinions.
B) Her point total wouldn’t have allowed her to win even if she scored 100% on the question she answered.
C) She broke her contract by becoming a spokesperson for a group promoting the “traditional” view of marriage in an anti gay rights to marry campaign.
D) The Miss California Pagent group is contemplating asking her to reimburse them for the operation they financed for her.
E) Americans began to vomit because she is getting as much publicity without warrant as one “Joe the plumber” got when he was manipulated by a political campaign in 2008.
Say, “Good night, Gracie”
May 7th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Alan says that the anti-homosexual position is medieval. Okay?!? Alan, homosexuality is contrary to the human good as nature has defined it. That was true back then, it is true today, and it will always be true. It violates the meaning of human sexuality, and as such, it is a perverted, disordered act that is in better company with the sense-oriented beasts of the earth and not rational animals. But maybe I’m overstepping prudential judgment by assuming that liberals are rational because in this regard they clearly are not.
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:14 am
No, you’re just a bigot that hates people he doesn’t understand.
They are not hurting you. They could really care less about you.
But you sit there and declare them evil. You call them sick and less than animals.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
“But maybe I’m overstepping prudential judgment by assuming that liberals are rational because in this regard they clearly are not.”
There is no rationality in conservatives of America today.
Just homophobia and intolerance.
Daniel Montuoro Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Where did I declare anyone to be evil? How about just sticking to what I have written instead of inventing arguments for me, can you do that?
Kregg Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The short answer to that is ‘no’…
TDro319 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Daniel Montuoro:
Oh so because you declared gays “perverted” that makes is so, huh? you’re just another right wing bigot lacking compassion and common sense.
Kregg Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Dictionary: perverted – adjective -
– (of a person or their actions) characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies :
– (of a thing) having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state
K: TD, if sex ‘evolved’ or was ‘created’ for reproduction then gay sex is ‘abnormal’ is it not?
OldLefty Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Mowing the lawn…
I don’t engage much in this, but:
#1)That “sex ‘evolved’ or was ‘created’ JUST for reproduction would be debatable by many.
#2)If it were true, then ANY act NOT intended to result in reproduction, is abnormal.
#3)There the use of viagra is pretty much abnormal, as VERY few men who use it are of an age where they are trying to reproduce, and are really fighting nature.
Kregg Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Lefty said: Mowing the lawn…
L: I don’t engage much in this, but:
K: Your husband should be mowing the lawn, Lefty. You know, that old macho thing of wrestling against nature and the natural elements to keep all those blades in perfect order… ;-)
L: #1)That “sex ‘evolved’ or was ‘created’ JUST for reproduction would be debatable by many.
K: Exactly true. However, a mindless evolution process of accidental and random mutations would have no rational ability to ‘design’ sex, would it?
L: #2)If it were true, then ANY act NOT intended to result in reproduction, is abnormal.
K: Exactly right, again. And, there are groups who believe this.
L: #3)There the use of viagra is pretty much abnormal, as VERY few men who use it are of an age where they are trying to reproduce, and are really fighting nature.
K: Exactly right yet again. However, the dictionary definition still applies as to sexual acts that are abnormal (and even lefties have to admit that poking around in a rectum by same sex partners would qualify as ‘abnormal’ compared to the norm of poking around in a vagina by opposite sex partners, wouldn’t you agree?.)
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I suppose some folks think non reproductive sex is perverted, Jared was making an argument that post menopausal women having sex is not natural.
Can’t say I really agree, however.
Kregg Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
The term ‘perverted’ is relational to some standard. IF that standard is reproductive sex – then sex that cannot reproduce would be ‘perverted’ in some respects. Ask the Catholics what they think about condoms or birth control. The secondary dictionary definition for the term” ‘having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state’
May 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
First off has anyone read the contract to see what it actually says.
Second what is the definition of semi-nude breast exposed not exposed hem of her dress below her knees. How about the bikini’s they wore in the peagent itself is that semi-nude.
Alan you’re just pissed off with her answer about marriage between a man and woman and her views on it. The fruitcake that ask her baited her completely with such a touchy subject. If you answer it politically correct you sell out you own morals. If you answer it from the heart which she did she comes in second.
Alan get your head out of the sand and move on.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I’d say she’s getting what she wanted…fame and exposure…quick who was the first runner up in last years pageant…
in fact, what is the name of the the WINNER of THIS year’s pageant.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Absolutely!
You couldn’t BUY this type of publicity….expect to see her crop up on the next 5 rubbish American “reality” shows over the next 2 years.
Survivor XVII “east Philidelphia”
The Great Race “failed beauty queens V GOP VP candidates”
Bog Brother XXII “porn stars/failed beauty queens/and the fat chick from “facts of life”
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:29 am
you know, it’s myth that when they are fightened, Radio talk show hosts bury their heads in the sand…
May 8th, 2009 at 12:02 am
” If you answer it politically correct you sell out you own morals. If you answer it from the heart which she did she comes in second.”
A) One only sells out their morals when they don’t speak their self truth. Being “politically correct” simply means being sensitive to the impact on others of the words and phrases we use.
B) No matter how she answered the question or scored on the question, Donald Trump confirmed on the View 5/6/09 that she wouldn’t have been able to win.
Goliath43, the judge did not “bait her”, but asked her a question on her values.
I have read portions of the contract that pertain to spokesperson exclusivity, and she violated that clause in the contract.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Robert, be honest here.
Would you rather have to answer the question about Gay marriage or the question about “world peace”
It was definitely a loaded question…true she answered it pretty poorly (no matter what side you are on)
but Donald Trump isn’t being truthful when he says the answer didn’t matter. She was 1st runner up, she couldn’t have been that far off mathematically. I don’t know how they do the scoring, but I doubt she was coming from an insurmountable position.
goliath43 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:38 am
First off the person asking the question is a flaming Homosexual. There was no way she was going to satisfy him with “Political Correctness” without offending him without selling out her morals.
Was the pageant over after her question? not sure didn’t watch it.
How did you get a copy of the contract that she actually signed or did you find a similiar contract thru goggle?
May 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am
A caller just made the erroneous statement that people are born gay. No, people are not born gay. People may be born with the inclination towards homosexual tendencies, but there are also people born with inclinations (temperaments) towards alcoholism, pedophilia, violence, and other disordered deviant acts which are naturally and collectively condemned. If only the liberal logic-numb would attempt to understand these facts.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am
before people start flaming Daniel…what is your definition of “being gay”
I have a theory that people mean wildly different things when this phrase is used.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Of course, Guido, you know that it’s not “flaming” to correct someone when they make such a ridiculous and false statement…however, since this is an obvious hit and run post from an ignorant bigot, I’ll not bother…
;-)
People are however born with an inclination towards hatred, fear and distrust of anyone that doesn’t look like what they see in the mirror…they are the ones that need to change, IMO.
goliath43 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Not sure what you point is. Gay is having relations with the same sex. Flaming is having relations with the same sex and making sure everyone knows about it.
goliath43 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:28 am
First off you opinion on whether or not my statement is ridiculous and false is a joke in itself.
I’ve been posting on here for a very long time so another false statement.
Of course you can’t have an itelligent response or debate without calling people names.
Bad
I’m very happy with who I am. So you can climb down off your pulpit anytime now because you your empty responses mean nothing.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Goliath, lol…calm yourself down mate…we were tlaking about “flaming” in the sense of people being “attacked” online…
And my post above was in response to ‘Daniel Monturo”, not you…the ‘reply’ layout may have confused you…
cheers
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:11 am
People are born gay. Though no science exists to support this but just listen to a gay person instead of beating them over the head with a Bible and they’ll tell you.
You were born straight. Nobody told you to go out and like women. Same for a gay man except they like men.
“People may be born with the inclination towards homosexual tendencies, but there are also people born with inclinations (temperaments) towards alcoholism, pedophilia, violence, and other disordered deviant acts which are naturally and collectively condemned.”
Homosexuality is not deviant. It is not harmful or shameful. You have no right to put these people down and seek to deny them rights.
The argument of claiming that pedophilia, alcoholism, rape and violence is in anyway connected to homosexuality is false and simply an attempt to once again mislead people in believing that there is something ‘deviant’ or ‘perverted’ about homosexuality.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Well said, EricG.
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Thanks, Frost.
I’ve decided to be nice on all my net-chatter and not just some sites. We’ll see how long this lasts…
Name-calling is just so … delicious! … it’s hard to avoid.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:50 am
This story just won’t die.
Prejean now officially owns all media!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
″Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”
And people wonder why I speak plainly and frankly on all issues.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:04 am
How does the Exodus verse apply?
www. christiannewswire. com / news / 5822310252. html says NOM clarifies Carrie Prejean’s role, and it is something other than a spokesperson for NOM.
The only part that I saw in the contract that might have been violated was specifically related to the photo (posted elsewhere on this blogsite), but subject to interpretation of the contract terms–interpretation by the pageant, of course.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:10 am
I can assure you that I’m not surprised that you, being the logic-numb liberal you are, would reply to my comments with pure hateful invective without any substance.
The physiological makeup of the human person proves that their sexuality is directed towards certain ends, and mutual self-gratifying masturbation with a member of the same sex is certainly not one of them. That is what beasts do. Rational beings do not.
Instead of leveling insults and juvenile behavior, how about setting up an argument?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Because, Daniel, this topic has been covered here over and over, and altough you are welcome to your ridculous position that a persons ’sexuality’ is chosen, no-one here is going to take you seriously, except those that agree with you…
BTW, how old where you when you ‘chose’ to be straight?
Have you ever had second thoughts about your choice?
Are you SURE you made the right choice?!
Do you like the thought of Ashton Kutcher taking a dump on your face?
Are you feeling a stirring in your loins right nowm just thinking about it?
Stupid ignorant bigot. People like you make me sick.
Daniel Montuoro Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:48 am
In other words (probably ones that are more intelligent than what you put forward) you’re admitting that you do not have a reasonable argument against my position. In fact, your inability to follow my argument is clearly demonstrated in how you have identified my position. I’ve never said that sexuality is chosen. I stated that people might be born with the inclination towards homosexuality, but they should have the discipline and intelligence to realize that this type of behavior is not conducive to their nature (as human beings, and not irrational beasts), and therefore they should not act out on their inclinations, just as those inclined to other types of violence (yes, gay sex is acting in violence towards the good of the human person) should refrain from them.
I did not choose to be straight. There is a logical flaw in your argument (this should not be surprising, being that you are a liberal). I am acting in accordance to my nature, which is physiologically sound. Gay sex on the other hand deviates from the biological reality and therefore it is a disordered act. It would be akin to you asking me when I chose to not be a pedophile. I’m sorry, but pedophilia is the disordered deviant act, not me.
Do those with perverse minds ever recognize themselves as such? So of course I make you sick.
Think about it, but don’t over-exert yourself.
Daniel Montuoro Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Just to drive home the point, people who engage in homosexual acts are not acting in accordance with their nature. As such they are acting perverse. Their sexuality is disordered. They choose to engage in the disordered acts. So to ask me when I choose to be straight is like asking me when I choose to be normal. I didn’t choose to be normal, I just am. Why are you choosing to act out in non-normal ways? That is the question.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Daniel,
The reason why you come across as a bigot is that all your ‘logic’ is based on a completely unsubstantiated premise that homosexual acts ‘are not acting in accordance with their nature’. Therefore most of your ‘logic’ is very circular here and is invalid unless you first establish how you reach this premise.
Secondly, I’m wondering where people who (try to) practise abstinence fit into your perverse/normal classification and why?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 7:32 am
test…again
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 7:35 am
LEE,
A “bigot” is a person unwilling to be swayed from their beliefs. In that sense..you’re a bigot as well, it seems.
Homosexual sex is NOT in accordance with nature.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Jared,
Err No.. Thats simply not what it means. Secondly, to state that I’m unwilling to be swayed from my ‘beliefs’ is more unsubstantiated (and quite false) nonsense.
Let’s get this straight.. Homosexual sex occurs naturally. It is present in hundreds if not thousands of other species besides humans. How can something that occurs so often and so commonly, possibly not be in ‘accordance’ with nature. The notion is simply absurd and defies logic in favor of personal prejudice.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am
LEE,
Please, Identify ONE scientific study that supports your theory that gay sex occurs naturally in “hundreds if not thousands” of other species.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Please..
Firstly, I’ve observed myself male dogs and cats that engage in ‘homosexual sex’.
Anyway.. as for scientific studies lets see what a quick google shows:
(From National Geographic)
“Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates”
More quotes..
***
“From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
“One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,” explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the “Against Nature’s Order?” exhibition.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity’s closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
“Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other.”
Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.
Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a “sex orgy”.
Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life”
***
Apologies for the cut’n'paste but hopefully this is ample information to answer your challenge and justify why you are wrong?
Hopefully, you will now accept it occurs in nature and is therefore ‘natural’.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:06 am
LEE…
yeah, I didn’t find the part where it says: …”while ignoring potential female mates”
It DOES say : Captivity, scientists say, may bring out gay behaviors in part because of a scarcity of opposite-sex mates.
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Jared,
What point exactly are you trying to make about homosexuals, anyway? This ‘natural’ stuff…
Are you suggesting that their marriages don’t merit the same rights and responsibilies as heterosexual marriages?
Are you saying homosexuals should be ‘reprogrammed’ to be more ‘natural’?
Are you like Joe, and want to keep your children away from them?
What is the point of this ‘natural’ stuff anyway?
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Look..
What exactly would it take for you to admit you are wrong here? There is an abundance of scientific evidence at your fingertips that unambiguously proves homosexual sex occurs in other animals in the wild.
We’re getting into one of those Pythonesque ‘Black knight’ scenarios..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am
UM CARA,
Are you suggesting that their marriages don’t merit the same rights and responsibilies as heterosexual marriages?
Absolutely not. I’m saying gay sex in humans isn’t natural as it has zero procreation potential.
The male sex organs and the female sex organs were created/evolved (pick your poison) for procreation. That is their purpose. Gay sex does not serve this purpose.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
LEE,
Once again..I’m not trying to refute that homosexuality is natural. I’m saying gay sex is unnatural as it does not provide for procreation…going back to our discussion a couple of days ago…
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jared,
So oral sex is not ‘natural’?
And, again, pretending that I could somehow agree that homosexuality is not ‘natural’
What is the ’so what’ of it?
I will for the purposes of this posting ignore my objections to your statement that it is not natural… so… so what?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am
UM CARA,
You’re correct…Oral sex isn’t a natural function of the sex organs because it doesn’t lead to procreation.
The “so what” is that a couple of dudes can take it up the butt all they want…I’m not saying that gay sex is wrong…I’m saying when they engage in gay sex, there is absolutely no way the two of them are going to continue to populate the earth.
Again…I’m not saying homosexuality is unnatural…homosexual sex is.
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I’m saying when they engage in gay sex, there is absolutely no way the two of them are going to continue to populate the earth.
And do you think there is anyone on the planet who does not understand that?
Really, I still must ask…
So what?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Um Cara,
I don’t know what you’re looking for when you ask “so what?”.
So what if gay people have sex? Like I said before…two dudes can take it up the butt all they want…I could give a rat’s arse.
My sole point is that gay sex does not promote procreation….procreation being the sole purpose of the human sex organs…and thus…the sole purpose of the sex act.
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am
My sole point is that gay sex does not promote procreation….procreation being the sole purpose of the human sex organs…and thus…the sole purpose of the sex act.
You don’t think pleasure is also purpose of human sex organs? You are doing something wrong, dude.
It is entirely natural for post menopausal women to engage in sex, don’t you think?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Pleasure is a by product of the sex act. For the man, it’s the process of ejaculation…for women…it’s a mystery ;)
Listen…I’m NOT saying sex between gay people is wrong…I’m not saying that sex with old ladies is wrong…I’m saying it becomes unnatural when there is an absence of procreation potential.
Look at it from a scientific standpoint. We know what the organ’s purpose is. Anything other than that is unnatural, scientifically.
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:04 am
But just to clarify, you think post menopausal women who engage in sex are doing something unnatural, right?
craig7120 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Now Im not gonna pick on one particular post, but funny how some will stand behind science for one point (homosexuality) but bring up evolution and they throw science out. Just an observation.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am
That is correct, they cannot procreate…the sex act does not produce the intended scientific result.
I’m NOT saying, however, they should stop doin’ the nasty.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am
CRAIG,
gay sex is an evolutionary termination point…wouldn’t you say?
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Jared,
Gay sex is non procreative, but an ‘evolutionary termination point’? In the same way that eating a bowl of popcorn is an ‘evolutionary termination point’, I suppose. Both being non procreative activities.
But homosexuality is not an evolutionary termination point, as there are procreative options available to homosexuals (of course requiring surrogate sperm or egg, as the case may be.)
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:18 am
UM CARA,
Gay sex is an evolutionary termination point as neither partner can have a baby by the other…thus evolutionary traits are not passed along.
Artificial insemination is one way of having a baby…but that involves a donor…and the implied passing of genes. In this case…artificial insemination is not an evolutionary termination point.
craig7120 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Jared to be completely honest.. NO sense gay sex is occuring all the time and evolution keeps on keeping on. But to simplify it 2 men or 2 women in captivity with no outside influences in a biodome probably will not foster off spring. Probably was used because Im not sure if this experiment has been done for scientific research( for fun and enjoyment maybe).
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I already went through a multi month argument with Kregg on the same point….
At any rate, it is entirely possible for a homosexual to pass his genes along, it’s been happening for years.
The fact that two people playing racketball do not mix their genes up does not mean that playing racketball is an ‘evolutionary termination point’. It means they are doing something that is non procreative.
Engaging in homosexual sex acts are non procreative acts. But one or both of these homosexuals we are discussing can quite easily pass along their genes.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 3:32 am
McFROSTY,
Stupid ignorant bigot. People like you make me sick.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
yeah…you’re the perfect example of tolerance of other peoples opinions/beliefs.
You’re a fraud.
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
you know … there is a political movement in this country that mainly just commits social injustice. They are conservatives. They HATE gay people and want to deny them rights.
Then a liberal speaks up and says the sky is blue and that conservatives have no legal argument against gay-marriage.
Then a neo-con steps up and claims they can’t get a chance to talk or make their point.
How long will this ‘reverse blame game’ work? A month? A year?
How long before people realize that conservatives just turn the table upside down if it looks like they might lose the game.
Bottom line is that denying rights is denying rights.
You want to deny a black man freedom or a gay man his right to marry … I couldn’t care less which … then we got a problem. And I would then be ‘intolerant’ of your view. Because it’s racist / bigoted.
goliath43 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Bad
I take Daniel very serious and his ability to explain to those who disaggrees with his position using logic and intelligence without stooping to name calling and nasty and disgusting remarks. To come up with nasty and disgusting comments says alot about the person that you are and what you sit and daydream about.
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Alex.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 7:34 am
McFROSTY,
Stupid ignorant bigot. People like you make me sick.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re joking right? yeah…this kind of statement does wonders for your self-proclaimed ability to entertain all kinds of opinions/beliefs…you being an “open-minded” liberal and all.
You’re a fraud.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Jared,
Again, you simply don’t seem to know what bigot means. It doesn’t mean ‘intolerant of another opinion’, it means to hold an intolerant opinion which in some way denigrates either a person or group. The second part here is important..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am
LEE,
McFROSTY completely embodies the description of bigotry you outline above.
I have an excellent idea of what “bigot” means. It seems as though you’re using the “LEE” unabridged dictionary.
Webster’s defines “bigot” as: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
Where in that definition does it imply denigration of either a person or group?
I’d appreciate your argument a bit more if you weren’t just making stuff up.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:44 am
(Merriam-Webster’s online)
“: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
or (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
“A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.”
So no.. as usual I’m not ‘making stuff up’ but if you are going to criticize the use of a word, it pays to be sure you fully understand the meaning and context of the word before you do so..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am
LEE,
Are you serious? The definitions you provided do not prove your point. Did you even read them?
The first says a bigot is one who treats another group or person with hatred and intolerance based on the group’s beliefs….not their own.
The second doesn’t mention anything of denigration of a group or person opposed to your own beliefs..
sheesh, man…you’ve gotta try harder…you really do…
if you are going to criticize the use of a word, it pays to be sure you fully understand the meaning and context of the word before you do so..
It seems as though this statement might apply more to you, than to me.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Jared,
Huh.. “especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
The words are pretty clear and ambiguous here.. meaning that its a prejudiced _personal_ belief against a specific group. The ‘groups’ belief’s here are irrelevant to the definition unless the personal prejudice happens to be based on that groups beliefs.
or:
“and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.”
In both the definitions I gave, a key component was negative sentiment towards a person or group. Its there in the definitions! I suggest you read them again..
“It seems as though this statement might apply more to you, than to me.”
Err.. Ok.. Sure
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:24 am
LEE,
C’mon, man…I know you’re smarter than this…
The ‘groups’ belief’s here are irrelevant to the definition unless the personal prejudice happens to be based on that groups beliefs.
which is exactly what the first definition you provided implies…I’m no scholar, but even I figured that one out.
and you said it: and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.”
Where does it say denigration of a group or person? Denigration of opinion? Absolutely. Denigration of a group or person (which is what you said)…nah.
Lee Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Where does it say denigration of a group or person? Denigration of opinion? Absolutely. Denigration of a group or person (which is what you said)…nah.”
Specifically, “them” meaning person or group
and “unreasonable or wicked” meaning denigrating the person or group previously defined by “them”
So.. If I made the statement “I work very hard” and you disagreed but I dismissed your opinion, I’m not a bigot.
However, if I made the statement “Jared doesn’t work very hard” and ignored your arguments to the contrary, then I would be a bigot.
Anyway this is silly.. if you think you’re right and I’m wrong.. ok.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
LEE,
this is getting on my nerves…you’re not even paying attention to the wording of the definitions you provide. I even emphasized the words you should pay attention to…
No, no, no! It’s the OPINION or BELIEF that a person finds wicked and unreasonable…NOT THE PERSON OR GROUP.
you’re right…this has gone straight to a Pythonesque argument…I’m done with it.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:33 am
I have to state, I do feel sympathy for Carrie Prejean. she is being vilified for answering a specific question honestly.
I don’t agree with her position but obviously millions of others do and as much as I enjoy debating against these people, I absolutely respect their right to think differently on this as long as they don’t stray into actual denigration of homosexuals, which I would/do consider offensive.
The photo’s are pretty tame, personally, and the ongoing witch-hunt is unjustified and getting a little monotonous.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:43 am
What other porno sites do you troll Alan? You enjoy your fetish? I will pray for you.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Hmmmmm….
I voted for Obama. I support Obama. He holds the same view as Miss California regarding gay marriage. Why exactly are we crucifying her again?
May 8th, 2009 at 8:10 am
All Carrie did was be totally honest in answering that loaded question and she is being taken to the woodshed by all you liberals. Just because you didn’t like her answer. Another fine example of how “intolerant” liberals are of differing opinions.
TDro319 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Wow. Daddio thinks were intolerant? Perhaps you’d be happier frequenting a right-wing site where everbody is as “tolerant” as you.
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Don’t know what you mean, Daddio. Is was a fair question and she answered honestly. I thought her response was great and that Hilton is a dork-wad. Doesn’t make me a sudden neo-con to support her freedom of speech. Doesn’t mean I don’t support gay-marriage.
The intolerance is hear nightly by you and everyone listening.
The “what are you, a gay boy?” and “it’s just sick; standing up for fags!” calls are not liberals.
It’s only one political group who wants to limit the freedom of sexuality and marriage. That’s the conservatives.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:23 am
my two cents on the thread topic? WHO CARES!?
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Boobies, Jared. Boobies.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am
In my opinion, this is just Vanessa Williams II. Anyone remember that scandal? The ironies are weird.
Before her pageant days, Vanessa Williams poses naked with another woman in “art” pictures for her photographer boss (never signing a release for them, and thinking they’d been destroyed). The photos have lesbian overtones….Prejean, semi-nude, poses in come-hither fashion, breaks her pageant contract in several different ways, and then denounces gay marriage continually.
Vanessa Williams, crowned the first black Miss America, is horrified the photos are about to be published, but admits knowing when and how they were taken. Playboy had passed on them, knowing she hadn’t approved their release, but Bob Guccione gladly puts them in Penthouse (as a curious aside, Ann Coulter dated his son)…Prejean all of a sudden gets amnesia and claims this was the only picture taken of her like this, and can’t remember who she posed for, etc. etc. etc.
Vanessa Williams is villified, and loses her crown…Prejean is embraced by the Right, which is offended she didn’t win the title outright.
Vanessa Williams has gone on to fame, stardom, and even endorsement deals that have included Disney and Radio Shack…Prejean is having trouble making the convincing argument that she was raised Christian and is steadfast in her faith, having lied on several occasions throughout the scandal and engaged in questionable conduct, according to that same set of religious ideals.
I feel sorry for her, though.
EricG Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Well all PR is good PR so Prejean will most likely come out ahead at the end of this. Like you pointed that Williams has gone to fame and fortune. Mostly likely the same will happen to Prejean no matter what the right wing tries to do.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
UM~ off topic.
Brian Greene is hosting the World Science Festival in New York on June 10-14, not much play about it in the media though. A bit of controversy has occurred. The Templeton Foundation is one of the sponsors. One scientist is opting out of his invitation, namely Jerry Coyne. Just some news from the states brother.
Um Cara Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Interesting… Jerry Coyne sounds like a big baby, confront ideas you don’t think sound- don’t run away from them.
Did you read Greene’s book?
craig7120 Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I see both sides of that issue, personally Id take their money and run, but hey thats just me. To be honest no I havnt read it yet, but what is interesting Im getting to a point where these particles are making sense so his book should keep adding to this laymans knowledge of science. lol
May 8th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I remember that Sarah,
Nice summation, and I also feel sorry for her. She’s in a pickle. Truth is the best policy, so if she hasn’t told it already, the time is now. Of course the longer this drags out, the more attention is paid to her.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
at least she didn’t pose for gay porn! :)
May 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
and I don’t see how that photo shows anything more then the swinsuit comp. did?!?
May 8th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Is this any different than:
Christian college suspends student for gay-porn roles
For the past two years, Mr. Gechter has been paying the bills through his secret life as porn star “Vincent DeSalvo,” earning as much as $11,000 per weekend while jetting off to Chicago, Miami and Los Angeles to film more than a dozen videos.
But on April 23, a fellow student found Mr. Gechter’s ample body of work on the Internet and forwarded evidence of his secret identity to friends
Grove City College promotes itself as “Authentically Christian” and requires students to attend at least 16 chapel services per semester. It prides itslef on its conservative heritage and notes on its Web site that the Young America’s Foundation recognized it as one of the Top Ten conservative colleges in the U.S.
The school’s student handbook clearly states that “premarital sex, heterosexual or homosexual, or any other such conduct that violates historical Christian standards” is subject to disciplinary action.
Mr. Gechter was charged with sexual misconduct, participation in the public display of pornography and engaging in “conduct that is contrary to the mission and values of Grove City College and likely to bring dishonor to the College.”
His punishment: an indefinite suspension and a prohibition from re-applying for admission until the fall of 2010. A Grove City appeals board turned down his initial appeal.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Is this any different than:
The kid at the Christian college, Grove City, who did gay porn to pay tuition, got found out from the internet, and got kicked out?
May 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
For goodness sake Alan, will you and the rest of the press please leave this woman alone? No, I don’t agree with her position on gay marriage. So what? That should have no bearing on her credentials to win a beauty contest (which are VERY strong IMO). You and everyone else knows that this whole “semi nude” photos thing (which are really no worse than anything in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) is a witch hunt that wouldn’t be happening unless she said she was against gay marriage.
This liberal says leave Miss California alone!
May 8th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
and thedirty.com is clearly a malicious and hateful site that wishes to do no more than create “juicy” stories and the expense of their subjects. It’s like the National Enquirer online.
May 9th, 2009 at 12:07 am
[...] 21-year-old Prejean failed to reveal before last month’s Miss USA pageant that she had posed in her underwear as a [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am