Comments on: Hunt: Prejean’s photo’s hypocrisy – really?

By: JRH

JRH — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:19:52 +0000

don’t need to look too far to expose her as a fool, dude. chill out, and let her roll — she’s doing a fine job without your silly hand-wringing.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:22:48 +0000

If a minority wishes to harm another minority it rarely, if ever, “initiates the harm”. It creates a “danger” that the other minority represents to it, and says it is simply defending itself from this danger. The majority will go along with whoever yells the loudest AND makes the most sense. Adolf Hitler knew this. Initially, the Nazi Party represented only a small minority of the German population, but they appealed to the basest instincts in humanity – selfishness and cruelty to the “other”. They never attacked Jews, Poles and Communists, without first stating that they were simply defending themselves against the danger that these people posed to German culture, territory and citizenry.

In our case the first minority are the true gay-haters – let’s face it, they are a minority, but they have the potential to appeal to the nastiness in every person. Gays and lesbians are a smaller minority. Gay-haters want to exterminate gays and lesbians. In their heart of hearts, that’s what they want. Do they state “We want to kill all gay people”? No. Of course not. That would look bad. They say “Gay people are an affront to God.” Even if the gay-hater’s stated intention is to “preserve the sanctity of marriage”, the reality is that they know that if enough of gay people’s civil rights are eroded, removed or denied, then those gay people lose the “people” and are just “gay”. They are not equal, not fully human. They are the “other” and by definition can be exterminated.
What *I* really hate is the cowardice and manipulativeness which fill these people. They would never be honest and say “Gee, I wanna kill me some fags – just because it makes me feel good.”

By: brandy

brandy — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:11:39 +0000

You forgot to mention that Prejean was featured in an ad that implied GLBT people were trying to take away religious freedom. Fundamentalist only believe in religious freedom for themselves, not others. Hiding behind a bible is Miss Prejean.

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:45:08 +0000

@ not hateful–OK, I’ll take the bait. If you hold traditional values, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It makes society richer. BUT holding traditional values DOES NOT entitle the holder to impose his/her standards on others. Not one str8 American has been forced to be nice to anybody gay–civil maybe, but not nice. Not one church, in the US or elsewhere, has been forced to accomodate gays UNLESS that church is publicly funded. Attacking gays and using Christianity as justification is an insult to the religion–if you don’t like something, let your own dislike stand on its own instead of trying to invoke an invisible power. People like you and Carrie Prejean can’t do that, can’t make your own point, because you only travel in herds. You can’t think for yourselves because you’ve been indoctrinated, not taught to think. This is a gay site, so if you’re offended by gays, feel free to insert that object the rest of the way into your colon and step the hell off. And Jesus will love you more if you stop acting like a philistine.

By: Ed Bell

Ed Bell — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:15:05 +0000

Hypocrasy? Really?

By: not hateful just honest

not hateful just honest — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:29:05 +0000

gee, more hateful speech from those so “enlightened” and progressive individuals. You want to change society, and attack those who hold traditional values. You have become the most hateful segment of society. You make demands that the majority of America cow-tow to just because you decide that is the way you want to live your lives. No one should be abused for their beliefs, including gays, but that is exactly what you are advocating towards straight people who have their own beliefs. We do not agree with you, but that is OUR RIGHT!!!!!

By: Yhitzak

Yhitzak — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:32:50 +0000

The reason this is a hypocrisy from Ms. Prejean was outlined rather eloquently several nights ago on Countdown With Keith Olbermann. I am not generally a fan of Melissa Harris-Lacewell, but she got this one right: “In this case she feels bad because she’s being stigmatized based on an expression of her sexuality. She is being judged because she’s part of a group that is generally stereotyped – that is pageant winners – and she is finding that her morality is being brought into question because of a set of personal choices that she’s made.” She goes on to explain how this should be a cause for empathy on behalf of Ms. Prejean toward the gay community, because she is essentially in the same position. I still don’t care about Ms. Prejean or other low-impact, d-list celebrities or their ill-informed opinions. These people only have power when they are *given* power; they can grab at it all they like, but unless someone somewhere agrees to kowtow to them, they’re essentially impotent in that capacity. I challenge that the only reason anyone (especially gay people) cares about this is because it is distracting from the real issue at hand, or at most is a microcosm of it. Does anyone out there believe that if we as the gay community can beat Ms. California Prejean down, that will suddenly elevate us to some kind of legitimate social status? How scary if that is the case…

Maybe you, Ray Hunt and others, should try thinking comprehensively, try looking for legitimate answers to the questions of why people say and do the things they do instead of merely wishing for their social demise. That kind of cattiness will never incline anyone to fight for your cause, acknowledge their own hypocrisy, or make efforts at rectifying past mistakes.

By: 1♥

1♥ — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:25:19 +0000

The hypocrisy is that she wants to use her Christian Bible to deny me equal marriage rights while she doesn’t follow it herself.
Like this verse: 1 Timothy 2
9: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10: but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14: And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15: But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

There are a lot more passages in the Bible like the one above. If she would have been for marriage equality, and then those photos came out, the conservatives would have been saying and doing much worse about her than we are.

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:02:36 +0000

@ Ray Hunt–Yeah, here words and actions constitute hypocrisy because they are at odds with the values she purports to represent. Girls who hew to a religious orthodoxy don’t usually have pix taken of themselves in panties, because girls who hew to a religious orthodoxy are more likely to be at chruch/temple/mosque and not being shown in a near-naked state. She’s had breast augmentation done, and it was paid for by the pageant; different schools of faith will have different opinions on such things, but breast augmentation where there is no deformity or abnormality, and which is for generally commercial purposes–most of conservative Christianity would frown on such surgery, as would most Muslims, as would many Conservative and most Orthodox Jews. It’s called vanity. Following in that vein, some religious conservatives might also consider having your breasts enlarged AND put on show (in a bikini top) for the purpose of winning a beauty pageant–that could well fall under idolatry. It’s worship of the human form, with a very clear hedonistic aspect, and many religious conservatives have a problem with that. While Mormons teach an appreciation of physical well-being (grooming, exercise, healthy diet, few if any chemical indulgences), that appreciation of the physical is also intended to remain clothed in public. So yes, Ms Prejean is a hypocrite. The Bible tells me so.

By: Jon Brian Blake

Jon Brian Blake — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:48:31 +0000

I wanted to comment on this as the story has unfolded.

First, I didn’t like her answer to the Perez Hilton question. But I wouldn’t like anyone’s answer if it were to mirror her opinion. That being said, everyone has a right to free speech in this country and I celebrate that.

On an entirely different topic, however, the idea that she has “broken” her contract with the Miss California USA organization by lying on her application (nude or semi-nude photos) and by making unauthorized appearances would seem fair game for people who want to see contestants play by the rules. She clearly has not. That being the case, it doesn’t bother me to see her lose her crown. She has taken every opportunity to make public appearances on behalf of her new “agenda” and that is clearly not allowed as part of the rules. She made the choice to do these things. As an adult, she is responsible for the fallout.

I’d love to know if the runner up to the Miss California pageant has a thought or two about this.

For me, the two issues are separate. But I have to admit, the fact that they are tied to the same person gets no tears from me.