- I did not watch the Miss USA 2009 contest (I've never watched
a Miss USA contest) - Since I did not watch the show, I only know what I've read or seen online via various sources and articles (some of them being: CNN, Fox News, Perez Hilton blog, WorldNet Daily, various yahoo articles, etc.)
- If you know anything about me (or have been a reader of this blog for any amount of time) you know I am a major advocate for traditional man-woman marriage, as it is designed by God and recorded in the Bible
- I had no interest in discussing this topic since its seems everyone else is... HOWEVER...
- He posted a picture on his blog of Ms. California (Carrie Prejean) answering a question into a microphone where he (in his raunchy, typical fashion) drew male genitalia over the microphone, directed at her mouth
- He blasted her on his blog as a b--ch and stated in an MSNBC interview (in defense of his original rant and name-calling) "No, I'm going to stand by what I said just like she's standing by what she said. And I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word."
- Several of Hollywood's "elite" defending Perez's comments and reaction (to include Miley Cyrus)
I have no desire to enter into the gay marriage conversation on this post (a topic worthy of discussion in a calm, polite and respectful tone). I am, however, curious how it became okay for him (as a representative of the Miss USA 2009 contest) to speak in such a manner of one of the show's contestants? Or to bash her so tastelessly simply because she disagrees with him (as does much of America, still)?
Surely this is not what the Gay Marriage movement has resorted to - name calling? Slander? Personal attacks on anyone who disagrees? (I am in no way saying that Perez Hilton is the leader or face of that movement, but a definite vocal advocate of it.)
How is that productive to this conversation or the gay community's desire to advance their movement? How is it even justifiable? Is it that he deserves respect for his views, but those who oppose his views do not? I am aware that not all Christians act in a manner that is God-honoring either (with actions or words, especially concerning the gay marriage conversation), but the rude behavior of others does not necessitate the need to forget common decency and begin drawing and verbally spewing filth about someone. Such a response is childish, intellectual irresponsible and all-together unnecessary.
Side Note: Just remember that precious freedom you cling to, Perez: the Freedom of Speech to speak your mind (even if I disagree with what you say or loathe how you say it). Afford Ms. California, me and other Christians that same right (even if you loathe what we say). Hate/hateful speech has no place in this dialogue (from either side).
Want to join the conversation? Click here to comment or ask a question!
Image credit: Associated Press
_____________________
Posts
3 comments:
I was hoping you'd do a post on this. I think that no matter what side you're on, it's wrong to ask a question and only accept one answer on a pageant! I think he stated in his blog that it cost her the crown. No matter how you feel about the issue of gay marriage, that is wrong to lose because you speak what you believe, which may not be the views of the judge. You are right. We are entitled to our own opinions. I was also disappointed to learn that the pageant directors (not sure their official titles) APOLOGIZED for Miss California's answer.
The definition of LIBERAL: everyone has a right to do and think whatever they want, equal rights for all.... Unless you disagree with liberalism, then you have no rights.
C2,
What Mr. Hilton is doing here, and his holywood supporters is a long-held tradition of the liberal left in this country and it is used in any number of social and political issues. He/they are actively squelching (not trying, but succeding) your and my speach through try to demonstrate our lack of understand of an issue and they are clearly "more tolerant" and more enlitened than you. You do not have the education or sofistication to understand. There desire is to marginalize desenters and make them look to be intolerant and represive people who have no capability of true enlitenment. They do not desire a fair, open and honest debate. There desire is to WIN and change the laws!!!
Post a Comment