Carrie Prejean and Gay Rights: new Ms Palin for the Right!

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Breast Implants, Anti Gay, Nude Model and now the new conservative christain rights activist against gay marriage!



It seems she's as false as her boobs she should lose her title!

"Alicia Jacobs, Entertainment Reporter at KVBC in Las Vegas, has seen all six of the photos and says some are much more revealing. Alicia believes the flicks may have been taken after Carrie’s pageant-financed breast augmentation about six weeks ago. Hmmm…These explosive pictures could be devastating for Miss California, whose anti-gay marriage campaign recently resulted in a partnership with the National Organization for Marriage and helped to make made her increasingly popular with right-wing conservatives. Can you guys believe the nerve of this bozo? Using the Lord Jesus Christ as an excuse to support inequality when she’s just as big a sinner as anyone?"

Jacobs was also a judge at the Miss USA pageant

[Apollonaris Zeus]

bump

[ygmir]

you seem, at times, so bitter and prejudice............

[Elderberry]

More like the new Anita Bryant.

I think beauty pageant contestants should never be allowed to speak. They aren't out there strutting their stuff because they have anything to say, anyway. Just strut the tits and ass.

However, if they are going to speak, and they do have any responsibility of representing a state or a country, I think they have an obligation to be politically correct.

I'd like to see her lose her crown--she lost me when I saw her on a TV interview reading and quoting passages out of the bible to justify her biggotted, small minded, prejudiced positions.

But...considering it is going to be up to Donald Trump to make the final decision, she'll probably fuck him on the QT and she'll keep her crown...so much for christian values.

JK

[wedeliver]

More like the new Anita Bryant.

I think beauty pageant contestants should never be allowed to speak. They aren't out there strutting their stuff because they have anything to say, anyway. Just strut the tits and ass.

However, if they are going to speak, and they do have any responsibility of representing a state or a country, I think they have an obligation to be politically correct.

I'd like to see her lose her crown--she lost me when I saw her on a TV interview reading and quoting passages out of the bible to justify her biggotted, small minded, prejudiced positions.

But...considering it is going to be up to Donald Trump to make the final decision, she'll probably fuck him on the QT and she'll keep her crown...so much for christian values.

JK

First, of all JK, we can't stop you from speaking, why should we stop her. Second, she only has an obligation to herself, and to that end she should be true.
Third, if she was gay and she was all for gay rights, marrage etc you would be supportive of her.

It takes all kinds in this world. Even though I strongly disagree with her, I defend her right to express herself.

[Elderberry]

More like the new Anita Bryant.

I think beauty pageant contestants should never be allowed to speak. They aren't out there strutting their stuff because they have anything to say, anyway. Just strut the tits and ass.

However, if they are going to speak, and they do have any responsibility of representing a state or a country, I think they have an obligation to be politically correct.

I'd like to see her lose her crown--she lost me when I saw her on a TV interview reading and quoting passages out of the bible to justify her biggotted, small minded, prejudiced positions.

But...considering it is going to be up to Donald Trump to make the final decision, she'll probably fuck him on the QT and she'll keep her crown...so much for christian values.

JK

First, of all JK, we can't stop you from speaking, why should we stop her. Second, she only has an obligation to herself, and to that end she should be true.
Third, if she was gay and she was all for gay rights, marrage etc you would be supportive of her.

It takes all kinds in this world. Even though I strongly disagree with her, I defend her right to express herself.

She can express herself all she wants--just not as the spokesperson for Ms. California.

Once she either loses or gives up her crown, I don't give a fuck what she says.

(Not to mention that her actions have violated her signed contract with the pageant.)

JK

[ygmir]

why can't she express herself as Ms. CA?

Why should she be PC?

Who said: "we all have the right to not be offended"?

if PC is what is expected, I'd guess many folks would applaud not "towing the line"........., whatever that line may be............
or, are there "sacred cows"?..........

Why is it, that, when we dislike someone, we hold them to certain standards or "contracts", and, when we like them...."aw, it's no big deal".........

I understand that's the basics of human nature, to overlook in "our own" what we'll grill someone else for...........

just sayin'
.....................................

[wedeliver]

I think you all know my feelings on the subject of gay marrage etc.. it's about time. but that said..

If she had not been asked a question to which she replied from her heart she would not be in the spotlight as she is and, from what I have read, she might have won the event.

but, lets suppose the foot was in the other shoe and..

she had come out strongly for gay marrage and for that reason it seemed she had lost.

If that had happened we would all be screaming, yelling, jumping up and down saying how wrong it is for her to loose just for the way she thinks.

'least thats what I think. hopefully it makes sense even if YOU don't fucking agree. (It would be so boring if we all agreed all the time)

[Elderberry]

why can't she express herself as Ms. CA?

Why should she be PC?

Who said: "we all have the right to not be offended"?

if PC is what is expected, I'd guess many folks would applaud not "towing the line"........., whatever that line may be............
or, are there "sacred cows"?..........

Why is it, that, when we dislike someone, we hold them to certain standards or "contracts", and, when we like them...."aw, it's no big deal".........

I understand that's the basics of human nature, to overlook in "our own" what we'll grill someone else for...........

just sayin'
.....................................

That's an easy one...because being "PC" is a pre-requisite requirement of being Miss California--and it is pre-agreed in their contract, just in case the contestants don't quite understand that.

If I were to speak my mind on Miss CA or Miss USA, I would be more inclined to see all such contests abolished or else be called "Miss Girl I'd most Like to Fuck".

JK

[Elderberry]

but, lets suppose the foot was in the other shoe and..

she had come out strongly for gay marrage and for that reason it seemed she had lost.

If that had happened we would all be screaming, yelling, jumping up and down saying how wrong it is for her to loose just for the way she thinks.

Now, we all know THAT would never happen.

JK

[oneeyeddick]

I am glad God gave her enough common sense enough to get breast implants.



That is all I am saying on the matter.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Just as Ygmir has said she sounds to bitter and prejudice.

The CA pagent is going to pull her crown for not following the rules.

And as Ygmir says, she was so bitter for not winning the title that she became the spokesperson against same sex marriage. She has a right to speak her mind, but not as a representative of the CA pagent.

Nice to see that no one has voted against gay marriage here on Eplaya.

AIIZ

[ygmir]

I don't know, did she sound bitter?..........Perhaps prejudice, although, saying you don't agree with something is not really defined as prejudice........(grinning, we know to whom I referred.....)

well,
if she broke the rules, then, I'd agree with pulling her crown.....but, if it just pissed someone off, well............we all do that.........

she may well have turned bitter after losing, who knows.......she may have been a spokesperson anyway..........but, again, how does speaking your mind make you bad?
Treating other bad, well, that might count, but, have you seen her do anything wrong towards others?........

I don't know if anyone on eplaya voted against gay marriage, I know I didn't............

I just don't see why, you denigrate someone, only because you dis-agree with them..........seems free will and differing opinions are what makes the world fun.........

[Elderberry]

....seems free will and differing opinions are what makes the world fun.........

yes....as long as those opinions aren't trying to prevent some people from exercising their free will...especially when the person expressing their opinions is supposedly representing the ENTIRE STATE, and violating the terms of her agreemenet with the pageant. Latest reports say that she has been so preoccupied with speaking at anti-gay-marriage functions that she doesn't have time to fulfill her responsibilities of Ms CA anyway.

JK

[oneeyeddick]

She is supposed to act with "social grace" on sensitive issues....that's in the large print.

I bet she can't read the fine print because of those anti-fag bags she had installed.

Oh yeah, I lied earlier in this thread...sorry for that.

[ygmir]

....seems free will and differing opinions are what makes the world fun.........

yes....as long as those opinions aren't trying to prevent some people from exercising their free will...especially when the person expressing their opinions is supposedly representing the ENTIRE STATE, and violating the terms of her agreement with the pageant. Latest reports say that she has been so preoccupied with speaking at anti-gay-marriage functions that she doesn't have time to fulfill her responsibilities of Ms CA anyway.

JK

I understand what you say, I just have a dilemma:

If she opposes something that part of the state wants, is it not logical that another part of the state doesn't want it?
and, if so, no matter which side she chooses, is she not preventing one side from exercising their free will?

How can you represent the "entire state" in that sense? I think you can't.......
if that's the case, then, no opinion should be expressed, just smile and wave.........I'm ok with that, in a swimsuit.......

I have no real interest in these pageant things..seems so "out of touch", but, some like them......so, I say, "have at it".
How many people, really listen or care what Ms. Ca says?........ I bet she has little or no influence with the general public anyway......she'll, at best, be "preaching to the choir" in most cases.

An opinion, or "stand" is just that. To speak what you believe, it would seem, is a good thing.
If your beliefs are so far out of line with the masses, they'll reject it out of hand, anyway......
but, if your with or near a majority, how is one side more valid than the other?

I feel government has no business saying who can or can't get married.
It has, for me, nothing to do with sexual preference, just, that government has no business in it..........

I guess I get frustrated with peoples attitudes when it comes to " let's all agree, and, be inclusive, tolerant, and loving......as long as I agree with and or accept it"........

shucks......

[Apollonaris Zeus]

She exposed her Titties!

She exposed her Titties!

That's why she is losing her crown today!

Only Donald Trump gets to see her titties and no one else!

Its in the rules!

She Loses

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Donald likes her boobs and says that nude photography is OK with the New and Improved Miss America!

The Paparazzi clapped when Don told them she will not loss her crown.

Why?

She is News Worthy!

Will she continue to be a vocal anti-gay spokesperson.

Yes! its seems like she is contradicting herself

I don't think so.

I believe that the Mz American people gave her an ultimatum. If you shut up you get to keep your title.

Well you can forget that agreement

AIIZ

PS- she says that she is not an activists, BUT will work to preserve traditional marriage!

She's a liar or she is really dumb: work to preserve and not an activist are paradoxical statements!

Again no one on eplaya has voted against same sex marriage!

We are the future!

[Elderberry]

She is supposed to act with "social grace" on sensitive issues....that's in the large print.

Ygmir, I think the above quote says it best.

JK

[ygmir]

She is supposed to act with "social grace" on sensitive issues....that's in the large print.

Ygmir, I think the above quote says it best.

JK

I agree.
I guess I didn't notice an aggressive or demeaning attitude with the answer....

I'd say, though, that said question, then, shouldn't have been asked in the first place..........

as I point out, no matter how she had answered that question, she would have offended someone..........so, if everyone has the "right" not to be offended........well..........ask question about baking brownies........

so, if you want PC, and, honesty (they can oft times contradict eachother, IMHO), don't ask those sort of questions.........

[Elderberry]

She is supposed to act with "social grace" on sensitive issues....that's in the large print.

Ygmir, I think the above quote says it best.

JK

I agree.
I guess I didn't notice an aggressive or demeaning attitude with the answer....

I'd say, though, that said question, then, shouldn't have been asked in the first place..........

as I point out, no matter how she had answered that question, she would have offended someone..........so, if everyone has the "right" not to be offended........well..........ask question about baking brownies........

so, if you want PC, and, honesty (they can oft times contradict eachother, IMHO), don't ask those sort of questions.........

I can think of at least three ways that question could have been answered that would have been non-controversial and not offended anyone.

And when it comes right down to it, I just plain don't like anyone that lives their life and professes their 'beliefs' by quoting from the bible or any other fairy tale book. It's just visceral with me.

JK

[Apollonaris Zeus]

And when it comes right down to it, I just plain don't like anyone that lives their life and professes their 'beliefs' by quoting from the bible or any other fairy tale book.

JK

Fairy Tale Book!

I'm telling Mother
























































Goose!

[BlackRockCowboy]

My 2 cents....Because I have the freedom of speech.

1st - I am Gay friendly, tested both sides of the fence.

2nd - I am a Born again christian.

That being said, this is what I think.

I think it is very sad that the Gay movement does not allow for anyone to have an opposing opinion of them. This is America and no one will ever have the same opinion on all things as you do. THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT AMERICA - FREEDOM - DUH!!

This girl, whatever her name is, could of BSed her way through that question knowing full well that Perez Hilton wanted a Gay friendly answer. She stood by her beliefs and should be commended for it. Whether you agree with her or not, it is her right to believe and say what she wants to. If we take away her freedom, then we take away our freedom to behave and do what we want to do.

The whole concept of BM, to me, is about freedom of expression and I am going to enjoy that freedom this August.

If you look at this girl as a hypocrite then you have to look at Perez Hilton as a hypocrite also. It just depends on which side of the Gay issue you are on as to who you will condemn.

Personally, I do not care. I know that the day will come that Gay marraige is allowed. It is just a matter of time. Also, I will never marry a man or a woman again for that matter. I wish those gays that want to get married the best, but still believe that "marraige" is between a man and a woman. That is my belief, that I am entitled to. However, I still love and care for my gay friends. I just have a difference of opinion.

Quite honestly, I do not understand why anyone needs a "marraige" certificate to be commited to someone. But then again, it is up to the people involved not me.

Take this for what is: My freedom to state my mind.

Agree or disagree, I will still give you water or food if you need it on the Playa. I respect your right to disagree with me, I hope you respect my right to disagree with you.

Cowboy

[oneeyeddick]

Kansas, huh ?

[BlackRockCowboy]

yep....LOL

Bring on the Toto jokes!!

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Rosanna Dana

[joel the ornery]

well, from my perspective, i think more christian women should show their breasts.

[chiefdanfox]

Quite honestly, I do not understand why anyone needs a "marriage" certificate to be committed to someone. But then again, it is up to the people involved not me.

We live in a society where there are rights given to married heterosexual couples are not afforded or recognized in the so called civil unions. I think that is the biggest rub.

Imagine if you will, being married and your spouse's family could legally keep you away from your husband's or wife's side as he or she lay dying from cancer. It happens all the time to gay and lesbian couples. The sun shines no less bright on them, the love in their heart runs no less deep, yet in this society, the law says they have an unrecognized or even illegitimate union. It is simply unequal, there is no other word for it.

We let people adopt children, and they get to legally be the mother or father of that child, even though they did not produce the offspring. Does that reduce or diminish the concept of "mother" or "father"? We even let homosexuals adopt, and they get the same rights as heterosexual adoptive parents.

Here is an example of the fallacious logic of the issue:
If a gay couple adopts a child, and they get in a disastrous car wreck (let's just say they got hit by a burner passing unsafely as he was leaving BRC...), and let's say one of the partners and the child are dying from their injuries; the surviving partner would have the right to visit the dying child but could actually be barred from visiting his dying partner. Even more ridiculous, if the child survived, the child would be allowed to visit the dying parent, and by permission of the surviving partner allow the surviving partner to visit the dying partner/parent.

I believe the argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman is specious. It is mostly dog-whistle for bigotry and or theocratic gibberish.

[CapSmashy]

We live in a society where there are rights given to married heterosexual couples are not afforded or recognized in the so called civil unions. I think that is the biggest rub.

Imagine if you will, being married and your spouse's family could legally keep you away from your husband's or wife's side as he or she lay dying from cancer. It happens all the time to gay and lesbian couples. The sun shines no less bright on them, the love in their heart runs no less deep, yet in this society, the law says they have an unrecognized or even illegitimate union. It is simply unequal, there is no other word for it.

We let people adopt children, and they get to legally be the mother or father of that child, even though they did not produce the offspring. Does that reduce or diminish the concept of "mother" or "father"? We even let homosexuals adopt, and they get the same rights as heterosexual adoptive parents.

Here is an example of the fallacious logic of the issue:
If a gay couple adopts a child, and they get in a disastrous car wreck (let's just say they got hit by a burner passing unsafely as he was leaving BRC...), and let's say one of the partners and the child are dying from their injuries; the surviving partner would have the right to visit the dying child but could actually be barred from visiting his dying partner. Even more ridiculous, if the child survived, the child would be allowed to visit the dying parent, and by permission of the surviving partner allow the surviving partner to visit the dying partner/parent.

I believe the argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman is specious. It is mostly dog-whistle for bigotry and or theocratic gibberish.

To further expand the need for equal protection, property rights.

In the aftermath of your scenario above, the partner and child die. The will leaves everything to the surviving partner.

The estranged family of the deceased that disowned him 25 years ago when he told them he was gay swoop in with a skilled probate attorney and successfully seize half or more of the couples assets sinc ethey are blood relations and the other person is merely a friend in the eyes of the law with no real rights or protections.

Had the child survived the accident, it can get even nastier with a family court battle over who gets custody of the child, the grandparents or the deceased gay lover?

Both of these scenarios have played out numerous times in courthouses across th eland.

[theCryptofishist]

It's "Miss" not "Ms."

And in the context, I think it's pertinent.